TELEVISION BILL

HL Deb 13 July 1954 vol 188 cc829-921

2.43 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD SHEPHERD

I wish to intervene in order to get the voting records of yesterday corrected. If noble Lords will look at Division Lists Nos. 2 and 3 they will find that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is recorded as having voted both ways. I do not think this is a fault on the part of the noble Lord. I rather think there has been some confusion with the Clerks, who mistook my noble friend Lord Darwen for Lord Derwent. I hope, therefore, that the necessary correction can be made.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 3:

General provisions as to programmes and publications of Authority.

3.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to satisfy themselves that, so far as possible, the programmes broadcast by the Authority comply with the following requirements, that is to say—

1. (a) that the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British;
830
2. (e) that a proper proportion of the films and other recorded matter included in the programmes is of British origin;
3. (h) subject as hereinafter provided in this subsection, that no matter designed to serve the interests of any political party is included in the programmes:

Provided that nothing in paragraph (h) of this subsection shall prevent— (ii) the inclusion in the programmes of properly balanced discussions or debates where the persons taking part express opinions and put forward arguments of a political character.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure the exclusion from any publications which they may issue and, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, from the programmes broadcast by them, of all expressions of their own opinion as to any of the matters referred to in paragraph (g) of the said subsection (1), or of the opinion as to any such matters of any of their members or officers, or of the opinion as to any such matters of any programme contractor or, in the case of a programme contractor which is a firm, of any partner therein or, in the case of a programme contractor which is a body corporate, of any director or officer thereof or person having control thereof.

(3) Nothing shall be included in any programme broadcast by the Authority, whether in an advertisement or not, which offers any prize of significant value, whether competed for or not, or any gift of significant value, being a prize or gift which is available only to persons receiving that programme, or in relation to which any advantage is given to such persons.

LORD SILKIN had given notice of an Amendment, in subsection (1) (a), after the first "the" to insert "content." The noble Lord said: On the occasion of an Amendment earlier this morning, some play was made of the fact that my noble friend Lord Listowel moved the deletion of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Clause 3 and that I had down a subsequent Amendment to the same paragraph; it was thought that there was some inconsistency. There is nothing inconsistent about wanting a clause or a paragraph deleted, and, if that fails, in trying to improve the relevant passage. I had put down my Amendment on the assumption that noble Lords would be unreasonable and would not be prepared to accept deletion or amendment of paragraph (a), and that therefore I should be entitled to try to improve its language. Early this morning better counsel seems to have prevailed and noble Lords have taken back this clause for reconsideration. In those circumstances, my Amendment would be inappropriate. I am not therefore arguing or moving the Amendment, but I thought I ought to make this explanation.

LORD OGMORE moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) to insert: (b) In the ease of any programmes transmitted from a transmitter situated in Wales, a proper proportion alike of advertisements and programmes shall be in the Welsh language.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order paper. We are not tied to the actual wording of the Amendment—indeed, I think some words ought to be added to show that it is not merely transmitters situated in Wales with which we are concerned but also transmitters serving Wales; in fact any programmes which are normally received by the Welsh people in Wales should come under the objects of this Amendment. I am sure the Government will not tie us to the actual wording, and will understand that that is what we mean. If, as I hope, they will accept the principle enshrined in the Amendment, no doubt we can easily, with their skilled Parliamentary draftsmen, arrive at correct wording.

I make no claim that this Amendment will in any way affect the 300,000 or 400,000 Welsh people living in London, or the large numbers of Welsh people working and living outside of London, in England or Scotland. This is intended to assist, and to be an act of elementary justice for, Welsh people living in Wales. As I mentioned on another Amendment yesterday, there are roughly 2,500,000 people living in Wales and Monmouthshire and a little over one-half—something over a million of the people in Wales without Monmouthshire—living in Glamorgan. I would point out that my Amendment includes advertisements, as well as programmes, and it is therefore intended that such benefit as there may be, or even such defects, or anything else, shall equally apply to those who speak Welsh as to those who speak English. We do not ask for any more favourable treatment for those who speak Welsh than we ask for those who speak English. We want them to be treated exactly alike, and that is the object of this Amendment.

Television in Wales is a vital question affecting culture and language. Your Lordships will remember that early this morning, on the last Amendment, we had a sprightly debate, considering the time, on the meaning of the word "British" and there was considerable diversity of opinion as to what "British" meant. The Government themselves were not clear and did not know whether "British," in this context, would include Sinhalese and exclude the Irish living in Eire; but it is quite certain that the meaning of "British," however one interprets the word, whether by nationality or race, applies to the people of Wales. If the Government are anxious, as they appear to be, to ensure that the tone and style of programmes are "predominantly British," they can certainly achieve that object by seeing that the original language of this country—the original, ancient British language—shall be used, in the manner suggested, by the new transmitters which are to be set up.

It is a very important point for us in Wales, because Welsh culture is to a very large extent tied to the language. It is a living language, a growing language, one rooted in the past, and it has a tremendous effect on the present. Every week in London, in a Welsh Club, we have a poetry reading at which the works of Welsh poets and Anglo-Welsh poets are featured. Poems, old and new, are recited by the young people. Only a fortnight or so ago I was at one of these poetry gatherings, and I was very much struck by the resemblance which the poetry of Dafydd Ap Gwilym, the Welsh poet who lived about 500 years ago, bore to that of Mr. Dylan Thomas, who died only last year—it really was extraordinary. There were alternate recitations of the works of these two poets, and if you had not known which was which it would have been a very difficult thing to say, of your own judgment, which poems were the work of the poet who lived 500 years ago and which were the work of the one who lived until a year ago. I am only seeking to show how important it is that the ancient Welsh tongue should be retained, and what a great effect it has on the life of Wales in these days.

There is no doubt that in the past the little country of Wales has been shamelessly exploited by people from other countries—and also, I regret to say, by some people in our own country. It was deserted and betrayed by its own leaders who should have stuck to it. The culture and language of Wales were not retained in any way at all by the great people of the land; they were retained by the peasants. They were retained, very often, under great difficulties. The language was banned, sometimes by Act of Parliament—indeed I think an Act banning it is still on the Statute Book. Certainly the ban was upheld, by people in Church and State who should have been concerned to preserve the language. As I say, the language was the language of the peasants, just as the culture has always been the culture of the peasants. It is one of the most surprising features in the life of this island that the culture and the language of Wales have survived at all. But they have survived, and they are very strong. In spite of all opposition, the culture and the language of Wales are still powerful influences. In fact, there are now twice as many people speaking Welsh as were comprised in the total population of Wales before the Industrial Revolution. From a percentage point of view far fewer speak Welsh, but in actual numbers twice as many do.

In these days, any small people—small numerically, that is—is under very great pressure: pressure from the Press, pressure from the radio, pressure fom literature; and now, most of all, from television. A number of those countries, some of them countries on the Continent, are finding that their own idiosyncrasies are largely being submerged by the enormous wealth of propaganda and wealth of information that is being poured out by other and larger countries. With all the improved media of propaganda and information it is difficult for them to stand up to the flood, so to speak; and if they are not careful they go downstream, instead of being able to stand up to it. Therefore it is extremely important that in television, the greatest medium of all time of instruction, persuasion, entertainment and propaganda, a reasonable proportion, a proper proportion, of the material that is transmitted from this new station should be in the Welsh language. That applies, as I have said, not only to the programmes but also to the advertisements. It is vital to Wales I feel, for if we lose this language and lose this culture it means that something that can never be replaced will have gone from our national life.

Here—and English people take very little interest in it, I regret to say—is the language of the Ancient Britons, the language of the early people of this country. If it were spoken in any other country than Wales, people would go thousands of miles to hear the language. They would want to see the people; but because it is an easy journey from London to Wales, no one bothers. I repeat that if this culture and this language are lost, something that will never be replaced will have gone out of our national life. Therefore, without labouring the point, I ask the Committee to agree to the Amendment. I might say, with regard to the advertisers, that even to-day there are some who do advertise in the Welsh language. Quite recently, I saw a number of buses running in mid-Wales and in North Wales carrying on the rear panels advertisements in the Welsh language for football pools. People were being invited to send their coupons to Liverpool. So this is not a fantastic suggestion at all, because, in fact, even at the present day advertisers do advertise in the Welsh language. I think the case for this Amendment is a very strong one. I believe that this is a vital matter for the Welsh people, and I ask for the sympathetic consideration of the Government and the Committee of this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 36, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Ogmore.)

2.56 p.m.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON)

I am sure that the whole Committee has been moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said in support of his Amendment, and I think it will be agreed that we could not have had a more agreeable or informative overture than he account which the noble Lord has given us of Welsh history and Welsh culture. I am sure that it moved us all. The songs of Wales we can understand, whatever our nationality or our language. The noble Lord, I believe, used to sit for an English constituency—no doubt he can speak Welsh.

LORD OGMORE

I do not speak it nearly so well as I should like to do.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Of course, we were greatly moved by the story of all the betrayals which have taken place in Welsh history, from the earliest times down to Mr. Lloyd George's record with the Liberal Party. All that has moved us. As Nurse Cavell said on a famous occasion: Patriotism is not enough, and it would also seem that patriotism, admirable virtue that it is, may be carried a little too far. I am sure that on consideration the noble Lord will see that it would not be wise to put in the Amendment which he proposes, that a proper proportion of advertisements and programmes should be in the Welsh language. As a matter of fact, though it has never been done over the ordinary broadcasting radio, it would be much easier to do this over the ordinary broadcasting system—that is, it would be much easier to put over the Welsh language, to have a proportion of features in the Welsh tongue, features in which people speak in Welsh. Acting is a different matter and, as we agreed last night, it is much more international in its scope. It may even be that some people, loving their own language and their own traditions, may want to see and hear actors who are not able to act, alas! in the Welsh language. I may observe that no such direction has been given to the B.B.C. as is proposed here, and I have never heard any complaints that the B.B.C. does not give reasonable consideration to Wales.

The noble Lord will see that we have, in fact, adopted what I think is a practical way of doing this. We all want to get a start with Welsh stations; and presently I hope television will extend into Wales. If the noble Lord looks at paragraph (f) of the clause we are discussing he will see there a provision which requires: that the programmes broadcast from any station or stations contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal specially to the tastes and outlook of persons served by the station or stations; That is intended, in a sensible and flexible way, to make sure that local tastes are properly catered for. When it comes to advertisements, if the noble Lord would look at paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule, he will see that it says: If, in the case of any of the television broacasting stations used by the Authority, there appears to the Authority to be a sufficient local demand to justify that course, provision shall be made for a reasonable allocation of time for local advertisements, of which a suitable proportion shall be short local advertisements. The general purpose that the noble Lord has in mind was very much in our minds when we prepared the Bill, and I venture to think that we have dealt with it in just the spirit he would wish to see but in a more flexible and practical manner than the direct order he prefers to insert in the Bill. Indeed, when he moved the Amendment he said he did not care about the words but wanted to know that there was reasonable provision in the Bill for Welsh interests and local events. I think I have referred to provisions which will surely satisfy him that the Bill is all right as it stands.

LORD WINSTER

I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I deplore the wave of standardisation which is passing over our country, blotting out local traditions. The Welsh are a great people, with distinctive characteristics, habits and customs, who have made a great contribution to the history of this country, and I should like to see their feelings of nationality and their pride in their language and distinctive habits recognised by the introduction into this Bill of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.

LORD OGMORE

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, for his support. It shows that he has the root of the matter in him. I entirely agree with what he said. I was impressed not only by the matter, but also by the manner, of the noble Viscount's speech. I feel there is not much between us: I hope he agrees with that. What I am trying to achieve, perhaps rather bluntly put down in this Amendment, he is trying to do in another way. I see that paragraph (f) may cover it, but it is in such broad terms that also it may not. If the Government could give me an assurance on this matter, I should be satisfied and should not press my Amendment.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I left out one thing I ought to have said. I think it is actually provided in the Bill that on the board (if that is the correct term) of the Authority, there is to be one member who is specially concerned with Wales. I think that is important.

LORD OGMORE

I agree that is important; but after all, he is only one and he may be outweighed.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

Do you want a Welsh majority?

LORD OGMORE

Oh, no, I do not want a majority. I want an undertaking from the Government that they will act in accordance with the spirit of this Amendment. If they can give me this undertaking, I will accept it, because I know they will keep it. Then we shall be quite sure that the one solitary nightingale on the Authority will not be drowned by the more mellow and fuller tones of the other birds. It is within your Lordships' knowledge that when Wenvoe station was being set up, I raised the same point. If your Lordships were to look at my intervention then (which I am sure you will not bother to do) you would see that I made the same plea. The Postmaster General was most sympathetic and it had a good deal of effect, because what is said in your Lordships' House has a great deal of effect. Since then we have had two or three times a week, indeed almost daily, Welsh programmes from Wenvoe. The B.B.C. have played the game. And my noble fried Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who is chairman, has been keeping a careful eye on the situation as well. I think that that intervention in this House, with the support of the Postmaster General, had a great deal of effect, and that is why I want today to put on record that the principle enshrined in my Amendment, which I now will not press, is going to have the support of the Gov ernment and will be observed by them. If I get that assurance I shall be quite happy and I am sure the people of Wales will be grateful to the Government for what they are doing for the preservation of Welsh culture.

EARL DE LA WARR

When one sees the provisions in a Bill, they look cold and soulless, but let me say to the Committee that, as the Minister responsible for the administration of this Bill, I give the noble Lord the firm assurance that paragraph (f) is a provision I have deeply at heart. I think it is vital to all broadcasting in this country that there should be a strong regional bias to a great deal of what goes out on the air. Therefore, I assure the noble Lord that the provisions of the Bill are definitely meant to be realities. I hope that some of these programmes, even though not in Welsh (and the same applies to Scotland and other regions) will be Welsh in "tone and style"—whatever we said about that phrase when we discussed it yesterday.

LORD OGMORE

In view of that handsome assurance, for which I am grateful to the noble Earl and other members of the Government, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1) (e), to leave out "proper" and insert "prescribed." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

May I ask the noble Lord one thing? Obviously, Amendment No. 88 goes with this. Would it be convenient if we discussed the question of whether or not there should be a prescribed quota on this Amendment?

LORD SILKIN

I was going to mention Amendment No. 88.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

And No. 40?

LORD SILKIN

I will refer to it; I had it in mind. This is an Amendment to Clause 3 (1) (e), which provides that the Authority have to be satisfied so far as possible that a proper proportion of films and other recorded matter included in programmes is of British origin. My Amendment provides that instead of "proper" proportion, it should be "prescribed" proportion, and (the noble Viscount is quite right) later on, Amendment No. 88 defines what is meant by "prescribed" it is prescribed by the Postmaster General by statutory instrument, which is subject to a Negative Resolution by the House. The first point is that the principle is laid down in paragraph (e) that a proportion of the films included in programmes should be of British origin, and there will be no dispute about the desirability of that from any part of the Committee. The question is: Is the word "proper" adequate to ensure what we all desire to do? The word "proper" is a vague word. What the noble Earl may regard as proper may be regarded by many on this side of the Committee, and even on the other side, as quite inadequate. There is no provision for defining what "proper" means and, as it stands, it is entirely within the discretion of the Authority, who may be satisfied, so far as possible, on flimsy grounds, or on good grounds, as to what is a proper proportion.

I put this forward as an important Amendment. It is not merely a change of word, but a change of character, the issue being as to whether it should be left in this vague and, in my view, unsatisfactory way, to ensure that you get films and other material of British origin, or whether you lay down a specific proportion. Of course, we are not laying down any proportion in the Bill, and the Amendment does not suggest one. What the Amendment suggests is that the Postmaster General should be empowered to decide from time to time what is a proper proportion of films and other recorded matter of British origin to be included in the programmes.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

Does the noble Lord adhere to his definition of "proper" in Amendment No. 40? Is that his idea of "proper"?

LORD SILKIN

I know that the noble Lord is trying to trip me up.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

No.

LORD SILKIN

When we get to Amendment No. 40, then it will be quite appropriate to ask me about it, but I would rather deal with this Amendment for the time being—"Sufficient unto the day.…"

LORD HORE-BELISHA

Quite sufficient.

LORD SILKIN

I think I should command general agreement to this Amendment, if it were considered practicable, but I imagine that the Postmaster General is going to say that it is not practicable, and has not been found practicable, to prescribe a specific percentage. I imagine that he is going to quote the experience of the Cinematograph Films Acts, where a quota has been laid down with which it has not always been possible for the operators to comply. I should like to distinguish between the case of a quota for television purposes and the quota laid down in the Cinematograph Films Acts. As the Committee will appreciate, the quota in the Cinematograph Films Acts provides that each individual hall or theatre showing films should show the prescribed percentage of British films. There are thousands of halls, cinemas and so on all over the country, of various types and characters: those of the large circuits; the West End pre-release houses; the provincial and non-circuit cinemas, coming down to the village hall. Each of them has its own particular characteristics and its own difficulties; what is possible for one may not be possible for another. Some cinemas are under American influence, America dictating the policy to a considerable extent. All these things make it exceedingly difficult for the Board of Trade to ensure that the quota provisions are complied with. It is possible to secure partial exemption from compliance with the quota. Any cinema may make application, possibly providing good grounds for being granted partial exemption from The quota; and generally one can see why the quota provisions in the Cinematograph Films Acts have not been entirely successful.

I concede the fact that we started off with a much higher quota than is in operation to-day, and that most of the movements of the quota have had to be in a downward direction. Let me make these concessions, because I think it is right that the Committee should be in possession of all the facts; that your Lordships should not hear them merely from the other side but from me, in presenting my case. I face up to all that, and I recognise that, so far as cinemas are concerned, the quota provisions have not been so successful as to encourage us to make similar provisions in this Bill. However, as I say, I draw a distinction between the two, and it is this: that instead of dealing with thousands of different types of cinemas and halls, and hundreds of different types of proprietors, all of whom have to be catered for, and all of whom have different conditions to satisfy, we are dealing here with one, two or three different programme authorities. It is much easier for this limited number of programme authorities to comply with the requirements of a quota than it is in the case of this large number of different proprietors; and, of course, it is much easier for the Postmaster General to keep in touch with them, to discuss with them what is a reasonable proportion to prescribe from time to time, and certainly to ensure that it is successful. In fact, putting it in a sentence, in my view the difficulties which have led to the lack of success in enforcing the quota, so far as the ordinary cinema and hall is concerned, would not obtain in the case of the limited number of television programmes, and it would be relatively simple for the Postmaster General to provide a quota in the case of these programmes.

Furthermore, the governing words, "so far as possible," still remain in Clause 3 (1). Whether the actual position of that will remain, or will be changed, is not relevant. I imagine that the Government will want to make the duty of the Authority not absolute, but qualified by some such words as "so far as possible." They would, in fact, govern the quota provisions, so that the duty of the statutory Authority would be restricted by what is practicable; there would not be an absolute obligation. But it would have immense advantages from the point of view of all those who are concerned with the industry (I want to say rather more about that on a later Amendment) that everybody should know that we are out to provide a certain fixed proportion of films and other matter of British origin, though the proportion may be varied from time to time. I do not think I need elaborate on this matter, because the issue is sufficiently clear. I have given the Committee my reasons for believing that the difficulties which might obtain in connection with films are not valid in connection with these programmes. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this Amendment, and will do what they can to meet what is a popular and important body of opinion among people concerned with the industry in this country. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 3, leave out ("proper") and insert ("prescribed").—(Lord Silkin.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I agree that this is an extremely important Amendment, and it is one which the House should consider carefully. I also regard it as an Amendment with no Party political significance at all. I do not say that I speak with authority on this subject, but at any rate I do speak about film quotas with some knowledge, because I invented the film quota. Certainly no one will accuse me of not wanting to do the best I possibly can for the British film industry, because I think I can claim to have rescued the film industry from death by introducing the Act of 1927. That Act was greatly opposed at the time, not so much by the Labour Party as by the Liberal Party, who divided 150 times against me when the Bill was going through Committee. Ten years later it was accepted unanimously, with agreed Amendments in both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, was piloting the next renewal, and I, in Opposition, was glad to act as his lieutenant in support. Therefore, it is common ground between us that we want to do the best we can for the film industry.

I should like to tell the House quite sincerely—and we have given a tremendous amount of consideration to this matter—why the Government came to the conclusion that it would be unwise to try to lay down a quota, at any rate in the first instance. The noble Lord has put his case, if I may say so, very fairly. It is true that an enormous number of exceptions have had to be made in the quota legislation about films—this and that cinema in different parts of the country have had to be exempted. I think the noble Lord was also right, up to a point, when he said that it might be difficult for a cinema house in Galashiels to do that which would not be difficult for the Odeon in Leicester Square. We are dealing not only with hundreds of cinemas owned by one authority, but also with individual people. Here we are dealing with three or four programme contractors.

I should like to put this point to the noble Lord. If we put in a compulsory quota, we must put it fairly low. That was my experience, and the noble Lord will bear me out. I remember that we both tried to raise it, and we had to bring it down, because, although a man might be genuinely trying to show as many British films as he could, it might also be that he was able to show no more than 50 per cent.—and it had to be remembered that it was to be a statutory obligation and, indeed, that it was a criminal offence not to show the prescribed quota. So inevitably the quota had to be fixed rather low—you always do that when you have compulsory control legislation. I am not arguing whether statutory control is a good thing or not. It does not apply only when you put on a quota on a thing like films. It applies when you fix prices. That is one reason why I do not like control, because you always have to fix the price, not at what the efficient man can sell at but, in theory, at a price at which a sort of middle-grade man can sell, though it often becomes, where guarantees are being given, what the least efficient man can do. When you fix a price, it is apt to be the price at which the biggest "dud" can sell without going out of business. That is why I do not like that sort of control. In all this control legislation, where it is statutory with a penalty, you tend to go pretty low, because everybody has to comply with it.

I believe that if you put in a statutory quota in the first instance—and it does not matter whether it is prescribed by the Postmaster General in an order; it would be just the same as if you put a long detailed Schedule into an Act of Parliament—Parliament would probably insist on seeing it, and even if there were variations they would insist on seeing the variations. I am sure the Committee will agree with that, because it is proposed here to put a statutory obligation upon somebody, and possibly make it a criminal offence if he does not comply with it. It will certainly be an offence, because at least he would be breaking his contract, and he might, on the third offence, be liable to have his whole contract rescinded. Parliament would certainly insist on having the quota laid down either in an Act of Parliament or in an order which could not be varied. The one thing needed in this scheme is flexibility. When the Authority are making a start on this scheme they do not want to be tied to something which might be either too high or too low.

I am most anxious to see the maximum opportunity given to British films. If I had to administer this scheme and make sure that the programme contractors showed the maximum number of British films, I would much rather have the provision in this Bill under which I could talk to the Authority and the Authority could talk to the programme contractors, both when they make a contract and afterwards. Therefore, with an experience which is, at any rate, as large in these matters as that of anybody in this Committee on something which certainly is not a political matter, I would most strongly counsel the Committee to leave this paragraph as it is. Of course, if we imposed this quota we should also have to impose it on the B.B.C.—that obviously would be right, and I am sure the noble Lord will agree with that. If we are going to impose a quota on one set of people, we must also impose it on the other. As a matter of fact, the B.B.C. have been in television now for a good long time, and whatever views may be held about the quality of their television, I do not think there has been a complaint that the Governors and the officials of the B.B.C. have not been able to give British performers and British film-makers a fair chance. I see no reason why the same should not apply here. From such contact as I have had with the people who are likely to be engaged in this matter, I know that they are extremely anxious to show these films. I know that there is a feeling: "Well, you might get a flood of American stuff in, very cheap." I am quite certain that we can safeguard against that by all the directions we give here, and I am also quite sure that that is not what these people want to do.

When it comes down to definitions, they are not too easy, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, will remember from our discussions on the Films Act. We had to define what was a British film. It would have to be completely Commonwealth. A film is a pretty large undertaking, and even there we had to take a power to exempt—I think we had a power to exempt. The basis adopted was that 80 per cent. of the cast should be British, or that 80 per cent. of the cost of the cast should be spent on British actors; and you took into account whether the script writer was included. Then you had to put in an extra provision that one or two "stars" might be foreign. It was not an easy thing to define who constituted a "British" film, and I believe it would be found that with television, which is also using live shows, the problem would be still more difficult. The noble Lord was quite right when he said that the words are "films and other recorded matter"—which technically, I suppose, would be the film. But what happens then? When you make a film to be shown in a cinema there is the film, but in a great many instances here there will be a live performance which may be shown straight on to the screen in the first instance, but which is being recorded at the same time so that there can be repetitions afterwards. The Comédie Francaise may give a performance. The first one might be live, straight on to the screen. Records are taken and those may be shown three or four times more. Would such a performance be British or foreign?

May I say just one other thing which is worth remembering—the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will no doubt regard it as very good Free Trade doctrine, coming from me. I am anxious that we should be able to send our stuff all over the world. I was greatly impressed when I visited a studio near London the other day to see these half-hour films being made, essentially British in character, with British script writers and British actors. There were some very distinguished actors and I may say there was a highly moral tone. I saw Cautionary Tale which was both entertaining and of the highest moral purpose. The whole of these were to be sold in America, which is interesting. They are very good. I was delighted with them. Anybody would be delighted to see them on a screen here.

That is going all right. But suppose we lay down in this legislation a specific quota of what is to be British. You will get reciprocal action. It is not happening at the present time because the legislation has not been brought in. We all know it has not been too easy, though these films are going on all right; but suppose we put a kind of quota restriction upon these things at home. We might easily get retaliation and find that we were not going to get our films accepted abroad. For all these reasons (which I have dealt with in detail because the whole issue is raised here) I would say to your Lordships that we should be well advised not to give directions to the Postmaster General or to the I.T.A. and to lay down a lot of hard and fast rules. But let us go forward in the spirit—as the Government and, I know, the I.T.A. will do, and I am sure the programme companies will want to do—to give the maximum opportunity to these films. I think that is the better way. As was said in another place and, as the Postmaster General has said, if it does not work and legislation is actually necessary to give protection (and if it was not improper to bet in this House I would offer to bet that it will not be necessary to introduce legislation) that legislation can always be introduced and we shall not hesitate to introduce it. I beg the House to leave the Bill in its present form.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I had been waiting rather impatiently for the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to say a word about this Amendment. I should like to ask one or two questions. First, everything is to be "British" or "prescribed." My noble friend does not like the word "proper" which is an ambiguous word; he likes the words "prescribed proportion." What is British? I should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, this question. Suppose they are showing a scene from the film of the climbing of Mount Everest: is that British? You can show Ludgate Hill—that is British, unquestionably—but you must not show apparently the last scenes of The Conquest of Everest. Supposing, for example, their Majesties are visiting Ceylon. Can you show a picture of that? That, certainly, is not British, because we do not have a "British Commonwealth"; we have the "Commonwealth and Empire."

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Is the noble Viscount referring to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, or to the clause as a whole? Everything he says is relevant to the clause as a whole, because it says that a "proper proportion of the films" should be "of British origin."

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Exactly. The two hang together. I shall not repeat the few words I have to say for the substantive Amendment. They hang together in the same argument. It is a question whether we should have a proper proportion of British, and we get "British" by excluding things that we do not call British. We exclude scenes representing the vast majority of the inhabitants of our Commonwealth, an extraordinary thing to do. The second thing I want to ask, for I am convinced by the partnership between the two Front Benches, is this: could not this rule of having things which are wholly British or a "proper proportion" British be extended? Could not a committee be appointed to go to the National Gallery? There are a great many pictures in the National Gallery that are not British at all. Could not a committee be appointed to see that the different concerts at the Albert Hall are all British? And you might extend the quota to the Harringay Stadium. My few words are merely in protest against the type of thing which is really the greatest enemy of the growth, power and influence of our Commonwealth. Originally, we were "Norman and Saxon and Dane," as the Poet Laureate has said. We are an amalgam of many races, and our influence in the world exists because we are an amalgam of many races, able to 'understand and comprehend other peoples' point of view. This aspect of "proper proportion" or "prescribed proportion" is something which is seriously inimical to the future greatness of our country.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I had not intended to speak in this debate and I was loth to interrupt the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, but, since he and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, have mentioned my name, I feel impelled to say a few words. Indeed, I was much tempted to interrupt the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, when he was speaking, because I was delighted to hear one passage in his speech in which he pointed out that the effect of quotas and tariffs is to protect the inefficient at the expense of the more efficient, and that your standard has to be put very low in order to keep people in business, otherwise your tariff is ineffective. Furthermore, towards the end of his speech he pointed out again that to impose a tariff is only to provoke retaliation against your own goods. There is hope even for the most unregenerate; and that the day should have come—with he and I both getting well on into middle age—when he should have confessed to be preaching free trade doctrine, is indeed a memorable occasion. I agree on the whole with what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has said. I feel very sceptical about all these proposals—for example, that Beethoven was really, if one properly understood it, a British composer; that Shakespeare, according to the Nazi doctrine, was a German and the Japanese honorary Aryans. We have heard all those doctrines preached in recent years. I think that all this discussion, to a great extent, is futile, and that the Bill will have little effect in this direction. If the general public, the Government, the programme producers and the Authority are all anxious to secure that there shall not be an ordinary, commonplace American broadcasting of television films in this country, they will not be broadcast; and if, on the other hand, they do not care about it, they certainly will be. As for us, we seem to me to be to a great extent wasting our time this afternoon, to which I shall not further contribute.

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount that this is an important Amendment, but at the same time I agree with him that it is one which should be resisted. I think the position would be very difficult indeed if this Amendment were passed, because the Postmaster General would be too far separated, surely, from the day-to-day conditions under which the Television Authority will be working. There would be bound to be lack of flexibility. With regard to Viscount Stansgate's remarks, paragraph (e), about which we are talking, deals with films. Surely a film is of British origin if it is made in Britain, whether it is a film of Everest or one about a Beethoven sonata.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Can the noble Lord explain—he is a technician—how and when you can have a film of Everest in Britain.

LORD GIFFORD

The film is edited and produced in Britain.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

You make a mock-up of Everest and photograph that and call it British.

LORD GIFFORD

I take it we are all concerned about the possibility of the dumping of cheap American or other programmes, and I should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, one question. The word "proper" is, of course, rather a vague word. I presume, therefore, he would visualise that the Independent Television Authority, when making its contracts with the programme companies, would, in accordance with the conditions at the time, make some provision in the contract, possibly by quota or other means, to see that what the Authority considered at that time a reasonable proportion of British films was included, and that would be protected by contract and not just left rather vague.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

May I make one point to the Committee before we pass from this Amendment? It is that we have now been approximately one hour and five minutes on two Amendments. We have been something like three-quarters of an hour on this present Amendment. Important as it is, I do suggest that there are many noble Lords who might like to make some contribution but are imposing upon themselves a self-denying ordinance. If we go on at the present rate and have the length of speech which seems to be necessary to develop the case from one Front Bench and refute it front the other, we Shall be here till the early hours of the morning, occupying a lot of our time on matters which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said are somewhat irrelevant to the particular debate and not particularly important at the moment. I would suggest with great respect, as a Back Bencher—and I hope I have the support of the Committee—that those who are primarily responsible for the conduct of this Bill through the proceedings of the Committee should impose upon themselves something of the same restraint that other noble Lords are doing.

LORD SILKEN

That is an extraordinary statement to make. This is a most important Amendment and I feel that those who are responsible for it are entitled to put their case adequately, I hope not with redundance, and to have an adequate answer.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

Half an hour answer.

LORD SILKIN

I can assure the noble Lord it will not all take that time. This Amendment raises an issue which is probably amongst the most important in the Bill. I refuse to be intimidated or influenced in any way in putting forward a proper case for discussion. May I say that I have no complaint about the way in which the noble Viscount has dealt with it. I sometimes have a complaint about the way in which he deals with Amendments, but I have no complaint at all about this one. I think that there have been a certain number of irrelevancies, but they have come from my noble friend behind me who has stabbed me in the back, and from the noble Lord at my side, who took the opportunity of embarking on one of those dead issues which can never be revived. I am impressed with what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said, and I certainly have no desire to force a matter which is non-Party and to which I know the Government have given careful consideration, to a Division, or even to try to divide the House into sheep and goats. I am going to withdraw this Amendment and to leave it to Her Majesty's Government to do as they please about it. But we are not really very much at issue. The noble Viscount has said, if I understood his speech correctly, that he agrees that we should get the maximum amount of British films shown in television. He agrees to that. Whether it can best be done by means of prescribing a percentage or whether it can best be done by other means is a matter which is capable of a difference of opinion, and a genuine one. I think prescribing is right, but I am not going to force it, the Government having considered it. I would ask two things. One is, would they look again at this word "proper" which really is much too vague? I do not ask them to commit themselves in any way; but to talk of a "proper" proportion does not give very much guidance to the Authority.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I can say at once that we did consider a large number of alternatives and we came to the conclusion that "proper" was much the best word to use.

LORD SILKIN

I am sorry to hear that. I think if they had one more look, perhaps it would be possible to find a better word which would more clearly indicate what we all have in mind; that is, that it has to be a substantial proportion. The other thing is that it may be that means can be devised for securing what we want by administrative methods. But suppose they are not successful. Would it not be worth considering whether the Postmaster General should not take powers in this Bill, if at any time he thought it right, to provide for what I am seeking to do now in this Amendment? Before the noble Viscount says "No" to that, I would merely ask him to give consideration to it. Of course, there is another stage and one can have another word about it. May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that it will not be at this length. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.49 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (e) to insert: (f) That there shall be no transmission of any film or other recorded programme which has been publicly exhibited at home or abroad at any time before the date of the first public transmission from any station under the control of the Authority; provided that the Authority may except material from the provisions of this paragraph on cultural or educational grounds.

The noble Lord said: I am sorry to inflict myself again on the Committee, but I regard this also as a very important Amendment. It is one which I have been asked to move by a large number of organisations representing the whole of the entertainment industry in this country, including the British Actors' Equity Association, musicians, composers, authors, dramatists, screenwriters, technicians, variety artistes, and concert artistes. They are all very anxious that an Amendment of this kind should be put before the Committee. It provides that there should be no transmission of any film or other recorded matter which has already been publicly shown, but there is an exception that where matter which has been shown previously has a cultural or educational value, then the Authority may except it from this embargo.

I need hardly elaborate the reasons why these various organisations are so concerned about this matter. As the Committee know, there is a large—indeed abnormal—amount of unemployment in the entertainment industry. In the case of actors, I am told that 50 per cent. of them are unemployed, and in the case of other members of the different sections of the industry the proportion is almost as high. They are naturally very concerned that they should be able to play their part in the new television programmes. I am told that the various organisations are not necessarily opposed to commercial television—they are divided, as we are in this House, and not at all on a political basis; some are in favour, some are not. But they are all worried about what they regard as the overriding danger which threatens them through this new medium—that is, the importation of films and recorded programmes which have already been used abroad, mostly on American television; which have already been paid for out of receipts in America and other places, and which can therefore be brought into this country at very low cost.

This operation used to be called "dumping." The producer had received profits already in the home market and was able to export at a cost which was, so far as the producer in this country was concerned, one which could not possibly be competed with. That will be the position with a large number of films and recorded matter that will be brought into this country. There are no safeguards in the Bill against this "dumping," and I would submit that it is necessary for the protection of those who are engaged in the industry. The Amendment recognises that certain films and recorded matter are worth repeating or reproducing and, as I have already indicated, the terms of the Amendment provide for those cases. What we are mainly concerned with in this Amendment is to preserve and safeguard the livelihood of the many thousands of people who are engaged in the entertainment industry, an object with which I am sure noble Lords in all parts of the House will agree. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment, or something like it, will be acceptable to the Committee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 4, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Silkin.)

LORD HORE-BELISHA

I hope that we shall not spend as much time on this "important" Amendment as we did on the last "important" Amendment. There is really no case to be made for this Amendment, because, if there were a parallel case, it would equally be applicable to the B.B.C. This is not a Bill for helping artistes, but for amusing, entertaining, educating and instructing viewers. Macaulay, in a well-known passage, said that the Puritans objected to bear-baiting, not because it was cruel to the bears but because it amused the spectators. In this Bill we ought to have regard to the benefits which are to be conferred on the viewers. The Bill takes nothing whatever away from artistes or musicians—no injury is inflicted upon them at all. Their opportunities are increased; they will have more work than ever before, and it would be an unreasonable price to pay, that the viewer should be told that he is to have only inferior programmes because the object of the Bill is to keep persons in work or to provide persons with work, quite regardless of their competence.

I think that the decisive argument, however, is that these proposed restrictions, whether they are jingoistic or protectionistic—because we are having to meet one after another—are not applicable to the Authority set up under this Bill unless they are also to be applied to the B.B.C. It is really imposing too great a strain upon the patience of the Committee to impose e number of conditions upon this new Authority which will not be equally imposed upon its competitor. One can quite understand the motives of the noble Lord; they are sincere and genuine, on behalf of persons who doubtless desire to get employment, or to secure themselves in employment. But, after all, that is not the purpose of this Bill. I therefore hope that we may get to Amendments which really do go to the root of the matter.

LORD LAYTON

We have had it on the authority of the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury that everything that is televised is educational; if so, this Amendment will exclude nothing. But if we take a more restricted view, then I hope that it will be rejected. In the course of the Second Reading debate I mentioned what I thought was one of the most important television programmes that have been shown in recent times—namely, the two programmes concerned with McCarthyism, the first an attack on McCarthy by Ed Murrow and secondly McCarthy's defence. If this Amendment had been in the Bill it would have been impossible to make those broadcasts in this country.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I certainly could not possibly accept this Amendment. As we discussed on the other Amendment, the real safeguard is to be found in paragraph (e), and that is really the right way of putting the safeguard. It is also reinforced in paragraph (a), if we should decide to retain paragraph (a) in the Bill. That is the way to keep out a flood of cheap second-hand stuff; it is the only effective way of doing it. This Amendment would have the effect of preventing anybody from seeing a revival—and after all, revivals are pretty popular in this country; some of them have been most successful. One of the best things that I have seen on the B.B.C. was Tovarich. That was a quite admirable performance some weeks ago. But Tovarich had been performed twenty years before, and I was amused when I saw it in those days. So far as I can make out, this Amendment would prevent any revival, from Shakespeare to modern times, and I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to press it. Moreover, if any restriction were to be put on at all, I entirely agree that it must be imposed on the B.B.C., as well as on this Authority.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

That is a very important point. Do I understand that if it turns out that in this Bill, when it becomes an Act, certain restrictions have been put upon the Television Authority, then, in the same way, those restrictions will be transferred to the B.B.C.?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

No. The noble Viscount is quite able to understand when he wants to understand. What I said was that if we were to accept an Amendment in this Bill to impose a particular obligation or restriction upon the programme contractors, we should at the same time and by the same token have to impose it upon the B.B.C.

LORD SILKIN

My reply to the answer to this Amendment is the same as on the previous one. I felt it my duty to put this matter before the Committee; the Committee are not disposed to accept it, and I will not press it. I would only say to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that he is not doing the Amendment complete justice when he says that it would prevent Shakespeare from being shown or any film of the kind he mentioned from being revived. We have specifically provided for that by the last words of the Amendment, which would bring such things within the exception. But I agree that the principle is very much the same as in the last Amendment.

LORD SILKIN

After the last Amendment, and the decision taken, I do not propose to press this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had given notice, in subsection (1), after paragraph (e), to insert: (f) that no film or other recorded matter which has been exhibited, shown or broadcast at home or abroad otherwise than in the programmes shall be included in the programmes without the consent of the Authority.

The noble Earl said: My heart has been so moved by the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and my intentions so paralysed by the arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Hore-Belisha and Lord Swinton on the preceding Amendment, that I shall ask your Lordships' permission not to move this Amendment.

LORD MATHERS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and" at the end of paragraph (g). The noble Lord said: I want to get to what is beyond "and." The next Amendment provides that on Sundays, Good Friday and Christmas Day certain hours shall be devoted to religious services. A suggestion is made as to the time that should be devoted to these services, one hour between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. and one hour between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. I do not think that this is too much to ask of this new Authority, an Authority which, so far from being independent, is being created, sponsored and financially supported by the Government and those whose support the Government can command; I mean the taxpayers. This is a reasonable request to make of anyone wielding the powers given by this Bill. It will be in the interests of those who will be in charge of this great machine of publicity, who will be desirous of achieving balanced programmes, to make provision for religious services on Sundays. This is reputed to be a Christian country. Perhaps not a majority are formally committed to the Christian faith, even in this so-called Christian country; but any instrument of this kind should be used for what I consider to be the greatest cause put before mankind. I make no apology at all for putting forward these Amendments here this afternoon and asking for support. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 12, leave out ("and") at end of paragraph (g).—(Lord Mothers.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Lord need offer no apology for an Amendment of this character; I think its sole object is one which would receive the sympathy of every part of this House. But I must ask whether this is really the best, or indeed a possible or desirable way of doing it. The noble Lord has laid down pretty stringent regulations that there should on these days be one hour's religious service in the morning and one hour at night. Up to the present time the technique of presenting a religious service on television is undeveloped country. It is very difficult to do; and, if we judge, as we must, by the experience of the B.B.C., we find that they have the same difficulty in knowing how best it can be done. After all, a religious service is conducted for those who are present and not for someone who is watching; and the B.B.C. have in the past put such services on very rarely. I think I am correct in saying they have, according to recent figures, only about one a month at the present time.

I believe there is a positive danger in putting a statutory obligation of this character upon the Authority, because religious services should not and cannot be judged by their quantity; they must be judged by their quality. I see the possibility that if there were a statutory obligation to put on services it would be formally fulfilled without, perhaps, a great deal of merit. On those grounds I would ask the noble Lord to think again as to whether this is the best way of achieving what he has in mind. One hour in the morning and one hour in the evening is quite a lot. I assume the noble Lord means that one service shall go on for an hour, and it is going to be difficult to get a religious service of such sustained character as to last for a whole hour as a reasonable televised programme. I do not know whether what I am saying is agreed to by the right reverend Prelate, but I believe it would be rather difficult to do. There are other points. I think it is right to ask who is going to pay for this. Does the noble Lord intend that it shall be paid for by the taxpayer? Because at a later stage he rather objects to advertisements on Sundays. It is difficult to see who is going to pay, and I would suggest that the noble Lord should withdraw his Amendment and that it must be for the I.T.A. to give such emphasis as they think proper to Sunday. If I may express my personal view (with which you may not agree), I have always believed that the noble Lord, Lord Reith, was right in having a distinctive tone in B.B.C. broadcasts on Sundays. That has been somewhat whittled away and most people are more pleased with what happens now, though I personally preferred it as it was. I think this Amendment carries the matter too far and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

LORD MATHERS

The noble Earl frightens me with his reply—that if anything of this kind were done, it would be done in such a slipshod way that it would not be worth having: that, in fact, is what he says. Yet we left things alone last evening in order that arrangements might be made for the position of the Churches and of religion to be properly considered and properly safeguarded. He has made a terrible admission. I hope that what he has said is not going to be carried out. I am asked who is going to pay for this. I have already said that the Authority is being created by the Government in the name of the people of this country. It is being supported by advertisers and others and is being sponsored by the Government. Without what is being done here in the name of the people of this country, this Authority would not exist to carry on its purpose of making profits out of advertising. My noble friend, Lord Rochester, has indicated to me his regret at his absence because he has been advised by his doctor not to come here to-day. I greatly regret his absence, for I feel sure he would have added great force to what I have endeavoured, very crudely, to put. I made no provision for financing what is called for in this Amendment. Indeed, I did not think it was necessary. I thought that a proposition of this kind would commend itself to those who will be in charge of this great machine of publicity. I do not know whether any other noble Lord wishes to add to what I have said. I do not feel that there is much more that I can say in urging the desirability of putting something of this kind in the Bill.

4.10 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL

Since direct reference has been made to me, I feel that I ought to say one word. I confess that I find myself in a real difficulty in giving my judgment on this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, will recognise, without my saying it, that of course I agree with his intention. Any idea that Good Friday, Christmas Day or Sundays should pass without some religious observance is abhorrent to me. At the same time, I am bound to say that I thought there was real force in part of the reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to the effect that quality matters more than quantity; that the path of religious television is as yet only rather rudimentary; and that to enforce a quota of religious services might be not the best way of doing things. What I should like to say is this—and I hope it may carry some reassurance to the noble Lord who has just spoken. A quota of this kind has never been enforced on the B.B.C. There is no regulation of this kind governing the B.B.C. I think it is fair to say that the B.B.C. has never failed in observing the spirit of a proposal of this kind, and in so far as I might in future have any responsibility for helping to advise the new Authority, I would give a guarantee that we would use our best influence to ensure that this sort of observance was recognised.

May I add two other points—one quite small—just to illustrate the difficulty of laying down a strict regulation of this kind? In my own Church, the Church of England, there is a very well-known service on Good Friday—a three-hour service which lasts from twelve noon wail three o'clock. The last two hours of that service would be excluded by this regulation. That shows that we have to be a little careful how we try to regulate exact times. The second point I regard as a point of very great importance and, indeed, of the utmost gravity. The noble Earl who replied for the Government asked: Who is going to pay for these services? Does that question apply to all religious broadcasts on television? We were, I thought, assured in a statement made by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that the £750,000 was, at least in part, provided for that purpose. We know that there is no revenue from advertisers and we hope that there will be no revenue from buying time. If we are then told that, of course, there will be no religious broadcasts, because no one will pay for them, it seems to be that we are faced with a very serious situation indeed.

EARL JOWITT

I do not want to enter into this controversy, except in order to stress the last point which the right reverend Prelate has made. I must say that I was shocked by the observation of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, "Who is going to pay?"

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

If I may interrupt the noble and learned Earl, I would point out that in speaking of this Amendment proposed by Lord Mathers, I pointed out to him that if there were no advertising on Sunday there would be no revenue from advertisements. Advertisements are not connected with the individual programme items, though obviously one part of the whole programme falls in with the other.

EARL JOWITT

Do I understand that it is contemplated that religious services will be paid for out of advertisements on Sunday?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

They will be paid for out of such revenue as is available. Overheads would, obviously, have to be paid for, and to some extent they would be paid for out of the revenue derived from advertisements.

EARL JOWITT

It seems to me a most extraordinary idea that religious services and advertising on Sunday should be mixed up together, one giving a kind of quid pro quo to the other. I leave it at that, but I think it is the most deplorable feature of the Bill that I have heard of yet.

EARL DE LA WARR

There ought to be an end to the sort of misrepresentation from which we on this side are suffering. I remember hearing it said in debates in another place—and, indeed, hearing it said here—that this £750,000 was a monstrous part of the scheme; that the programme companies ought to be compelled to carry out of their general revenue the cost of such items as religious broadcasts and so on. It was merely that possibility to which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was referring. He said nothing else. I should like to refer to what the right reverend Prelate said. Of course I informed him perfectly correctly that this £750,000 was available for this purpose—I made that perfectly clear. I also said that I thought it would be more likely to be used for this purpose in the first two or three years of the operation of the scheme, before the companies had got on to a profit-earning basis, and that later on they would pay for such things.

EARL JOWITT

I am very glad to hear that. I have not consciously made any misrepresentation, but I was surprised when the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is usually so careful of his language, put the question, "Who is going to pay?" I say quite frankly that I had assumed that the money would come out of the £750,000. Though there are strong arguments against the £750,000, a strong point in favour of it is that it is there for this sort of purpose; and religious broadcasts, clearly, should have no sort of connection with any sort of advertisement. I have always assumed that it is the intention of the Government to use the £750,000 to pay for, amongst other things, such items as religious broadcasts. I devoutly hope that that is so. If I have been wrong in what I said, I gladly withdraw. The reason I said what I did was because, as a result of the noble Earl's question, I began to doubt whether it was the Government's intention to use part of the £750,000 in this way.

LORD MATHERS

I am conscious of the fact that this Amendment puts things crudely and that my language in submitting it has also been crude. That is due to a defect in me, yet it is one that I am not terribly worried about, because I feel that I would rather be a blunt-spoken Scotsman than an over-eloquent speaker of any other nationality. I have a much greater regard for the noble Earl, as a man, as a personality, than I have for him as a spokesman, from time to time, for the Government; and I felt there was a certain amount of sympathy with the idea put forward in this Amendment. I am now going to leave the matter, having ventilated it; and having elicited the contribution which we have heard from the right reverend Prelate on the subject I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MATHERS

I hope that the Record will show the next Amendment and that it will not appear as if we have simply been speaking on the first one.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Move it then.

LORD MATHERS

I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name, in order to have it set down on the Record.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 15, at end insert— ("and (i) that on Sundays, Good Friday and Christmas Day certain hours shall be devoted to religious services, that is to say, one hour between nine o'clock a.m. and one o'clock p.m. and one hour between five o'clock p.m. and ten o'clock p.m.:").—(Lord Mathers.)

LORD MATHERS

That having been placed on the Record, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.20 p.m.

LORD KENSWOOD moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (h) to insert: and (i) in consultation with the British Broadcasting Corporation to ensure as far as possible that the programmes broadcast at any one moment by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Authority should so far as possible offer a reasonably effective choice:

The noble Lord said: A number of noble Lords have been at pains to impress upon the Government that they think this Bill is an outrageous effort. It is bad in its conception and it is bad in its implementation. I have an idea that noble Lords sitting on the Government Front Bench have realised our attitude, and that makes it easy for me to make a very short speech. The object of this Amendment is in some measure to palliate the evils of the Bill. We hope it may be possible for viewers to get some value out of the television situation. We hope that there will be consultation between the commercial Authority and what is the really independent television authority—the B.B.C. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for stressing that, but there still seems to be a misconception about the way the B.B.C. is independent of the Government. It is my conviction that the two authorities will have to consult with one another. I hope this period may be short, because I dislike anarchy on the air as much as I dislike it in other spheres. I hope these two corporations will not be at one another's throats. It is far better for them to come together and see what arrangements they cart make, for the benefit not only of their purses but also of those who have to look at the programmes which are put out from their stations. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 16, insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Kenswood.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think we realise the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, in this matter, so I will not labour it. I find myself very much in agreement with what he said, but I would ask him whether this is the best way of I doing it. Is it really desirable to impose compulsory consultation on both these bodies? The noble Lord must realise that compulsory consultation will operate on both: it will act just as much on the B.B.C. as on the I.T.A. Therefore, he is insisting that the B.B.C. regulate their programmes, at least in some measure, in relation to the I.T.A. I agree with him entirely that they will have a lot to examine together and a lot to consider together, but I would say that we should not go so far as to lay down what might be described in different circles as a cartel between the two broadcasting organisations to work together, possibly to their own advantage and not to that of other people. We have deliberately set out here to provide for a certain amount of competition. We should not like to see two organisations getting together to divide audiences between them and putting on only the bare necessities. I am not suggesting for a moment that that would happen, but it is a possibility. With compulsory consultation, the corporations might feel that Parliament had commanded them to consult together, and that if they consult together it does not matter what they do. If we laid down compulsorily the need for consultation it might possibly seem unnecessary to the B.B.C. to fulfil the duty of providing a second programme. For all these reasons, I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment. I hope, as the noble Lord said, that the two corporations will not be at each other's throat and that friendly and cordial relations will exist between them, but I think it is going too far to have statutory consultation.

VISCOUNT WAVERLEY

As my noble friend Lord Hailsham is not here, I should like to say one word about this Amendment. I hope the Government have not said their last word on this subject. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, throughout the Bill the importance of effective competition has been stressed. Therefore, I think it is important, following out that principle, that there should be co-ordination between the B.B.C. and the new Authority on the times and the nature of the programmes to be transmitted. Unless there is such co-ordination it seems to me that in the end the effect may be that the times of viewing will be stretched out unduly and that, instead of having a really effective choice and real competition, there will be a wholly unnecessary and undesirable extension of the hours during which television will be available to the public or to particular sections of the public. This is a matter dealt with in a later Amendment, so I cannot develop the point. It seems to me that the principle of co-ordination ought in some way to be indicated, and indeed emphasised, in the Bill itself. For that reason I think that the principle of the Amendment is well worthy of sympathetic consideration. There cannot be a really effective competition, which is the desire of the Government, unless there is open to the viewers a really effective choice at particular times of transmission. Therefore, I venture to support the Amendment.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

I have sat next to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, throughout these discussions and have managed to disagree with him in complete amity. On this occasion I appeal to his sense of consistency. He is supporting an Amendment which invites the Authority in consultation with the British Broadcasting Corporation to ensure as far as possible that the programmes broadcast at any one moment by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Authority should so far as possible offer a reasonably effective choice: I recall to your Lordships that last night we had a long discussion on an Amendment, with which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, were associated, which sought to delete the words "so far as possible" from Clause 3 (1) of the Bill. The burden of their case was that if a direction is put into a Bill, it should be precise and definite, and that it is not possible to imagine the Authority satisfying themselves "so far as possible"; they will either satisfy themselves or they will not. And the Government were brought under considerable criticism for the looseness of that drafting. Now the noble Viscount comes to-day, without any apology and without any apparent sense of inconsistency, and supports an Amendment in which "as far as pos- sible" occurs not once, but twice. So that on the mere ground of drafting, the Amendment fails to satisfy the noble Viscount's own standard.

With regard to the principle underlying the Bill, of course there would be consultation wherever it would conduce to the improvement of programmes. That goes without saying. All great business corporations consult when it is to the general advantage to do so. But there is no need to put in a direction to that effect in the Bill. In fact, it is derogatory to the intelligence of the members of the Authority. If it were to be put in, it should be put in the first clause, which defines the position under which the corporation should act. They are to provide programmes of high quality, in addition to that of the B.B.C., not in co-operation with them. The real test must be the quality of the programme, and the person to whom we should have regard throughout is the viewer. It is not a question of getting a patched-up arrangement between the B.B.C. and the Authority at the expense of the viewer; it is a question of directing this Authority to have regard to the high quality of the programmes. For that purpose they have all reasonable powers and should be trusted to exercise them. In all the circumstances, I trust that, both on the ground of drafting and on the ground of lack of necessity, the Amendment will not be pursued, sincere as were the motives of those who have supported it.

VISCOUNT WAVERLEY

I should be sorry to infringe on the principle enunciated by my noble friend, that propinquity in this House should imply agreement or, at any rate, amity. But as the noble Lord has referred to what passed on an earlier Amendment, I must point out to him, in the interests of accuracy, that what we emphasised, in the first instance, there—and emphasised with some effect—was the misplacing of the phrase "so far as possible." We further said that it was quite ridiculous to use the words "so far as possible" in relation, for example, to the elimination of indecency, which is what the earlier Amendment dealt with.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

How do you act "as far as possible" in offering "a reasonably effective choice"?

VISCOUNT WAVERLEY

I see no difficulty at all in doing certain things "as far as possible." There is no analogy, in my submission, between the matter which arises here and the matter which arose on the earlier Amendment.

EARL JOWITT

We had a mild rebuke from one part of the House a short time ago about wasting time, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, joined in and added his patronage to the remark.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

No.

EARL JOWITT

The noble Lord did join in, as he will see if he reads what he said: he sometimes makes observations without quite knowing what they are, I think. I do not think I have ever heard such utter waste of time as all this talk about the drafting of this Amendment. If I may tell the noble Lord so, we do not do that in this Committee, as he will appreciate when he has been, here a little longer. There is here an important point of principle. For the benefit of the viewer, we want the greatest possible alternative offered—and I know that the Postmaster General agrees with that to the full. The only problem is, how we are to get that. In saying that every company will do it to improve their programme, the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, only shows how little he understands of this matter.

The difficulty is that it may sometimes be necessary deliberately to select the worse of two alternatives. I gave an illustration the other day (I do not know whether it is a good one), the Wimbledon tennis finals. Suppose that they have the biggest appeal, and that a large number of people want to see the tennis finals. If the tennis finals are being shown both on the B.B.C. and on the I.T.A., then both of them will be showing that which is most popular; and the net result will be that a considerable number of viewers who are "bored stiff" by the tennis finals will have no alternative. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the problem from the point of view not simply of putting on the best programme but of doing something which, from the point of view of making money, may be altruistic, but which will give the viewer the benefit of a choice. That is the problem, and I know that the Postmaster General is fully alive to it.

I have said before that I dislike the second Authority just because I am frightened that, by reason of having a second Independent Authority, it may not be possible to get this alternative. But we have now agreed what is to be done. I believe that it would be a pity to let this Bill go without some statement in it that this is the objective. I should have thought that there might quite well be meetings of representatives of the two authorities—convened, if you will, under the chairmanship of the Postmaster General, or some official of his—to see whether they can work things out. It may be that on one day one Authority should be able to insist on their right to have the most popular programme, and that on another day the other Authority ought to have it. This is typically something which we ought to try to arrange, by relying on the Minister, who ultimately is in charge of the whole scheme, to bring these two bodies together.

I do not want to press this particul1ar Amendment, but I am going to make this appeal to the Postmaster General. There are a large number of people who are concerned about this important question of a true alternative. I hope that he has not said his last word on this matter. I shall be content if he tells us that, although he has considered this matter before—I quite realise that—he will look at it again, to see, from the point of the interests of the viewers, whether he cannot devise some scheme and put something in the Bill to make sure that the viewers, who are the people that matter, will have a real alternative. I beg him to do that—and I believe that it is his desire to do it. I think that at the moment he is in some difficulty about knowing quite how to do it, and I can sympathise with him in that. All I ask is that he should look at it again to see whether he cannot give us some hope that he may be able, as a result of discussion, to find some means of securing that these two bodies will consult together, not in order that each of them may have the most attractive programme but in order that the viewer may have a fair alternative.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I should like briefly to suggest to the Government that there is a simple way of implementing the proposal that has just been made by my noble and learned friend. The noble Earl has said that consultations between the Authority and the B.B.C. will be necessary. Would the Government be prepared to ask the B.B.C., and the Authority, when it is set up, to discuss the content of their programmes in advance, with a view to avoid overlapping, so far as possible. If the Government were prepared to say that they would ask the two Authorities to consult in this way, and the Authorities agreed to do it, then clearly the statutory obligation implied in this Amendment would be unnecessary. I think the next step, if I might suggest it, that of putting this idea to the B.B.C., and, later on, putting it to the I.T.A., and their saying that they were willing to do it, would go a long way towards achieving what my noble and learned friend has just asked.

4.39 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR

It seems to me that we have got at slight cross-purposes, but on the whole I think we mean the same thing. It is really a question of how best to deal with the matter. Obviously, in the most highly competitive industries you have a getting together of the heads of the industries for what I would call common-sense purposes. I am quite sure that on this and many other points there will have to be discussions between those responsible for the B.B.C. and those responsible for the I.T.A. I would go further and say that I believe there is room both for economy and increased efficiency if they will collaborate on many technical matters. I can well see that there are many useful points on which they should be asked to get together. I have used the words "should be asked." Naturally, I am prepared to give the Committee an assurance that I will ask them. I make only this qualification. I believe that when noble Lords see the type of men who will be responsible for the I.T.A. they will be satisfied that they will comprise the sort of body which will naturally take a responsible view of its position and collaborate with the B.B.C., just as I am sure the B.B.C. will want to collaborate with the new Authority. All I can do is to give your Lordships an assurance that, in so far as my intervening and bringing to bear any influence that I may have may be necessary—I sincerely hope that it will not be, because I think they ought to get together on their own—I certainly undertake to do that, with the object of ensuring the maximum of collaboration and co-operation between these two bodies for all constructive purposes.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

May I suggest that this is not really a technical matter at all? I am sure that the B.B.C. will be ready to colloque with the I.T.A. on such questions as using their wireless masts, and other things of that sort, in common. No doubt they are already preparing to do that, and other similar things. But this is a purely financial matter. The programme companies depend on getting a large advertisement revenue. The most valuable hours that they can secure for their public are the hours before or after, let us say, the Cup Final or other things in which the whole or a large part of the population is interested. They will not give up their advertisement to the B.B.C. and say, "The B.B.C. can have the Cup Final this year, and we will have it next year." If they are going to pay, the programme companies are solely concerned, while observing the provisions of the Act of Parliament, in collecting a clientele, a viewing public, which will be remunerative to their paymasters, the advertisers.

The B.B.C. is doing at the present time the very thing that these two bodies are now to be called upon to co-operate in. Every day the B.B.C. is allocating subjects between the Home Service Programme, the Light Programme and the Third Programme, or between the central corporation and the regional. Within the organisation, that is a matter of incessant conversation, regulation and distribution. But now this Bill throws the whole subject into confusion, and quite deliberately is creating a separate competing outside authority; and the two are left to struggle together over which is to have the programmes that are most likely to attract the whole population. Are we to suppose that one or other is going to televise a ceremony like the Coronation and that the other shall not do so? It is an impossibility, and this is just another example of the complete confusion into which this Bill is throwing the whole undertaking of television.

LORD KENSWOOD

I thank the noble Earl the Postmaster General for his assurances. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The next Amendment is No. 39: page 6, line 24, leave out ("political") and insert ("controversial").

VISCOUNT WAVERLEY

It is not moved.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

I think it would be a pity if this Amendment were not even brought to the notice of the Committee, because it seems to me that important points are involved in it. Your Lordships will observe that the proviso on page 6, which this Amendment seeks to amend, provides that nothing in the previous paragraph shall prevent the inclusion in the programmes of relays of the whole … of a series of the British Broadcasting Corporation's party political broadcasts. The second sub-paragraph provides for the inclusion in the programmes of properly balanced discussions or debates where the persons taking part express opinions and put forward arguments of a political character. It is surely highly desirable that upon this programme which, for some time at any rate—we fear for all too long a time—may be the only alternative programme, there should be live, controversial discussion about matters of public interest, and no doubt that was the intention of the drafters of the Bill. But, unfortunately, they have limited it to discussions of a political character, if I understand the clause right. There are wide ranges of controversy suitable for debate on television which are not political subjects, and the purpose of this Amendment as I read it—though I am not one of its sponsors—is to widen the possibility of controversial discussion to include other than political subjects. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 24, leave out ("political") and insert ("controversial").—(Lord Wilmot of Selmeston.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think there is a misunderstanding here, and I daresay that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who has read the Bill more thoroughly, was careful not to move the Amendment. This deals only with paragraph (h) on page 6, and the noble Lord will see that paragraph (h) deals only with the interests of any political Party. Accordingly, it is not necessary to insert the word "controversial," because the only subject in the proviso is "political." If the noble Lord is anxious that these will not be enough controversy in political discussion, I think his anxiety could be allayed.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (1) to insert: (2) (a) It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that not less than an average of 80 per cent. of the transmission time of any station over each period of thirteen weeks shall be occupied by British programmes. This percentage shall be applied separately to peak and off-peak periods as defined by the Authority from time to time.

1. (b) A programme shall for the purposes of this subsection be deemed to be British if and only if—
1. (i) The originator of the programme is a British subject ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or a British company carrying on business in the United Kingdom and having its principal place of business therein; and
2. (ii) The place of origin of the programme in within the United Kingdom; and
3. (iii) The whole of the labour costs of the programme subject to the provisions of subparagraph (b) (iv) have been paid or are payable in respect of the labour or services of British subjects ordinarily resident in, or persons domiciled in, the United Kingdom;
4. (iv) When the provisions of sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) are satisfied and those of sub-paragraph (iii) are only partly satisfied the programme shall be deemed to occupy a proportion of its actual transmitting time equivalent to the percentage of labour costs attributable to the labour or services of British subjects as defined in subparagraph (iii), provided that not less than 50 per cent. of the labour costs is so attributable.
2. (c) For the purposes of this subsection "labour costs" in relation to a programme means the total sums paid or payable in respect of the labour or services of persons directly engaged in the production of the programme in so far as such payments are attributable to the programme:

Provided that where no specific sum is paid or payable or where it appears to the Authority that any sum paid or payable is so great or so small as not to be a bona fide payment by way of remuneration for the labour or services in question, then for the purposes of this subsection there shall be deemed to be paid or payable a sum assessed by the Authority as the value of such labour or services in the light of sums currently payable it respect of labour or services of a similar character. (d) For the purposes of this subsection—

1. (i) Fees paid or payable for the use of copyright material shall be deemed to be part of the labour costs of the programme;
871
2. (ii) The author adaptor translator and editor of the script of a programme shall be deemed to be persons directly engaged on the production of the programme;
3. (iii) A person shall not be deemed to be directly engaged on the production of a programme by reason only that he is financially interested in the production of the programme or is engaged in an administrative or clerical capacity as an officer or servant of an undertaking concerned with the production of the programme; or that he supplies goods used in the production of the programme or is in the employment of persons who supply such goods; or that he is engaged in the processing of a recorded programme."

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which seeks to put upon the Authority the duty to secure a quota of transmission time of any station over which television is being provided. It is rather wider than Amendment No. 33 which I moved previously, and it is an attempt to set out in considerable detail the manner in which this quota would be exercised by defining carefully what is British, what are labour costs and so on. I must recognise that the feeling of the Committee, if not the votes, are not entirely sympathetic this afternoon to the idea of a quota. Therefore, I do not propose either to explain this rather lengthy Amendment, or even try to argue the case, because it is based entirely on the contention that a quota is a desirable thing. But underlying it is the point which I argued before, and which I think was conceded very largely by the noble Viscount Lord Swinton who replied: that it was desirable that, to as considerable an extent as possible, the contents of the programmes—and in the case of television the transmission time—should be British, and an attempt has been made to define it. I shall be glad to hear from whoever is to reply what steps are being taken. As I say, in view of the earlier discussion, I do not propose to press this, but I think the Committee is entitled to know—because I imagine the Committee is generally in favour of the broad idea of giving as large a preference as possible to British programmes—what the Government propose doing to implement that idea. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 24, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I entirely agree with my noble friend below me when he said that he did not propose to press the Amendment. That was the only part of his speech which really affected my argument. This is a totally misconceived Amendment—

LORD SILKIN

Before the noble Viscount gets too excited, I should not like him to get too excited on false premises. He thinks that I have not moved the Amendment, and I have moved it.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

That is a most vital affair—the Amendment has been moved; therefore I am at liberty to examine it on its merits, if any. It is a totally misconceived conception, if the object is to encourage British art and have the finest television show available, whether from the B.B.C. or the I.T.A But if you are going to make a parochial hole-in-the-corner, in which no one can come unless he is of 80 per cent. British blood, or the shareholders are of British blood, you kill the whole thing from an art point of view. This thing is a great educational agency; it is something we hope to be proud of. Now we come with a whole rigmarole of tests which are to be applied. We found out that under an earlier Amendment broadcasts from the main parts of the British Commonwealth would be excluded. It is not a British Commonwealth; it is a Commonwealth which is very largely non-British.

The second point is that 80 per cent. of the time is to be devoted to what is described as "British programmes." The whole wording could be riddled but after the reproof from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I dare not make more than the briefest remarks. What is meant by British labour? Suppose the Hungarian footballers are going to be shown. The fellows are foreigners, I regret to say, but they are a definite part of the show. Instead of showing them, you have to show a local team playing a second eleven, because they are British. Equally, you could not have a leading prima donna because she is not British. The fact of the matter is that we have made a great contribution to art and culture in the world, but it has been because we have had open minds and have not attempted to apply silly little principles of tariff reform to the great cause of art.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

I am not surprised that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has left the Front Bench, because last night he delivered himself in scathing, terms upon a modest little phrase in this Bill: that the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British. Unfortunately, the OFFICIAL REPORT of the latter part of last night's proceedings is not yet with us, but he was sustained by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, whose words are on record and whose opinions do not differ from those of the noble Earl. In the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 188 (No. 87). col. 393) he described this poor, modest little phrase about British style and character as barbarous, illiterate, Philistine nonsense, without the benefit of the Parliamentary draftsman. He added: This is sheer artistic censorship, of the worst possible kind. Culture is international. European culture is based not upon these islands but upon the whole Continent of Europe. … If that language could be used about a modest little phrase which the Government have offered to reconsider, what is to be said about this Amendment, which puts the Authority in a complete straitjacket, wraps it up in a Union Jack and almost requires that Rule, Britannia and God Save the Queen be sung on every programme.

It is true that I am new to the House, but I never believed that I should hear from the Front Bench opposite such jingoistic claims as we have heard this afternoon. Before this programme could be put before viewers, the most elaborate mathematical calculation would have to be made, for under this Amendment 80 per cent. of the programmes have to be British. The originator has to be British. That would rule out the Edinburgh Festival right away, because any foreign impressario who graced these shores and gave us the benefit of his skill and experience would, under these proposals, be taboo. The place of origin of the programme must be within the United Kingdom—that, I suggest, must be termed the Everest clause—and the whole of the labour costs of the programme have to be payable in respect of British labour. I think it is a very fortunate thing that it is on record for the whole world to see what kind of Authority would be produced, and what kind of programme would be shown, if noble Lords opposite had their way. I am glad the noble Lord has moved the Amendment, but I am even,more glad that he is about to withdraw it.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I thoroughly enjoyed hearing the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, because that is the line we should like the entertainment industry to take—that is, they should be on the attack with a view to getting reciprocal rights in America and other parts of the world. In fact, Lord Silkin's Amendment also goes a long way, because he is emphasising not British but United Kingdom tone and style. He is confining it right down to that, which goes further than the film quota. It is said about labour that we have to be certain that opportunities of employment in the industry are not lost. With your Lordships' permission, I will read part of a resolution passed by the American Federation of Labor two years ago at the Film Council in Hollywood. It began: Whereas we deem it grossly unfair and improper for American industry to attempt to sell American production to American workers by means of advertising films that have been made in foreign countries by foreign workers with the specific purpose of avoiding the wage and living standards which make purchases of our products in America possible … That resolution puts the other side of the matter. That is the sort of retaliation we want to get rid of. I am glad to say that British trade unions are making representations to their colleagues in America: they are saying, "If we allow 20 per cent. into this country, you must not worry if 1 or 2 per cent. of British stuff goes to America." That is the position at the present time. This will be a matter for the I.T.A. when it is appointed, but I notice that the B.B.C. recently made a contract in this direction: they obtained a certain amount of material from America, and I hope that a certain amount will be going back.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Is it not a fact that special machinery exists for protecting the interests of labour?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Yes, there is, at the end.

LORD SILKIN

I was very interested in, and received a certain amount of entertainment from, the two former Liberals who are to-day sitting in art opposite direction. It is amusing that although they have travelled a long way from those days, they are still very much of one view. I did not appreciate that the principle behind this Amendment was one from which the Government were now dissenting. I thought we were on common ground—indeed, it was the reply of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that the Government were in favour of ensuring that a large proportion of the programme would be British, and that the only disagreement between us was on whether a specific quota should be stated in the Bill or whether it should be left to the Authority. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has gone very much further than that. When noble Lords opposite read their briefs it ought to be quite clear that they are getting the same kind of briefs on the same Amendments, otherwise business becomes very difficult. I made a short statement on the assumption that, in spite of the noble Lord on this side and the noble Lord on that, we were in agreement on the objectives of this Bill; and it was only for that reason—accepting the assurance that we were in agreement but that the Government preferred to do it some other way by ensuring that the Authority were going to carry out this principle—that I said I would not press the Amendment. But if there is any idea that the Government are against the principle of securing the preference for British programme time then the position is very different indeed.

I may say that this is not a "one man" proposal: this is a proposal which is backed. as I said on an earlier Amendment, by all the organisations concerned with the entertainment world. Of course they have to give value; they have to produce the best programmes they can. But they have to be given a chance; and whereas they are quite prepared to face fair competition, some of the competition which they have had to face has been unfair. For example, there has been the importation of films produced in America, the cost of which has already been paid for by American viewers and which can thus be imported into this country at a low rate. The noble Earl himself read out the resolution of the American trade unions, and it indicates that we should be in a strong position if we were able to take reciprocal action. I feel that the reply of the noble Earl is not satisfactory and rather detracts from what was said earlier, with complete satisfaction so far as I was concerned, by the noble Viscount. I should be glad if the noble Earl would reconcile those two statements and give us the assurance which I hoped to receive when I originally moved the Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think the noble Lord is labouring this Amendment unnecessarily. I did not repeat every argument used by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, because I did not want to bore the Committee; but what I did do was to try to emphasise certain aspects of this matter which seemed important, because every word the noble Viscount has said I endorse. What I did say then—possibly I over-emphasised it in the excitement from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—was that reciprocal action (the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, emphasised that) was very important. I said that it was important to protect labour in this country, in certain cases. Of course we accept the proposition that a great deal of it must be British in origin—there is no question about that. How we do it is another matter, but I should be very happy if 40 per cent. were American in this country and 40 per cent. were British in America. If somebody made an arrangement of that sort, it would be satisfactory. But putting a fixed quota to some extent restricts that flexibility which might be more advantageous. I do not think the noble Lord need be anxious about withdrawing his Amendment.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Earl has gone a little bit nearer to what I had in mind. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2), after the first word "contractor" to insert "or advertiser." The noble Earl said: In the temporary absence of my noble and learned Leader, I think I can put the case for this Amendment on his behalf briefly. Subsection (2) of Clause 3 deals with the views of certain persons on political and other controversial subjects, which views it will be the duty of the Authority to exclude from broadcasts or from publications. These persons are the Authority itself and its employees, and the programme companies and their employees. This is the accepted practice in the case of the B.B.C., and it is right that in setting up a new organisation of this kind the same practice should be applied. I must say that if the views of the Authority on these controversial subjects are to be excluded, I cannot see why the views of the firms of advertisers who pay for time for advertisements in these programmes should not also be excluded. It would seem to be quite logical to exclude all three categories of persons from taking an active part in political and other controversial discussions that may be broadcast by any of the programme companies. I hope very much that, even if this Amendment cannot be accepted, the Government can give us some assurance that it is the intention in any case that advertisers and their employees shall be excluded in the same way as the other persons mentioned in this subsection. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 33, after ("contractor") insert ("or advertiser").—(The Earl of Listowell.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I ask the noble Earl what he means by "advertiser"? Does he mean "advertising agent" or does he just mean anybody who uses television for advertising?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am speaking on behalf of my noble and learned friend—

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I know, but it is very important.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

—and I should not like to take the responsibility of saying how he would define the word "advertiser." But I can speak for myself, at any rate, and I would say that "advertiser" ought to cover either "advertising agent" or an advertising firm—either agents employed by advertisers or the advertisers themselves.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

The definition of "advertiser" by the noble Earl would mean anyone who is connected, as a director or as a partner, with a concern that uses the television medium for advertising. I submit that that is far too wide. We might lose the services of Mr. Malcolm Muggeridge in "In the News," because Punch was using television as an advertising medium. One could cite many other instances. Suppose The Times chose to advertise, as it might well do, through this new medium; then Sir William Haley would be precluded by the noble Earl from taking part in some very useful discussions to which he could give an important contribution. I thick that the noble Earl, on reflection, will find that his definition goes far too wide and that the Amendment is not really necessary.

THE EARL of SELKIRK

This subsection relates to the subject of paragraph (g) above—that is, due impartiality in political or industrial controversy and in matters of current public policy. We want due impartiality, and we put that straight obligation at Clause 3 (1) (g), and we have added something to it. We have added this: that there should be no. What might be described as, "editorials"—that is to say, either by the Authority or by the programme contractors—in the sense in which any paper like The Times might contain an editorial. We think it is undesirable that even high-minded men like those who will serve the I.T.A. or programme contractors should be in such a strong position as to give a personal view on television, so we are inclined to cut that out. I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, is absolutely right in saying that if that is extended from the programme contractors and the Authority to all the people who may be advertising, all their employees and all their directors, it will cut out, or may cut out, a substantial body of people holding responsible positions, who have nothing to do with television and are possibly not the least interested in it, from taking part in important discussions.

The point at issue is: Can they use their privileged position in any way advantageously? I really do not think they can, in any sense. Perhaps I may take the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, as an example. He was, I believe, connected with the Co-operative Movement. If the "Co-ops" had chosen to advertise in this field, it would not have affected his views if he had spoken on some political controvery. I think it would be a great pity if he could not take part, just because his concern was in some way connected with advertising on television. I think it goes too wide and there is not the slightest danger of any undue influence being exercised.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I entirely agree with the view that the line has to be drawn very carefully, and it would be the gravest mistake to exclude from taking part In political discussions many responsible people whose businesses might at some time or other be connected with this broadcasting service. In that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Earl opposite. At the same time, as I think the noble Earl himself admits, there is some risk of undue influence. He said he thought that risk could be discounted. and I hope he is right.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I said that there is a privileged position of the Authority and the programme companies. I do not think I said that there was any risk of undue influence from the advertisers, who have, after all, nothing whatsoever to do with the programmes. We are dealing only with the programmes here. Advertisements, as such, are dealt with by another provision altogether.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I am much obliged for the reference to myself made by the noble Earl, but I must say that it has drawn me in, whereas otherwise I might not have been drawn in at all. The whole clause is very interesting. It brings us up against not only the word in the Amendment, "advertiser." but also "programme contractors." I have been very quiet about this Bill. I am sure I have not been objectionably obstructive about it. But if you are going to mention the Cooperative Society, with which I used to be connected by which I am now honourably superannuated, you are raising a great difficulty. You are raising something which affects trade, political views and everything else. It seems to me that, by this clause, you are going to exclude them from ever becoming programme contractors, although they are most adequately fitted to be one. Certainly I think a clause of this sort will be used objectively against their taking part, although they have been engaged for decades in organising entertainments, arranging debates, examining philosophies and the like. Apparently they will not have a chance to become a programme contractor for the production of programmes which could emanate entirely from or be contributed to by literary, musical and other elements contained within the training part of the movement, and all because of this particular clause. I must say the noble Earl has brought me to my feet on something I wanted to mention before in connection with the Bill, and I do protest about it.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I really think the noble Viscount has misunderstood this. Certainly the intention is not that. All it says here is that programme contractors cannot express their own views. I cannot, for the life of me, see how that would affect the Co-operative Societies if they wanted to advertise. The only thing before us is whether it should extend to someone who is advertising.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

It applies directly to programme contractors. This clause will practically exclude the whole of the great organisation of Co-operative endeavour, including all the things which some subsidiary organisations of the Co-operative Societies have already been broadcasting quite frequently upon the sound service. I should say that this would handicap them from ever becoming their own programme contractors.

EARL DE LA WARR

The speech the noble Viscount has just delivered is a fairly strong argument against the Amendment and for leaving the clause as it is. I do not think he heard the beginning of the discussion or he would not have intervened. Perhaps I can suggest, for the benefit of his friend, Lord Listowel, who is trying to push the other way, that he should leave him to handle it.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I think there is a danger of some degree of undue influence. It might happen in this way: the programme contractor might invite, responsible people certainly, but people connected with firms that were doing advertising, that were engaged by them, or that were paying for advertisements in their programme, so as to give undue bias to their views as compared with other people who might be invited to take part.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This deals only with political controversy.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am talking about political controversy. I am saying that you might get too one-sided a view because the programme contractors might invite the representatives of those firms to the exclusion of other people better qualified to present a more balanced political argument. I think that is a real danger. At the same time, I do think the Amendment goes too wide, and I do not consider it meets the danger which it was designed to meet. For that reason, I ask leave of the House to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (2); "or having a substantial shareholding therein". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 44. In view of the statement of the noble Earl, explaining the provisions of Clause 2, I do not think I need enlarge upon the purpose of it. The object of my Amendment is to accept the clause and accept the purpose of it, but to make quite sure that it really does achieve in all respects the purpose it had in mind. The clause provides that partners in a firm of programme contractors are excluded from taking part in publications; and it provides also that a body of persons haying control of a corporation are excluded.

I want to go just a little further and provide that those who have a substantial holding in a corporation should be excluded. My reason is simply this: that those of us who have any experience of companies will know that a body of persons having a substantial holding are quite often very influential indeed, and if they co-operate can very largely determine the policy of the company. It is not essential that there should be a majority holding; a substantial proportion can in many cases achieve the same result. In order to be consistent, therefore, what we are really aiming at is that any body or group of people who can influence the decision of a corporation should be excluded. I feel, like my noble friend, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that this clause is a very wide one. For instance, you may have a partnership of eight or nine people. You are excluding any person who is a partner in a firm. He may not even control the firm, but this clause excludes him. This Amendment is much stronger; it excludes a group of people having a substantial shareholding. I think, to be consistent, these words ought to be included. I therefore beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 36, at end insert the said words.—(Lord silkin.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is the same clause and I do not think I need explain it again, except to say that this is by way of being an extension of the safeguards provided in paragraph (g) in regard to impartiality in public policy. We have effectively excluded the Authority and its servants, the programme contractor and his servants, and the controller. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, takes out the extreme instance of someone who may have a very effective control over one of the programme contractors but is not a director; he has not control, either direct or indirect. I would refer the noble Lord to Clause 17, where the word "control" is defined, if he has not looked at it already, which he probably has. The Amendment excludes somebody who is not a director and who has not got control, either direct or indirect.

I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. He admits that this clause is pretty widely drawn, by bringing in partners and that type of person. In what circumstances will a man be in a position of holding such a substantial holding that he can exercise influence but not be a director? I would suggest that that is almost always the case of a rigged company, or a rigged board of directors. If that is not the case, I do not quite see how he exercises control. If the directors are not his nominees, or if the board is not rigged, how can he exercise control? He may put his money in as a form of investment. The noble Lord can haw no objection to that. What he objects to is that the man exercises influence. The only way he can exercise influence is by nominating directors, and, with great respect, I should call that a rigged company. If it is a rigged company, it will be unsatisfactory to the I.T.A.—for a large number of reasons.

To begin with, the requirements of impartiality in paragraph (g) will certainly begin to show themselves. The I.T.A. will be on their guard against it, and the various safeguards will come into play. But the moment anything of that sort, directly or indirectly, came to the attention of the I.T.A., I am quite certain that they would be fully justified in using their powers under the Third Schedule. These powers are pretty extensive. They envisage that some unfortunate use would be made of the powers which this man possesses. With great respect to the noble Lord, l suggest that the circumstances envisaged are utterly remote; that even if they did exist, there is ample provision in this Bill to deal with them. I really do not think we need to add what in any case is only another safeguard. I do not think there is any danger in the point that the noble Lord has in mind, and I hope he will withdraw the Amendment.

LORD SILKIN

I think that the noble Earl is rather "playing down" the importance of this Amendment. I think it is important, and I do not think it is remote. I can quite conceive a body of people who have not a majority holding being able to exercise important influence over the policy of a company. However, I do not attach particular importance to this Amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will look at it again. I shall not press it. I do not think there is anything of policy between us. If we want to make these safeguards really watertight, I believe that this is worth looking at again. I hope the Government will do that. In the meantime, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.24 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved, in subsection (3) to leave out "of significant value," where that phrase first occurs. The noble Viscount said: For the reasons which I gave yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is unable to be here, and I am moving this Amendment on his behalf. I am sure that it will already have occurred to the Committee that the object of this Amendment and the next is to preclude the possibility of prizes being offered by way of advertisement, whether they are or are not in connection with competitions. I must say that it seems to me almost incredible that one should put into a Statute words of this kind, words which may afterwards have to be interpreted in a court. How is one to decide what is a prize "of significant value"? We all know enough of the enormously wide range of prizes now offered by way of trade advertisements. One has the scale extending upwards to one or two motor-cars, or the cost of a free Continental holiday; or it may be confined to quantities of soap as a free gift, or biscuits as a free gift, or things of that kind.

It may, however, be interpreted very widely in other directions. If, through this limited provision for programme contractors, a co-operative advertiser obtained the opportunity to advertise co-operative sales, would the offer of dividends be "of significant value?" What are the actual benefits of becoming a trading co-operative member just by advertisement? Is the fact that they will get a dividend "of significant value"? Where lies the beginning and end of the interpretation of this phrase? I cannot possibly see how these words can be administered. I feel that when the Government have looked at this matter impartially they will see that the desirable objective at which they are aiming in this subsection will be endangered as a result of the inclusion of these words and the later lines of the subsection. That is why I want to prevent them from legislating at all for advertisements that offer prizes. I do not see how such a provision can be difficult to administer. It would be quite easy and quite fair to all the other people, whether or not they advertise through this particular medium.

I emphasise most strongly that not only will there be enormous controversy, between advertisers advertising through the contractors, but there will be differences of interpretation placed by the viewers upon the offers made over the television. I think that will lead to all sorts of difficulties. There are certain forms of trade advertisements contained in reputably published and clearly printed journals in which there is almost a form of contract as to what the prize will be and how it will be either given or competed for. But in the case of television and broadcasting I think that it is quite illusory—it will not be possible to create any impression upon the mind of the individual as to what is going to be the result of the advertisement. Therefore, I hope that the Government may reconsider the matter straight away, and will agree to this Amendment, which will make it perfectly clear that prizes may not in any circumstances whatever be offered on television. After all, the Government have not given us very much in regard to this Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 39, leave out ("of significant value").—(Viscount Alexander of Hills-borough.)

EARL JOWITT

I should like to reinforce in a few words what has been said by my noble friend. I think the Government are quite right here in applying the principle to prohibit prizes and gifts, but I think that they should do it rather more clearly, without this qualifying phrase. What is a prize "of significant value?" To Mr. Rockefeller it would be one standard, but to a schoolboy who is prepared to pick up hot pennies it is quite another. These words may have to be construed by the courts, and it is going to be extremely difficult for the court to say whether the prize offered is "of significant value." Why not say simply that there must not be prizes or gifts? That is a very simple way out. I hope the noble Earl will give us this Amendment. It is a small Amendment, and does not in any way touch the vitals of the Bill—in fact, I think it improves the Bill.

We have had practically nothing from the Government; they have made no concession whatever on this Bill, except for two or three to which we are coming immediately, and which were offered before this Bill was debated in this House. As a result of our debates in this House we have got nothing whatever, and one wonders whether we are serving any useful purpose here at all, or whether we had not better pack up and say to the Government, "Well, this is your Bill; you had better take it away and administer it." This matter concerns the working of the House. I venture to say that your Lordships will be giving nothing away by agreeing to this Amendment. It would be more satisfactory to say in plain language that the giving of gifts or prizes is prohibited and to strike out this very difficult and ambiguous phrase, "of significant value." I see that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, is preparing to say something. Where it is possible to get clarity of language perfectly easily, as here, I believe that the noble Lord will be on our side, perhaps for the first time but I hope not for the last.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

May I ask Lord Jowitt this question? As I understand it, the Amendment would apply to what is broadcast, whether in an advertisement or not; that means that it would apply in the programme. Obviously, it would have to apply to the B.B.C. equally, and would it not have the effect of washing out those very harmless but enjoyable little gifts that Mr. Pickles gives—"Give 'em the money, Barney," is, I think, the expression he uses—or even giving insignificant things like certificates to someone who has beaten the Panel in the "What's my line?" programme? Would not that be the effect of what the noble and learned Earl suggests?

EARL JOWITT

I do not think so, certainly not in respect of certificates given on "What's my line?" I do not know anything about Mr. Pickles' programme.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

He gives away a few shillings.

EARL JOWITT

I have not competed in that particular programme or won a prize, but I think it is best to have no prizes at all.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

You would spoil a lot of people's fun.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

In view of what happens in American broadcasting, I should like to ask whether the Government have in mind to permit or prohibit this kind of prize-giving. When I was last in America I tuned in to a broadcast programme modelled on our "Twenty Questions," to which I often listen in this country; but there every question was connected with a prize gift. At the end of each question the announcer said, "This question was sent in by Mrs. So-and-so, of such-and-such an address. She has accordingly received a valuable crocodile skin leather case made by Messrs. So-and-so, of No. 499 124th Street, New York." A similar announcement followed every question when the answer wags given, and similar crocodile skin leather cases were awarded. The consequence was that the questions were hurried over and were not nearly so good as our "Twenty Questions" programme, because the announcer wanted to get them finished as quickly as possible in order to have as many repetitions of the advertisement within the given time as could be got in; because, of course, every one was paid for. I want to know whether that kind of gift system, which might grow to an enormous extent on these advertisement programmes, is to be allowed in this country or not. Does this clause apply to it or not? I imagine that it does not apply because it says: or any gift of significant value, being a prize or gift which is available only to persons receiving that programme, or in relation to which any advantage is given to such persons. The people who receive the gifts are persons who send in the questions, and the advantage goes to the shopkeeper who provides the prizes—perhaps ten of them given within a quarter of an hour. That is a concrete example of the kind of thing which will become rife all over this country as soon as this Bill comes into operation.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think we must all regard the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, as a most fortunate person, in that he seems to be in the happy position of feeling it is an open question whether a crocodile skin case is "of significant value" or not. Most of us who live more humble lives are perfectly clear in our minds that a crocodile skin case, particularly when it is described as of value, is, in fact, "of significant value." On this question, I confess that I have a very open mind. As the noble and learned Earl said, we are completely together in principle. The real "give away" programme is most undesirable, and we have made that perfectly clear in the Bill. But one does not want to be silly. We know that quite simple people in villages are sometimes harried because of little raffles that they run. They are very harmless, and although there is a little legal quibble they get round it, and then have trouble about it. We do not want to start that kind of thing. Noble Lords who listen in to the B.B.C., will know that Wilfred Pickles now runs a good programme where the successful person to answer a certain number of questions gets a pound in his hand. It might even be that if we accepted this Amendment the B.B.C. would have to cut out certain elements in its "What's my Line?" programme. I should be sorry, to accept an Amendment that led to our having to prevent the B.B.C. from carrying on quite innocent programmes like that. We are really at one on this, and perhaps we can have a discussion between now and Report in order to see whether we can deal with this subject on a reasonable basis.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I am obliged for the answer of the noble Earl, the Postmaster General. I do not accept at all the analogy of the Wilfred Pickles programme. That is not a case of an advertiser giving away prizes; it is a gift to people in the localities which he visits for the purpose of entertaining them and others who listen-in in other districts. There is no point in that illustration at all.

EARL DE LA WARR

The clause refers to programmes; the Amendment would apply to Wilfred Pickles.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Why this should apply to the B.B.C. I do not know. We are seeking to apply this to an advertising arrangement—a very different thing. There is to be no advertising on the B.B.C. I am quite willing, however, to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl that we should have conversations about this matter before the Report stage of the Bill, and an that understanding we will withdraw the Amendment.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Let us be quite clear. I have not gone into this, but we can enter conversations only on the assumption that if an imposition or prohibition is put upon this undertaking, there should be a similar obligation upon the B.B.C. We should not like to go into conversations on any other basis. No advertiser may offer a significant prize in the advertising part; therefore, what we are dealing with here is the programme itself and a prize that is part of, or arises out of, the programme. That would not be permitted. It would be quite wrong to impose such a restriction on the undertaking we are setting up unless we also do it to the B.B.C. It is exactly like the other things we are discussing. I do not want to discuss it further but, so that we shall have no misunderstanding, I think that would be the view of the Government if it were discussed.

EARL JOWITT

Has the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, already discussed with the B.B.C. the question of putting upon them a prohibition in respect of prizes "of significant value"?

EARL DE LA WARR

We should deal with that as it occurred, and it has not yet occurred.

EARL JOWITT

You have a perfect illustration on this Bill; you are proposing, I think very rightly, to prevent any prizes of significant value being given, and with regard to the B.B.C. you have made no such statement. Therefore I merely suggest that in our conversations that question (which is one which should certainly be discussed) might be left open.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think we have made our own point clear. I made the suggestion of discussions only in order to meet noble Lords opposite. If you feel you want to continue this controversy here that may be done; but I thought my offer of talks might be helpful.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I am quite prepared to discuss the matter, but it was narrowed by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, to such close confines. I am quite prepared to join in conversations to see whether we cannot come to an understanding. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.40 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL moved to add to the clause: (4) Except with the previous approval of the Authority, there shall not be included in any programme broadcast by the Authority—

1. (a) any religious service or any propaganda relating to matters of a religious nature;
2. (b) any item, whether an advertisement or not, which gives or is designed to give publicity to the needs or Objects of any association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes."

The right reverend Prelate said: I am afraid that, speaking on another Amendment, as the circumstances were a little unexpected and unfamiliar to me, I may have given the impression of not quite knowing my own mind. But I am certain that in moving this Amendment I know my own mind very clearly indeed. I believe that this Amendment is essential to the wholesomeness, dignity and freedom of religious broadcasting. I am thankful to know that Her Majesty's Government are inclined favourably to consider it, and therefore I need spend little time in presenting the case. There are, however, just one or two things which I would ask leave to say.

A few moments ago I said that I believed the Amendment was essential to the freedom of religious broadcasting. I am not one who is ever afraid of argument, or discussion, or even controversy, in religion. I believe that sound religion thrives on that; I am in favour of the fullest possible opportunity for it on the air. But even in religious discussion and controversy there are, I suppose, such things as Queensberry Rules, and it is desirable that these rules should be kept. These Amendments which I am proposing are not intended in any way to short-circuit the freedom of expression of different convictions and traditions. They are intended only to prevent what I believe Members of this House would wish to prevent—what I would call an unregulated, competitive buying of time in order to sell particular denominational or religious views. That I believe to be a most undesirable practice which we should wish to prevent. There are those, I think, who might well hope that this new medium of television might afford them an opportunity for that particular kind of activity. I hope that the Committee will be prepared to accept this Amendment. It affords, I believe, a fair, honest and effective way of preventing the undesirable practice of which I have spoken. I beg to move.

Amendment moves— Page 6, line 42, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Bishop of Bristol.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I should like to say straight away that I am extremely pleased to accept this Amendment. I do so because I think it effects an improvement in the Bill, and also because I think it is a clarification. That, in itself, is an improvement. There is no question but that there have been some lingering doubts in certain minds on the subject of the buying of time in programmes by religious bodies. Though I took the view that that was made impossible by the machinery of the mandatory Religious Advisory Committee, whose advice was binding on the programme contractors, I think it is very much better to be completely clear on this point. Now everything is subject to the Religious Advisory Committee, excepting where the Authority otherwise decides. The noble Earl, Lord Winterton, has now left the Chamber, but I hope that his attention will be drawn to this. If the Churches' Religious Advisory Committee took, as they never have taken, too narrow a view, then, of course, the last word would rest with the I.T.A. But, having regard to the conduct of the Committee in the past, and in view of what the right reverend Prelate said yesterday, I do not think any of us could possibly conceive of any difficulty arising. I repeat that I am very pleased to accept this Amendment which, as I say, I consider to be an improvement and a clarification.

LORD MATHERS

May I say how pleased I am to hear the words that have fallen from the lips of the noble Earl Lord De La Warr. I think this makes the position which I was endeavouring to contend for last evening much clearer, and this is something that can well be accepted by those who shared the fears and apprehensions that were in my mind. It seems to me that, with the position of the Authority set out as it is, even when they allow things to be done under advice by the Advisory Committee, the final authority still rests with the I.T.A. itself. I am very glad indeed to think that that should be so.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

The right reverend Prelate, in moving this Amendment, dealt with subsection (a) of the Amendment. I cannot see what subsection (b) means or whether it has any relevance to subsection (a). Would the right reverend Prelate be kind enough to explain? Subsection (b) reads: any item, whether an advertisement or not, which gives or is designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes. What has that to do with religious broad-casting?

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL

I think the point is that in addition to buying time on the air it is also possible for well-disposed and wealthy people to offer free time to a body on the air. There are a number of religious bodies which could, I think, very well present their case as being a case for additional funds and additional workers, and which could set out additional needs of various other kinds and, by a rather skilful use of their time, do a good deal of advocacy for their cause under conditions which are left out by subsection (a). I confess that if I had been drafting this Amendment myself, I should have been inclined to use some such words as which is designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association conducted for religious, charitable or benevolent purposes. But it was thought proper to draft this part of the Amendment in this way.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I should like to ask that at the Report stage, it should be drafted in the way suggested. As it stands you could not, for instance, show in a programme a house held by the National Trust or other of the National Trust properties—and the National Trust is a legal charity—without getting the advice of the Religious Advisory Committee, which would be perfectly ridiculous. Would it not be better to put in subsection (b) a special reference to religious charities which would make the matter perfectly clear?

EARL JOWITT

I think the noble Viscount has a rather good point there. I have an Amendment down—it is No. 102—which I intended should deal with this very point. Perhaps this is a matter that might be looked at, and possibly our conversations with the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, might extend to this topic. I think we should all agree that it is very undesirable that associations or organisations which are charities in the ordinary sense should buy time and advertise and compete against each other. I agree with the noble Viscount that if we were to say: "In your programme you are not to refer to any of these good causes" those concerned might find themselves terribly handicapped in what they could put in the programme. I think this is a matter which needs to be looked at, and I will ask the Postmaster General whether we might have a look at it when we are considering the other topics which were mentioned a few minutes ago.

EARL DE LA WARR

The actual purpose of this Amendment is slightly to extend the Authority's surveillance beyond religious matters to charities. At the present moment there is provision for appeals on various programmes, and we feel that appeals made on behalf of charities should be subject to the same rules as on the B.B.C. It should not be a matter of some large charity with plenty of money, who might put on an expensive documentary, getting all the money of the week, and when the "Week's Good Cause" comes along on Sunday, it is found that everybody has already "shelled out." But I am willing to talk with the noble and learned Earl on this matter.

LORD MATHERS

There seems to be some failure to apprehend what is in this Amendment. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, seemed to think that the items referred to in paragraph (b) were being completely prohibited, but that is not so. They can be brought in with the previous approval of the Authority, the supreme body under which this new instrument is being created.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Advertisements

4.—(1) The programmes broadcast by the Authority may, so long as the provisions of this Act are complied with in relation thereto, include advertisements inserted therein in consideration of payments to the relevant programme contractor or, in the case of an advertisement included in a programme or part of a programme provided under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section two of this Act, to the Authority.

5.52 p.m.

EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (1), to omit "under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section two of this Act," and to insert, "by the Authority." The noble Earl said: This is rather a different point. I do not know whether there is any great controversy between us. The Postmaster General will tell me whether there is or not. I am proposing here to do two things—to leave out the words "under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section two of this Act," and to insert "by the Authority." So the subsection will read as follows: The programmes broadcast by the Authority may, so long as the provisions of this Act are complied with in relation thereto, include advertisements inserted therein in consideration of payments to the relevant programme contractor or, in the case of an advertisement included in a programme or part of a programme provided by the Authority, to the Authority. I suggest that that simplifies the matter. I do not know whether the noble Earl has any real objection to that. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 1, leave out from ("provided") to ("to") in line 2 and insert ("by The Authority").—(Earl Jowitt.)

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble and learned Earl is pursuing what was the first stage of my thoughts in this matter. Then it seemed to me that if we were inserting a provision in Clause 9 to provide £750,000 for the express purpose of making it possible to have programmes not connected with advertisements, it would not be logical then to associate them with advertisements, and for that reason I was responsible for this change. I thought the whole purpose of this £750,000 was to make it possible to have programmes to which advertisements were not attached. I hope that the noble and learned Earl will feel convinced and not press the point.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

May I put this point? It would be a duty of the Authority to balance the programme of a commercial company if that company does not produce a balanced programme. That is an obligation. Suppose a company were to put on a lot of light music and very little serious music, then it would be the duty of the Authority to put on serious music, a symphony concert or something of the kind. Under the Bill as it stands they would be prohibited from getting any revenue from advertisements on a programme of that type. That means that the programme of serious music would have to be financed out of the taxpayers' money. Why should not the Authority be given, a chance of saving the taxpayers' money by having the right to invite advertisements for suitable programmes? Obviously a religious programe is not a suitable programme, but if part of their duty is to balance the prograntmes of commercial companies, obviously there are some programes with which advertisements could he associated. I hope the noble Earl will consider whether it would not be to the great advantage of the taxpayers that in suitable cases the Authority should be able to include advertisements in any programme they themselves may provide.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think the noble Earl has made a logical point, but I would say to him that if the programme company were producing a fundamentally unbalanced programme, it is not for the Authority to come in and insert material of their own; it is for the Authority to use their power to compel the programme company to carry out their instructions to provide a balanced programme. On the other hand there might be a particular programme which the Authority were very anxious to have, probably one that was very uncommercial in character, on which they felt it most undesirable to have advertisements. In that case they would have the programme put on and pay for it themselves.

EARL JOWITT

I certainly cannot divide on this Amendment. I will look at it again in the light of the noble Earl's words and consider it. As it is at present, I am anxious to see that if the Authority have default power, then they have the right to make some revenue by advertisements out of the exercise of that power.

EARL DE LA WARR

I would point out to the noble and learned Earl that under Clause 2 (2) (b), where the Authority exercise default power, in the event of there being a gap, they can have advertisements.

EARL JOWITT

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SILKIN

I beg leave to move this Amendment. It is pure and unadulterated drafting. It does in twenty-six words what the original clause does in forty-seven, and I think it does everything that the original clause does.

Amendment moved—

Page 7, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 and insert— ("(4) After consultation with the Authority the Postmaster-General may make regulations by Statutory Instrument amending, repealing, or adding to any of the provisions of the said Schedule:")—(Lord Silkin.)

EARL DE LA WARR

It is not often that any of us succeed in beating the Government draftsman, but in this case he freely admits that this is an improvement and I gladly accept this Amendment, subject to one small point. If the noble Lord would be prepared to omit the words "any of" in the last line but one, I should be grateful, otherwise his paragraph has an unduly limited effect.

LORD SILKIN

Of course, I gladly accept that. It reduces the number of words to twenty-four. I withdraw my Amendment and move it again in its altered form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved—

Page 7, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 and insert— ("(4) After consultation with the Authority the Postmaster-General may make regulations by Statutory Instrument amending, repealing, or adding to the provisions of the said Schedule:")—(Lord Silkin.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

This Amendment and No. 53 are both drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 22.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LIVERPOOL

I understand that this Amendment is consequential to Amendment No. 47, which has already been agreed to, and brings the wording into conformity with that Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 46, after ("needs"), insert ("or objects").—(The Lord Bishop of Liverpool.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

As I have said, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 22, leave out from ("under") to second ("the") in line 23 and insert ("this section").—(Earl De La Warr.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I should like to ask the noble Earl whether "this section" means the whole of Clause 4.

EARL DE LA WARR

We have two obligations in one clause to have the Affirmative Resolution procedure. All we have done is to take those two obligations and put them into one subsection.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

The Affirmative Resolution procedure is retained for the whole clause?

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes, for the whole lot.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause: 5. Without prejudice to any other application to the said advertisements of the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1953, any communication broadcast in the said advertisements, whether an express communication or a communication by representation or inference,—

1. (a) shall be deemed to be a commercial communication for the purposes of section ten of the Patents, etc. (International Conventions) Act, 1938; and
2. (b) if in that communication a trade mark or mark or trade description is used in a manner calculated to lead to the belief that the goods in connection with which it is used are designated or described by that 897 trade mark or mark or trade description, shall constitute the application of a trade description to those goods."

The noble Lord said: This and the next Amendment, in the name of my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, cover the same point and are really alternatives. They deal with complicated questions arising out of the Merchandise Marks Acts which, as your Lordships know, give certain rights to the owners of trade-marks and also lay down certain provisions for the protection of consumers. I can say now that I will withdraw the Amendment if the Postmaster General, or someone, can give me an assurance on the point. I understand that the main point—namely, the protection of the consumer from the use of false descriptions of goods, and so on—is covered by Amendment No. 77 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, which no doubt has been put down on behalf of the Government and under which it is provided that one of the duties of one of the advisory committees to be set up, or arranged, by the Authority, will be to advise as to the exclusion of misleading advertisements from programmes. It may be that in quite simple language that deals with a most complicated problem. If that is so, and if I receive an assurance that that is as far as the Government can go in that direction, I shall be willing to withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 4 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am sure your Lordships are most indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, for moving this Amendment with such brevity and common sense. This is a highly complicated subject. What I would say to the Committee is that if it were necessary to do anything in relation to the Merchandise Marks Acts it should be done in a Merchandise Marks Act; this is not the place to do it. The subject raises a host of complicated considerations with which I need not bother your Lordships now. What I can say to the noble Lord is this. I have here a letter from the Retail Trading Standards Association saying that they thoroughly approve of the new Amendment to the Television Bill—that relates to Amendment No. 77, which will be moved in due course and is designed to prevent mis- leading advertisements. That fully covers the point which did at one time give them a measure of anxiety. I am able to give that assurance to the noble Lord.

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

I am obliged to the noble Earl. I understood him to say that he had the approval or agreement of some association. If that is the British Trading Standards Association, I may say that they are closely concerned with this matter of false descriptions. Having regard to what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5:

Contracts for programmes

5.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that persons who are disqualified persons as defined in this subsection do not become or continue as programme contractors, either alone or in partnership with other persons.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that there is adequate competition to supply programmes between a number of programmes contractors independent of each other both as to finance and as to control; and, in the case of such public ceremonies, public spectacles and important sporting event; as may from time to time be agreed upon between the Authority and the Postmaster-General or, in default of agreement, determined by the Postmaster-General, it shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that no broadcast thereof takes place from any television station as part of the broadcasts of the Authority, unless, in the opinion of the Authority, reasonable facilities are available or reasonable terms for the broadcasting thereof from all television broadcasting stations in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, whether used by the Authority or by the British Broadcasting Corporation.

(5) The contracts between the Authority and the various programme contractors shall contain all such provisions (including provisions for the purposes set out in the Third Schedule to this Act) as the Authority think necessary or expedient to be inserted for complying and securing compliance with the provisions of this Act and any restrictions or requirements imposed thereunder in relation to the programmes provided by the programme contractors:

Provided that the Authority shall not be enabled by any such contract to exercise any such power as is referred to in the said Third Schedule unless they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so having regard to a breach which they apprehend on the part of the programme contractor of any provision included in the contract in pursuance of this subsection.

(6) Every such contract shall in particular contain such provisions as the Authority think necessary or expedient as aforesaid for the payment by the programme contractor to the Authority of sums by way of penalty in the event of such breaches of his contract as may be specified in those provisions, and any such provision as is mentioned in this subsection shall be valid and enforceable in accordance with the terms thereof notwithstanding any rule of law restricting the cases in which or the extent to which provisions for penalties are legally enforceable:

Provided that every such contract shall be such as to secure—

1. (a) that the maximum penalty which may be demanded by the Authority by virtue of this subsection in the case of any breach shall not exceed five hundred pounds; and
2. (b) without prejudice to the power of the parties to agree upon any wider form of arbitration provision, that any dispute whether any such breach of contract has occurred as to give rise to a liability to such a penalty as aforesaid, or as to the amount demanded by way of penalty in respect of any such breach, shall be determined by arbitration.

(7) Without prejudice to the previous provisions of this section, every contract between the Authority and a programme contractor shall contain a provision reserving to the Authority an absolute right, if, in view of any breaches by the programme contractor of his obligations under his contract with the Authority, the Authority, after giving the programme contractor a reasonable opportunity of making representations with respect to the matter, think it necessary so to do, to serve on the programme contractor a notice in writing, taking effect forthwith or on a date stated in the notice, to determine or suspend for such period as may be specified in the notice or until a further notice is given the Authority's obligation to transmit the programmes supplied by the programme contractor (without prejudice, however, to the programme contractor's obligations as to the supply of programmes up to the date when the notice takes effect); and where a notice is given in pursuance of a right reserved in accordance with this subsection, the programme contractor shall not be entitled to any compensation from the Authority or to any refund of any sum previously paid by him or to any relief from any liability which has accrued at the date when the notice takes effect for any sums payable by him to the Authority:

Provided that the contract shall be such as to secure that no notice is given in pursuance of a right reserved as aforesaid unless such penalties as are mentioned in subsection (6) of this section have been paid or agreed to be paid or adjudged by arbitration to be payable by the contractor in respect of breaches of the contract occurring on at least three separate occasions.

(8) The provisions of this section relating to breaches of contract on the part of programme contractors shall be without prejudice to any other remedies of the Authority for the enforcement of their rights in respect of contracts with programme contractors, and shall not, except as expressly provided therein, affect the jurisdiction of any court in respect of such contracts.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

We now come on the Marshalled List of Amendments to Amendment No. 56, but I think that should really come after the Amendments to Clause 5. Therefore, I will call Amendment No. 57.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "to do all that they can." The noble Earl said: The point here is a quite simple one. What I want to ask the Government, in moving this Amendment, is why they wish to qualify the obligation they are placing upon the Authority by the words which I am proposing to leave out. The obligation is perfectly clear. It is one to see that people who are disqualified do not act as programme contractors; and if they do become programme contractors, then they should be removed as soon as possible. What puzzles me—I hope that the noble Earl can explain it satisfactorily—is why this obligation should, as it would seem to me, be weakened by the words "to do all that they can." Presumably, it would be possible, if the wording of the clause were left as it is, for a disqualified person—a foreigner, or whoever it may be—to become a programme contractor if the Authority had done their best but failed to prevent it. There seems to be a certain loophole there. I would hope that the Government could make this obligation unconditional. That is really the simple point of my Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 27, leave out the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I can tell the noble Earl why it was put in this form. Once the Authority know, then obviously there is an obligation upon them to act. If the Authority have ascertained that somebody has become a disqualified person, then there is clearly an obligation on the Authority there and then to do one of two things. If they feel the person has not been gravely at fault, then they should tell him to remedy the defect and become respectable again, as it were—we shall have to deal with that in the next Amendment. On the other hand, if they are satisfied that there is a clear default, then they must say: "You have ceased to be a programme contractor." In order to secure this, they have to find out something which prima facie is not within their knowledge. It is not as if I said to the noble Earl that he must not do so and so. Clearly, the noble Earl would know at once whether he was or was not doing what the Act of Parliament told him not to do. Here the duty to enforce compliance with the Act arises only when they have found out what the circumstances are which makes it a duty for them to act. Therefore, the draftsman preferred to use the words, as it was something the Authority had got to find out, "do all that they can to secure," instead of putting an absolute obligation upon them.

I have taken such legal advice as I can, and I am advised that, so far as we can make out, it would make no difference whether these words are in or not—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would agree with this—because if, in fact, the Authority had taken all reasonable steps they would have complied with the clause. There is no penalty upon them. You cannot put the Authority in the dock and fine them because they have not taken all reasonable steps. Presumably somebody could bring an action for mandamus or some-thing like that. I am very nervous of using all these legal terms, but I am glad to say that the House is almost devoid of legal talent at the moment. I think the best thing for me to do would be to let the lawyers have a look at it and make sure that the provisional legal opinion that they have given me—because I said I did not see why I could not accept this Amendment—is right. If I am correct in what am saying, that it-fact it does not make any difference, then the words will be unnecessary. There are several places in the Act where they are necessary, where it is a case of using your best endeavours to find something out. I do not mind accepting the Amendment now and, if I am told that I am wrong, putting the words back on Report. I will do whatever the noble Earl prefers.

EARL DE LA WARR

I rather hope that the noble Earl will allow them to stay in until we can find out whether they can be omitted, because upon me falls the responsibility of conducting the work of the I.T.A. If I ask them, without any qualification, to secure something, when there is an element of great difficulty in doing that they may say, "You have taken out these words and we, as responsible people, cannot take it on." There is a serious point there. I agree that if the words do not perform a function, then by all means let them come out.

LORD SILKIN

This is not a very big point, but I must confess that, looking at it as objectively as I can, I consider that some words are necessary.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Some words like these?

LORD SILKIN

I am not at all sure that they are the best words, but I do not think you can put an absolute obligation on the Authority which they may not be in a position to fulfil.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am obliged to the noble Lord. I wanted to meet him if I could, but I think we ought to keep the words in for the time being.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am obliged to the noble Viscount and the noble Earl. I think their proposal is entirely reasonable. Let us leave these words in and discuss the matter with the draftsman between now and Report stage. There are three courses open to us: either leave the words as they are now, find another formula, or leave them out.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

If they are to stay in, I do not see that we can have stronger words to tell a person to do his best than "Do all you can."

VISCOUNT WAVERLEY

If you tell a man he is to secure something and he says, "I did everything I could to secure it," that is an answer. We are making very heavy weather over a matter of drafting, believe me, and I know something about this business.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

With that undertaking, I gladly withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.14 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved to add to the first paragraph of subsection (1): without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing it shall be the duty of the Authority to ensure that every contract entered into with a programme contractor provides that if at any time after the execution of the contract it shall appear to the Authority that the programme contractor shall have become or shall have entered into partnership with a disqualified person the contract shall he determined automatically, and it shall be lawful for the Authority in such case to give notice to the programme contractor in writing declaring the contract to be at end, and where such a notice is given but no such disqualification has in fact been incurred the contract shall nonetheless be determined but subject to any right to recover damages for breach thereof which may enure to the benefit of the programme contractors.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is on the same point. I could make a long speech in explanation of it, but I shall be quite content if I receive the same assurance as was given on the previous Amendment that this matter will be looked at again. This Amendment is designed to ensure that the Authority put into their contract a provision that programme contractors are not to appoint as directors, or to go into partnership with, disqualified persons. Looking at this again, I think the penalty of immediate automatic determination of a contract is rather harsh, and on further consideration I do not think I should feel prepared to press it. It is a sanction which might be out of all proportion to the offence involved. On the other hand, as the clause stands there is no sanction at all. The Authority are required to do something, but what is to happen if the programme contractor, despite the pressure of the Authority, defies them? It may or may not be a breach of contract. It would, however, be a breach if words corresponding to my Amendment were included, because it would be part of the contract that they are not to take in disqualified persons. We are now getting on to fine legal points which I should be quite happy to develop, but I do not think the Committee want to do that. Therefore, I will move the Amendment in the hope that the noble Viscount will agree to have it looked at again to ensure that there is some sanction provided in the Bill for people who do something in defiance of the Authority. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 31, at end insert the said words.—(Lord silkin.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Part of this Amendment might be all right, but part of it would certainly not be right at all. Let me take the part that obviously is not right. Supposing that, quite inadvertently, a programme contractor has acquired a shareholding in a company, and that control had passed to somebody on the prohibited list. The noble Lord knows what I mean: it might happen that somebody had acquired a share- holding under somebody's will. When he finds out, the programme contractor has a duty to comply with the Act of Parliament. If the Authority discovered this and the contractor had not, it would be the duty of the Authority to bring it to his notice and tell him to correct it. It would be very unfair in a case like that—and we can all think of other cases—to say that an enormous contract, in which a couple of million pounds had been invested should be determined. Obviously the thing to do is to remedy the mistake as soon as it can be done. The noble Lord accepts that.

The other side of the matter is that we should put into an Act of Parliament something to say that when the Authority are making a contract—and I agree that we depend here on contractual relationship; that is the structure and notion of this—they should put in a clause to say that this and that must be complied with; that you shall not allow yourself to become illegitimate, if I may so phrase it. I doubt whether it is necessary or wise to put those words in, but I will have a look at the point. There is a duty imposed in the Bill upon the Authority to ensure that a programme contractor does not become, or continue to be, disqualified. It may be that that should go into the contract, but if that is so, would not that be forced upon him by the words we have already used—either an absolute obligation or a qualified one to do everything possible to ensure that the proper thing happens? What I think would be dangerous would be, on the expressio unius principle, to say that this and that must be put into the contract. Either everything ought to be in a contract, or nothing, because it is already an obligation under the Act of Parliament. Having said that, I think that is probably the reason why it is not there. I will ask the lawyers to look at this matter, and if they advise that some Amendment is necessary I shall be glad to let the noble Lord know.

LORD SILKIN

I hope that the noble Viscount will appreciate that if the Bill puts an obligation on the Authority there will be no means of enforcing it. I can see that this Amendment goes too far, but I think the noble Viscount has the point, and I am very much obliged to him. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2), after the second "that" to insert: on each broadcasting station operated by the Authority.

The noble Earl said: The noble Viscount opposite will remember that during the Second Reading debate a good deal of anxiety was expressed by several noble Lords, and particularly the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Liberal Party, about the danger that local broadcasting monopolies would be created from the fact that one programme director would acquire the right to the whole of the broadcasting time on one station. The object of this Amendment is to prevent such a local monopoly. I am not at all sure that this is the right form of words, but if it is the intention of the Government to prevent local monopolies perhaps they will be able to suggest another form of words. May I read to your Lordships the first four lines of this subsection as they now stand: It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all they can to secure that there is adequate competition to supply programmes between a number of programme contractors independent of each other both as to finance and as to control. That is a general duty to secure competition. But is it sufficiently specific? There is no definition in the Bill of "adequate competition." Perhaps it is impossible to define.

The Government have stated what they mean by "adequate competition" and of course it might mean no more than that no one programme contractor will control the time of more than one station. If that is the meaning, there would be what I may call horizontal competition, competition between different contractors, in different parts of the country, broadcasting from different stations; but that is by no means a guarantee that there would not be a vertical monopoly.

What I should like the Government to explain, in reply to this Amendment, is whether they consider that the subsection as it now stands would prevent a local monopoly; and, if not, are they prepared to suggest some form of Amendment which would secure that object? I beg leave to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 8, after ("that") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I put my name to this Amendment because I am anxious to secure some elucidation of the point raised by me in the Second Reading debate. On that occasion I ventured to interrupt the noble Earl the Postmaster General in the course of his speech. On that occasion I said. (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 188 (No. 86), col. 194): My Lords, I did not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, but there is one point with which he has not dealt in his speech and with which I expected he would deal. Later I said: He also mentioned that it was proposed, in the first instance, to set up three stations. Is there to be competition between the contractors for the use of those three stations, or is one contractor to be licensed for a period of time for each station? The reply seemed to me to be somewhat cryptic, as it did to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who asked for a clear reply. The Postmaster General, in his speech, ended his answer to us both by saying (col. 195): What is laid down, and if this Bill is passed will become the law, is that adequate competition shall be ensured. I can give the noble and learned Earl the definite answer that the Government intend to ensure that that is done. The Postmaster General, who was good enough to interrupt me in the course of my own speech, then used these words (col. 221): I said quite clearly that the words in the Bill showed that there shall be no new monopoly, and that there shall be adequate competition. I did not inform noble Lords what steps would be taken to enforce that. We have put down this Amendment in order that the Postmaster General may have the opportunity of telling us how this competition is to be obtained, or whether in each of the stations (there are to be three at the beginning) there will be licensed for a period, whether for one year or for ten, one programme contractor; and, if that is so, whether that will fulfil the very clear and specific undertaking that he gave on Second Reading.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Before the noble Earl replies, may I add a plea to the Postmaster General to treat this Amendment as it is intended. The Amendment is designed to allay genuine fears without taking away anything from the essential qualities of the Bill. Supposing this Amendment is accepted—and this is a plea I want to put quite shortly to the Postmaster General—all that will be said in the subsection, unless I have misread it, is this: It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that on each broadcasting station there is adequate competition. It is a very modest Amendment which does not impose an absolute obligation. I frankly admit that I should have liked to see an absolute obligation, but the Amendment does not seek to do that. We have not sought to do anything in the Amendment which could legitimately be said to interfere with the principles of the Bill which the Government secured on Second Reading.

We want to know from the Government how they regard the matter of local monopoly. When the Bill was read a second time, the House was told, and no doubt the Government sincerely believed it though we challenged it, that the whole issue was between monopoly and competition, and the Government came down on the side of competition against monopoly. It so happens that I am entirely in that camp. I would not be a member of the Party of which I am a member if that were not so. I gave the House my reasons for thinking the application of the principle was misunderstood by the Government on Second Reading. When I see the Government proposing a system of television the effect of which may be, so far as one can tell, to erect a series of local monopolies over the country for the purpose of television, I am bound to inquire of the Government how that squares with the principle of competition as against monopoly. Because these three broadcasting stations will not in effect be competing against one another or against the B.B.C. Whatever they are competing against, they will not be competing against one another. When it is said, "We are going to leave that to the Independent Television Authority because we trust the Independent Television Authority," I must plead with the Government that that is not good enough.

We are told that the whole object of this Bill is to secure competition. We are entitled to know, surely, what the policy of the Government is to be about this. Is it to secure competition on each broadcasting station, is it to erect a chain of local monopolies or are we going to be left in doubt, having passed the Bill, as to which of those two very different things is going to be attempted? Surely the I.T.A. ought to be given some guidance, and surely we should be told what guidance it is to be given. There has been no lack of guidance in other matters. There has been no lack of directions to the Television Authority about, for instance, the use of studios or the provision of programmes. There has been no undue trust of the Television Authority in relation to matters of that kind. Surely we are not asking too much when we ask the Government to tell us what guidance they have to give to the Television Authority in this matter, much of which goes to the root of the whole Bill.

I venture to close, modestly I hope, with the sentiment with which I began. Let the Postmaster General look at the wording of this Amendment. All that it proposes to do in terms, and all that it can do in law, is to impose upon the Television Authority the obligation, not an absolute obligation but a qualified obligation, to do all that they can to see that there is adequate competition, not merely on the air in general but at each broadcasting station which they operate. Therefore, I do respectfully submit to the Postmaster General that there is nothing in this Amendment offensive to the principles to which the Government have committed themselves, and that they might do well to accept it as well as give the statement of policy which has been asked for—if they can do so in the howling gale which appears to be rushing through the Chamber.

6.33 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am grateful to the noble Viscount for putting down this Amendment because I think it gives us an opportunity for a useful and important discussion. I know that this is a point about which noble Lords are deeply anxious. I am, in fact, going to ask your Lordships not to press this Amendment, and I am afraid one of the reasons I shall give is the reason which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, asked me not to give—which is that I feel that the Bill is fundamentally right in saying that this is a matter that should, subject to the proviso which is already in the Bill, be dealt with by the I.T.A. On the other hand, whether the duty is laid on me or not, it is perfectly obvious that I, as the Departmental Minister responsible, would be expected to give some guidance and to express my views to the I.T.A., and I think your Lordships are clearly entitled to ask me what that guidance would be.

First of all, with regard to the point that has been particularly raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel: I remember he made a most eloquent, albeit inaccurate, speech on my behalf yesterday, when he said that if I were making the speech I should be making a passionate plea on behalf of the local monopoly. I do not want to disappoint him, but I must say that I have some considerable sympathy with the point of view that has been expressed about the dangers of establishing a commercial monopoly—not, of course, a monopoly of television, because, in fact, if there were only one other service it would provide competition. But I quite appreciate the point that noble Lords have made that there would not in fact be commercial competition. I think that point has been made clear.

All of us, I think, who are trying to face the problem—certainly the Government who have to be responsible for this policy—have to recognise that, whatever we do about making provision for competition in the existing circumstances, that competition is bound to be limited. Your Lordships know that we are only just coming to operate on Band III and, at the present moment, there is virtually only room for one more programme that can give the national coverage—that is, until we can clear the other six channels on Band III. That is a very serious limitation. Your Lordships will forgive my being slightly technical for the moment, but we do labour here at a great disadvantage compared with the United States, who can obviously make a great deal more use of a channel than we can because their cities are great distances apart; therefore, a channel can be used again and again without causing interference. But we are very much more closely concentrated and, therefore, have a greater limitation in the use of these channels. That is a limiting factor that we have all to face.

The noble Lord asked me how I would favour running this scheme. I think there are many factors to be taken into account and that the I.T.A. will have to look at. But I can quite visualise that the best system—and I mean the best system from the point of view of introducing genuine competition and also for the commercial success of the scheme—is likely to be a system of time-sharing under which the whole network will be allocated between, shall we say, two or more contractors, each of whom may have the sole use of it for a number of days in the week. This could be—indeed, I think it should be—supplemented by smaller local companies in the individual regions. These would provide local regional programmes with what seems to me extremely important—we have already touched upon this subject when the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, moved his Amendment—regional roots. We do not want just regional programmes that are put on by companies in London who think that Manchester and Liverpool would probably like some particular development.

So far as I have been able to ascertain, the large majority of those companies who are considering applying to come into this scheme when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament—in fact, I can say all but one—favour this sort of scheme. It appears also to be suitable to the advertiser. I hope that this will not be accounted as a reason against it by noble Lords opposite, but it is actually suitable to advertisers, who naturally, in the main, want national coverage because we are used to a national Press in this country, whereas America is much more used to regional or local advertising; they do not have a national Press. There is going to be room for local advertisements too, and they would be placed in the regional programmes. I am fairly sure that from the financial point of view—that is, from the contractor's point of view—this is likely to prove to be the best arrangement, and also from the point of view of the quality of the programmes, because it will mean that each contractor can concentrate his energies on producing fewer programmes with the revenue of the whole network behind them.

I am not going to say that that is the ideal scheme, but it does seem to me that, in view of the admitted technical limitation that we have to face at the present moment, it may well be the best scheme for the time being, and certainly it is the scheme that I would commend to the consideration of the programme contractors. I hope that I am not going to be asked to put this in the Bill, because the Bill lays on the I.T.A. the responsibility for negotiations with programme contractors. There may arise many other considerations, including technical considerations, which I have not yet been able to visualise, and I feel at the moment in dealing with this medium—which is so full of uncertainties, so full of changes from day to day—that we should make a mistake in laying down anything in this Bill that is either rigid or permanent.

May I say one more word in expressing my fear of putting anything rigid into the Bill? It may well be, even if I prove to be right in the sort of machinery that I contemplate—that is, what I have always called the horizontal organisation—that in some fairly remote part of the country, which perhaps it might be difficult to reach with the necessary Post Office links, and so on, for a long time, perhaps some enterprising individual or company might say, "We should like to be licensed to start a small station in our area." It would be impossible to connect them up with the main network, and it might be desirable to consider some special arrangement for them. I think that it is important to keep this scheme as flexible as possible.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Before my noble friend sits down, can he deal with the point I put to him? How will the scheme be made more rigid, or the I.T.A. hampered in any way, if we insert the words proposed in this Amendment, that the Authority shall do all they can to see that on every broadcasting station there is adequate competition? How does it make it more rigid or hamper them in any way, because that is all the Amendment proposes?

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I certainly think that the Postmaster General has carried matters a stage further from where they were on the Second Reading, because the position then was that this was to be left to the I.T.A.; that it would be within their own discretion to do as they liked; that Parliament should not have any understanding before passing this Bill into law as to what the ultimate arrangement would be. It was quite plain that the Postmaster General necessarily must have had communication with those probable applicants for licences in the local stations, and also with those who organise the advertising. There would be nothing improper in that; in fact it would be very wrong if he did not have a very good idea in his own mind how this scheme was going to work out in practice, once the Bill had been passed. It appears that these conversations and anticipations have now taken a more definite form, and although he does not say that conclusions have been arrived at, the scheme that he has in mind is apparently something like this: that there will be left the B.B.C., and there will be competition against the B.B.C. by programme companies. Probably in the first instance there may be two programme companies, who will each have a national coverage on certain days a week.

EARL DE LA WARR

Two or more.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

There are not so many days in the week, are there? If the Government are to allow room for possibly some local company to have its local programme on one day a week, or part of a day, you cannot sub-divide it too much; also it is very expensive to establish these organisations. However, that scheme is said to be sufficient for adequate competition as between programme companies. I do not think that that is the kind of lay-out of the scheme that the public have in mind. We have been told that in New York viewers have a choice of eight different programmes. It was thought that something of that kind would be possible here. It never has been possible, for the reason given by the Postmaster General—the shortage of wavelengths. As I have said repeatedly during this discussion, if this Bill had been put forward after very-high-frequency had become practicable, and a large number of stations in the same area were technically feasible, then it might be that we should have to consider it in another light. As it is, the competition now, the horizontal competition, will be limited as a rule to two companies: two companies and a fraction of a company, possibly, for the local service, over the whole country.

How do you know that that will provide real competition? What is to prevent those two from getting together and consulting, as it is suggested that the B.B.C. and the programme companies should consult, on certain points; arranging things in their own way, and making the competition, though apparently complete, sotto voce very friendly competition as the thing is arranged? They might have a tariff among them for payment of artistes; they might allocate the times between themselves to divide the best features between the two of them week by week. With such limited competition as that between two companies it is almost impossible to avoid something in the nature of a cartel between the two. In any case, it appears to me that the programme of "setting the people free," letting the public have what they want, and envisaging a great number of eagerly competing companies, with as many competing companies as there are competing newspapers (continually we are given the Press as an example; the people might take in the Daily Mirror televisor or The Times televisor as they prefer) will not be attained at all. There will be competition as between the B.B.C., on the one hand, and the programme companies, on the other, but the second is not a real, effective, widespread, lively competition, in which private enterprise, ruthless private enterprise, competing here and there, will ultimately result in the highest possible efficiency and liveliness and success. It will be so limited, and must be so limited, owing to the technical nature of the whole situation, that it will be far indeed from the expectations that have been aroused by the promoters of the Bill.

6.48 p.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I wonder if I might add one word, which I will try to make impartial, having listened to this discussion and drawing on such knowledge as we all share of ordinary commercial undertakings. I do not think we need pay too much attention to the speech which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has just delivered. It seems to me a little bit in the nature of the way he described other people's speeches earlier in the debate today: "Pah!—competition. Of course you will rot really have any competition." Even if the situation were likely to emerge as described by the noble Viscount—and it certainly will not be anything like it—I am quite certain that there will be a good deal more competition than there is today; because to-day you have to see the B.B.C. or nothing. Therefore, obviously, even at the worst, there is going to be more competition. I think, if I may say so, that the Postmaster General is wise not to tie himself down, with only certain wave lengths at his disposal to-day, in developing a service on which—I will not say one proceeds by trial and error, but on which what is needed is essentially, not a theoretical but a sort of pragmatical approach. If he said, "I will not in any case allow one company to have a monopoly of a particular station," that would make it impossible, very likely, to give a localised service.

We heard to-day from the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that he wants a special station set up for Wales which would cater for Welsh people. We too want that. You may get small stations for local purposes for which it would be quite impossible to get two contractors competing. It may even, be that it will not be a commercial proposition for one, and it may be wise to allow a subsidiary of one of the larger undertakings to do it, so that the people would get better service; or it may be a subsidiary which is in partnership with some more local interest. Assuming that you could get one person to do it, and do it very well, with all the knowledge of the locality and of what the people of the locality wanted, the Postmaster General, by accepting this Amendment, would be cutting out that possibility.

How is this plan likely to work in fact? I am with the Postmaster General in his decision not to tie his hands. But what I think the Committee will want to look at is what will probably happen. It seems to me that all interests support the sort of plan which the Postmaster General has outlined. The revenue is to be drawn from advertisements; the contractors will draw their revenue from advertising. They want to give the best programme they can, and, quite obviously, they want to get the largest revenue they can. The excellence or merit of their programme will depend upon their revenue. What will be wanted by the advertising company whatever company it is? It will be the largest medium through which the company can make its appeal. People advertise in papers having a wide circulation. I think that what the advertiser will want will be to be able to go on the air at a particular moment, not in London alone, or in Birmingham alone, or in Liverpool alone; he will want to go on all over England.

As a matter of fact, if you were to have, say, three companies—I am saying this on the assumption that what you have is a London station, a Midlands station and a station somewhere in the North-West, which is probably what will happen—even if you gave those stations to three separate companies, I believe that they would make the kind of interlocking arrangement which the noble Viscount. Lord Samuel has suggested, not in order just to get together to make a cartel but to make an arrangement of a different kind. They would make an arrangement whereby one of them, with a programme in Manchester or Birmingham, would televise that programme over the whole national network, over each of the three stations. It is only in that way that the programme would reach the big listening public and command a large price. Therefore, it seems to me that it is in the commercial interest of those who are going to run these stations to do it in that way. I should not enter the field even if I were to retire from the Government; but I am quite sure that if anybody came to me and asked me for my advice in this matter, I should say that I would not advise him to take over only one station, even if it were the London station; and I certainly should not advise him to take over one of the other two. But given two days or selected periods during which one could go out to the whole country, then I think it might be a reasonable proposition. In that way there is much more competition.

Suppose that you gave each of the three stations to a different company merely for the purpose of functioning there. It is true that in each case you would get competition, and different competition with the B.B.C.; but you would get no competition between the companies. Therefore it is in the interests of competition that it should not be done in this way. But commercial interests and competitive interests are at one in this matter, because there is more money in it and you will certainly get much more attractive programmes that way. As I say, there will be more money available, because the programme which is televised will be seen by more people.

I come now to what my noble friend Lord Hore-Belisha has said, more than once this evening, in regard to the viewers. The viewers have to be con- sidered. I believe that in this way the viewer will get much greater variety and will be more attracted to the programme. The more attracted he is, the more the advertiser is attracted to advertise. It seems to me, in looking at the ordinary commercial probability of how this plan will turn out, that that is the most likely thing to happen. I believe that if it does happen in that way it will be in the interests of the programme companies, in the interests of the people who want to advertise and, most important of all, in the interests of the viewer.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I do not want to seem importunate, but I put a question to the Postmaster General, and I did not do it simply with the idea of asking a rhetorical question. I also asked him to reply. The question was this. Assuming the truth of everything that the noble Viscount and the Postmaster General have just said, how do the words proposed in this Amendment interfere with the policy of the Bill? All that they do is to ask that the Independent Television Authority shall do all they can to achieve adequate competition on every station. I have listened carefully to both Government speeches. One does not come down to the House to ask a question simply for the sake of asking it; it is because we genuinely do not see the answer, and we want the Government to give an answer. I am sure the Government mean to be conciliatory in this matter, but it is really not treating people with genuine difficulties in a conciliatory fashion, to ignore the questions which they specifically put. I wonder whether one of my noble friends could deal with that point.

EARL JOWITT

May I, as I hope, conclude this debate by this short statement? We have listened to a remarkable speech by the noble Viscount. It was of brief length, and if its clarity had been equal to its length no doubt we should all have been convinced. I venture to think that this Amendment is such a small one that it really needs no lengthy speech at all. I derived some hope from the speech of the Postmaster General, but I confess (no doubt it is entirely my fault) that I got confused with the speech of the noble Viscount. The subsection reads as follows: It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that there is adequate competition to supply programmes and so on. The Amendment, if we get it, would make the subsection read in this way: It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that on each broadcasting station operated by the Authority there is adequate competition to supply programmes. The whole basis of this Bill is that competition is a good thing. If we believe that, why is it not a good thing to have that competition on each broadcasting station, so far as that is possible? If there are, as the noble Viscount suggested there may be, circumstances which make competition quite impracticable, then you need not have it—the clause so provides. But, upon my word, on the assumption that competition is the right thing, I cannot see why you should not have competition on each broadcasting station. If it is going to be difficult for the noble Viscount, and if he wants a little time to consider it—perhaps a year or something of that sort—then we can deal with that on Report stage. But I would ask him—and this is the same question as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, asked—why does he hesitate to give us this Amendment? He wants competition, so far as practicable, on each station. If it is not practicable, then he need not have it: the Authority are not bound to provide it.

I do not want to suggest that the Committee should divide on this matter, because we are trying to do all we can to save time, but I would suggest that between now and the next stage of the Bill the noble Viscount should think again about it, possibly after some more discussion. Obviously, he has had some discussion, but perhaps later on he may be able to see that what this Amendment seeks to achieve is that so far as practicable there should be competition existing on different stations. That is all this Amendment does. It is a little Amendment. I would have ventured to hope that he might have given it to us, but if he does not give it to us now I hope that on Report he will be able to do so, because I cannot see the slightest objection to it. It seems to me to be carrying out the principle of this Bill.

7.0 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I am not especially concerned with the particular Amendment which is now before the House, and I have nothing to add to what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt; but the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is one of great importance, perhaps the most important that we have had on the Committee stage of this Bill. He has made it plain that over the country as a whole there will be national programmes, to be contributed to by possibly two or three different programme contractors. I do think that is a good arrangement.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

That is my forecast.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

Probably it will not be a mere coincidence if that forecast is fulfilled. But, from the point of view of a sound, economic, businesslike arrangement, I think that it is quite right. It is much better that there should be national programmes over a single national network and that they should be able—because it is a very costly business—to produce as good programmes as they can. But to suggest that if it is divided up between two or three that is open competition, is, I think, not justified. These two or three companies, of course, will have to concert between themselves about their programmes. They will not want to have the same programme on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, as they have on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. They will agree together on exactly what each of them shall do. They will arrange which artists, so called, are to be engaged by each one of them and the sort of salaries to be paid. In effect, the ultimate result will be, as we have forecast from the very beginning (because we foresaw all this), that owing to the nature of things—the number of channels and so forth—there will be set up in effect another monopoly, side by side with the monopoly of the B.B.C. You may say that that is a good or a bad thing, or question whether it would not be better to have the competition inside the B.B.C. as between the Home Service, the Light and the Third Programmes or as between Regional and National Programmes. That would be a better plan until we get a large number of channels with perhaps a great number of competing stations and very high frequencies. That is not being done, and I still think that, as the outcome of our whole discussion, we are going to have a second commercial monopoly side by side with the public service monopoly of the B.B.C.

EARL DE LA WARR

I was sorry the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, felt it necessary to make that speech. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and I were perfectly clear in what we said, and we had very much better stand by that. I am sorry the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, thought I was trying to avoid giving an answer, but I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, had really dealt fully with his point. The noble Viscount is quite right that the words of the Amendment he proposes are not completely binding; nevertheless we should feel we were to a very considerable extent tied by them. I feel strongly that at this moment, right at the beginning of this great new scheme, we ought to keep our hands as free as we can. We must remember we are not only legislating for to-day but for a considerable time ahead. I cannot help feeling it is not entirely fair to take up the position of noble Lords who present this Amendment, namely, "It does not really tie you to anything; it means nothing; nevertheless, we are determined to insist upon it." It seems a pity that, having achieved so much agreement, or at any rate come so much nearer to understanding each other's position, we should close this very useful and constructive discussion by a Division. It is entirely in the hands of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, but I should have thought he had, from both the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and myself, an expression of opinion that brought us very closely into line with each other.

EARL JOWITT

I suggested we should not have a Division. I suggested that the noble Earl should include this matter in our talks. Does he reject that offer?

EARL DE LA WARR

I do not want to be unto-operative or dishonest, and it might suggest that during those discussions we should be able to accept this Amendment. That would not be really fair. We should be wrong to put anything in the Bill which in any way tied our hands in the future, and it would be dishonest for us to say that that point is open to discussion.

EARL JOWITT

At any rate, we will have a discussion with the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

There is a very old rule of Parliamentary practice that an intention ought always to be put in a Bill. We certainly had that rule thrown at our heads again and again when we sat on those Benches.

EARL DE LA WARR

And we have had it thrown at our heads.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

It is the intention of the Government that there shall be two programmes, or that there shall be local competition as well as broadcasting competition between different regions. Therefore, I cannot really see why this simple Amendment or something like it should not be included in the Bill. But, of course, the noble Earl has been kind enough to say he will discuss this matter with us—

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, says he is going to discuss it with me. I said I cannot give any undertaking.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

It takes two people to make a discussion possible, and unless the noble Earl can give us some assurance that he will discuss the matter, then we must assume there will be no discussion. I must confess that that is a great disappointment to us in view of the fact that noble Lords on both sides of the House accept the general principle. I do not want to waste your Lordships' time, but I feel that this is an Amendment which I cannot possibly withdraw.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, says he feels very strongly about this matter and he is evidently sincere. Some of us feel quite sincerely. Does this Amendment do him any harm? Assuming the truth of every word he says, will he not at least take a little more advice from those who advised him about the legal effect of the measure? It occurs to me he is entirely wrong in saying that we shall tie the hands of the I.T.A. It can do its best to secure, on every broadcasting station which it operates, adequate competition. That does not tie its hands in any way. It does not interfere with Goverment policy. If the noble Earl thinks it does, is he really going to be so stiff-necked that he will not even ask those who advised him about the legal effect of this Bill? It really does not take away anything from the policy; it will give us something we sincerely want, and will exactly reflect the tone of the speeches which the two noble Lords on the Front Benches have given.

EARL DE LA WARR

There are certain matters in Parliamentary parlance that are very important. When you say an Amendment is a drafting Amendment, it must be purely drafting. When you say you are going to enter into discussions you must mean in your heart that you are prepared to consider adopting

CONTENTS
Listowel, E.	Darwen, L. [Teller.]	Milner of Leeds, L.
Lucan, E.	Derwent, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
	Douglas of Barloch, L.	Ogmore, L.
Hailsham, V.	Harvey of Tasburgh, L.	Quibell, L.
Samuel, V.	Henderson, L.	Sempill, L.
	Kenswood, L.	Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Lawson, L.	Silkin, L.
Carnock, L.	Mathers, L.	Simon of Wythenshawe, L.
		Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Selkirk, E.	Digby, L.
	Winterton, E.	Dovercourt, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. President.)		Dunleath, L.
	Buckmaster, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Portland, D.	Davidson, V.	Gifford, L.
	Furness, V.	Hampton, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Goschen, V.	Hawke, L.
Exeter, M.	Hudson, V.	Hore-Belisha, L.
Reading, M.	Leathers, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
	Ridley, V.	Leconfield, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Swinton, V.	Lloyd, L.
Bessborough, E.	Woolton, V	Mancroft, L.
Birkenhead, E.		Melchett, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Amherst of Hackney, L.	Raglan, L.
De La Warr, E.	Baden-Powell, L.	Remnant, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.]	Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Saltoun, L.
Glasgow, E.	Blackford, L.	Sandford, L.
Howe, E.	Brassey of Apethorpe, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Morley, E.	Brocket, L.
Munster, E.	Broughshane, L.	Templemore, L.
Onslow, E. [Teller.]	Chesham, L.	Teviot, L.
Radnor, E.	De L'Isle and Dudley, L.	Teynham, L.
		Tweedsmuir, L.

House resumed.