Pilkington's Progress
ABout MPs had their first opportunity this L./week to discuss their collective reaction to the Pilkington Report, and to the Government's White Paper on Broadcasting which followed it. The fall-out effects of the Pilkington explosion on the Labour benches are even more intriguing than those on the Tories, most of whose reactions were at least predictable. For though the dust has already begun to settle on that now-notorious document, its central and controversial recom- mendation is still a lively issue within the ranks of both major parties—with the result that the Opposition leaders are still as open to suggestion as the Government on what exactly the future shape of independent television should be.
As could be expected, the Labour purists have featured prominently in the argument. To them, Pilkington seems a wonderful stick with which to beat the Tories for their self-consciously private-enterprise Television Act of 1954. In their view, the Labour Party should make its stand for an omnipotent ITA planning all the programmes and collecting the cash—in effect, a nationalised industry that paid.
But Mr. Gaitskell, and his colleagues in the Shadow Cabinet, see great dangers in identify- ing themselves too closely with the paternalism of Pilkington. Any suggestion that the gentleman in ITA knows best would justly earn the scorn of the viewing electorate. Coronation Street is a salutary reminder to the Labour movement of where its roots really are. Thus we have a situa- tion in which the leaders of both parties are striving to break through the strict black-and- white lines of the report; just as the Government does not w ant to be identified with the image of big business, 'money-printing' TV tycoons, so Mr. Gaitskell does not want to be cast in the role of benevolent schoolmaster. Hence the rather odd spectacle of his taking a stand, in answering his critics, almost entirely on the Government's own White Paper.
Nevertheless, an official Labour line on tele- vision's future is beginning to emerge. When the Shadow Cabinet met to work out their position last week, they agreed that the financial question was one of the most crucial. Pilkington said the TV licence fee should go up to £6—excluding excise duty. This sticks in the throat—as does his justification that this means 'only 4d. a day.' Clearly Mr. Gaitskell cannot take his stand on this; even his purist critics are anxiously devising ways of getting round it. The Labour leaders' suggestion is that some of the contracting com- panies' vast profits should be channelled indirectly to the BBC. They do not accept the familiar BBC argument that income from any source other than licence revenue would compromise its independence. Back in Mr. Attlee's day it was suggested the Government might cease to claim part of its £1 excise duty on licences; thus the distinction between government aid and licence revenue is already blurred. Now it is suggested the Government should recoup from ITA. But the Labour leaders are shrewd enough to see that if ITA were reconstructed along Pilkington lines there might soon be no profits to pass on.
Meanwhile, they agree that priority should be given to raising the educational and entertain- ment levels of TV programmes generally—both on the BBC and independent channels. They support stronger powers_for ITA, more open dealings with contracting companies, and far stricter advertising standards—all of which appear to be in line with government thinking. The champions of the Pilkington formula are becoming effectively isolated, simply because party leaders on both sides realise how politically im- possible it is. By the time the decisive White Paper comes this autumn, it will be half forgotten. But if a government decision to allocate a second channel to independent TV is announced before the proposed reforms—as some Ministers seem to think it will—then the debate would quickly be brought back on to more strictly party lines.
It may be a marriage of convenience, but who knows, love may follow.'
Previous page
