Commons Sitting of 1 June 1954

Preamble
The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  WALSALL CORPORATION BILL (by Order)
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.
  STROUDWATER NAVIGATION BILL [Lords] (by Order)
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Isle of Sheppey
    Mr. P. Wellsasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the increase in the number of unemployed on the Isle of Sheppey; and if he will confer with the owners, with a view to arranging to restart production in the sheet glass factory at Queenborough.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I am aware that there was a slight increase in the numbers registered as unemployed at the Sheerness employment exchange in April but I am glad to say that the numbers fell in May to the lowest level this year. I understand that as the supply of sheet glass is adequate to meet present demands, the owners have no plans for re-opening the factory.
    Mr. Wells: But is the Minister aware that, as the sea defence work ends on the Isle of Sheppey, the position is likely to become much worse, and that anything which he or the President of the
    1054
    Board of Trade can do to restart the production in the Queenborough factory will be much appreciated.
    Mr. Watkinson: We appreciate the difficulties but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Isle of Sheppey is not the easiest place in which to provide fresh employment. It would be wrong of me to hold out any great hopes of restarting the glass factory, because the general demand at the moment is well met by the existing factories which are in operation, but we shall do anything else we can to help.

    Coatbridge
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of increased unemployment in Coatbridge in the heavy industries; and what steps he is taking to meet the situation.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am aware that there is a certain amount of short time working in the iron and steel industries in Coatbridge. This under-employment appears to be due to a falling off in demand by the consumer industries. The position has improved during recent months, and is being kept under review in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not merely short-time working due to a changing pattern because soft steel is now in demand, but that Stewarts and Lloyds are transferring 600 workers and Lustroid, the women's factory, is closing down, and there is a complete lack of juvenile employment in Coatbridge? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that he could look into all these aspects?
    Mr. Watkinson: I have promised the hon. Lady that we will look into the long-term situation but, on the present facts, the figures are going down a little. However, I agree that the long-term situation is worrying, and we shall keep it under review.

    Pottery Industry (Factory Inspectors)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give consideration to the appointment of internal factory inspectors in the pottery industry,

    1055
    so that they will be elected by their fellow workers and not appointed by the employers.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. The present statutory obligation to appoint competent persons to carry out systematic inspections in potteries is placed upon the occupiers by a Regulation made under the Factories Acts. The obligation was imposed after close consultation with organisations representing employers and workers.
    Dr. Stross: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that these statutory regulations were imposed in 1913 in the first place, and after 40 years can we not have a little more democracy in this matter? If the hon. Gentleman feels that he cannot allow it for the whole industry, will he consider the sanitary section and ask his own factory inspectors and the union whether they do not agree?
    Mr. Watkinson: I want to correct the hon. Gentleman because, when the Pottery Health and Welfare Special Regulations were made in 1950 under his own Government, the old and standing procedure was followed again, namely, that the Regulations require that only the man who can take the action shall be notified.

    COST-OF-LIVING INDEX (FOOD AND COAL)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour the percentage rise in the cost of food and coal, respectively, since July, 1945, in the cost-of-living index.
    Mr. Watkinson: The average increase in the retail prices of coal between July, 1945, and April, 1954, was about 68 per cent. There is no single index which measures the average percentage change in the level of food prices since July, 1945. Up to June, 1947, the "cost of living" index based on 1914 consumption standards was in use. In June, 1947, this was replaced by the more up-to-date Interim Index of Retail Prices, the basis of which was itself revised in January, 1952. The index figures in these three series are, therefore, not directly comparable.
    Mr. Osborne: Is it not possible to make any calculations backwards, so that we can see the comparison between the two?
    Mr. Watkinson: We are always anxious to try to maintain the accuracy of the index, particularly in this difficult matter of retail prices, but there is no fair basis of comparison between the three amended kinds of indices which have been used since 1947.

    NATIONAL SERVICE (DEFERMENTS)
    Miss Baconasked the Minister of Labour if he will now give an assurance that young men who defer their National Service are not allowed to continue such deferment until they are beyond the age at which they are liable for National Service.
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir, except in the case of coalminers, seamen, certain agricultural workers, and a few scientific research workers.
    Miss Bacon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are considerable misgivings about this matter in the country, and that there is a feeling that some young men manage to avoid National Service by being deferred until they reach the age of 26 years, and that instances of this have been sent to him? Can he give a definite assurance that his Department sees that everybody is called up before the age of 26 except those engaged in the occupations which he has mentioned?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly see that that happens as far as it lies within our power, but if the man is outside this country we have no power over him so long as he remains outside. I remind the hon. Lady that my right hon. and learned Friend said in the House recently that he would keep in mind the possibility of extending the age of liability in those cases, should the opportunity occur.
    Mr. Shinwell: In order to remove any misunderstanding on this subject, can the hon. Gentleman say how many men are in this category of having reached the age limit without being called up and are permanently deferred in consequence?
    Mr. Watkinson: Not without notice.
    Mr. Shinwell: Surely the hon. Gentleman must have some knowledge on this subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That

    1057
    is what we on this side of the House expect of him anyhow, if his colleagues do not. Cannot the hon. Gentleman say whether there are many or just a few?
    Mr. Watkinson: I hope that I have a great deal of knowledge, but that is a different Question.

  SCOTLAND

    Proposed Secondary School, Bearsden and Milngavie
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when work is to be started on the proposed secondary school to serve Bearsden and Milngavie.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): Work is expected to start early in 1955.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that by the end of 1955 there will be hundreds of children in Bearsden and Milngavie with qualifications for secondary education but there will be no school for them? Could he not get on with this job immediately, otherwise a serious situation will arise?
    Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Member knows, there was a delay in 1953 on account of the site, which eventually had to be acquired compulsorily. That resulted in a large part of the year being lost. We have now appointed a working party composed of representatives of the authority and the Scottish education department, and I assure the hon. Member that we are doing everything feasible to press this matter forward.

    School Accommodation, Lenzie
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received respecting school accommodation in Lenzie; and what steps he proposes to take in response to those representations.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Member sent my right hon. Friend a letter from the Lenzie Academy Parent-Teacher Association urging that the construction of the new Lenzie Academy should begin this year and similar representations were received from Kirkintilloch Town Council. My right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member in
    1058
    April explaining that in view of the time which the education authority requires for the preparation of plans and the taking of tenders it is unlikely that the work will be ready to start before next May. All concerned are fully aware of the need for new accommodation at Lenzie and a working party of representatives of the education authority and the Department has been set up to ensure that this and other school building projects in Dunbartonshire proceed with all possible speed.

    Houses, East Kilbride (Remedial Measures)
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of certain defective workmanship in houses in the new town of East Kilbride; that this has been the subject of representations by tenants' associations in the new town; and if he will make a statement.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I understand that representations have been made to the East Kilbride Development Corporation about defects in one particular type of non-traditional house at East Kilbride. The corporation has taken the matter up with the contractor concerned. Remedial measures are now in hand and will be completed as soon as possible.
    Mr. Maitland: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that these complaints are made by the Murray and Westwood Residents' Association and were repeated as recently as mid-March without attention being given to them? Is he further aware that the tenants are afraid that extra burdens of maintenance will fall upon them in future, due to the defects of which they complain? Will he bear in mind that even the chairman of the development corporation has admitted what he calls a certain degree of clamminess in these houses in wintertime?
    Commander Galbraith: The matter is receiving attention.
    Mr. Manuel: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman indicate the extent of the cost of this remedial work and whether it will be carried out by the contractors, because of bad workmanship, or

    1059
    whether it will be an added on-cost of development to the East Kilbride Corporation?
    Commander Galbraith: Measures are being taken under the contractual obligations of the contractor.

    Herring (Close Seasons)
    l2. Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the annual report of the Herring Industry Board that the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to allow close seasons to be prescribed by the Board has resulted in periodic deteriorations of quality which have had the effect of making the consumer dislike all herring and kippers, with a consequent decline in home demand; and whether Her Majesty's Government will now review the position in the light of the representations made by the Board.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend has seen the statement in the Board's Report for 1953 that it is likely that representations will be made to Ministers during 1954 about close seasons for herring. No such representations have been made to the present Government; if they are, they will be carefully considered.
    Sir R. Boothby: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have just returned from Holland where they do not allow any herring to be sold until they are in first-class condition? Is he aware that this happy situation arose a few days ago and now they are being sold and consumed with relish in the streets, where they far surpass ice-cream both in quality and popularity?
    Mrs. Mann: If what the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) says is correct, can he explain why he always prefers salmon to herring?
    Mr. Duthie: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that in the event of the Herring Industry Board approaching the Government on this matter the views of fishermen, curers and processers will be taken into account before a decision is reached? Will he bear in mind that the application of close seasons in the herring industry will have a great bearing on the position of fishermen and seasonal workers?
    Mr. Stewart: These are very complicated problems, some of which have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie). All would have to be considered.

    Senior Hospital Medical Officers (Status)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the shortage of chest surgeons in Lanarkshire, he will consider raising the status of senior hospital medical officers who are Fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh.
    Commander Galbraith: No, Sir. The status of senior hospital medical officers was recently reviewed by a professional committee, who had before them full information about the qualifications and experience of individuals. In any event the shortage of chest surgeons could not be reduced by raising the status of particular officers already engaged in the hospital service.

    Specialist Out-Patient Clinics, Lanarkshire
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland is he is aware of the cost and inconvenience to patients who have to travel from all parts of Lanarkshire to interview specialists and consultants in Glasgow hospitals; and whether he will consider setting up centres in Lanarkshire where consultants and specialists may attend at certain hours on specific days to conduct interviews.
    Commander Galbraith: It has always been the policy of the regional hospital board to develop specialist out-patient clinics at Lanarkshire hospitals so as to reduce the need for travelling to Glasgow hospitals. Much progress has been made, and general practitioners are kept fully informed of the facilities available at their local hospitals.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, apart from facilities at the local hospitals, these are special facilities? Is he aware that in connection with the National Health Service we were promised earlier that these centres would be set up and that instead of 100 people having to travel into Glasgow one specialist might travel to a centre at Bellshill or Motherwell and interview great numbers of people?
    Commander Galbraith: This is happening at Law Hospital, Stonehouse Hospital, Hairmyres Hospital, and at the Alexander Hospital, Coatbridge, where a new out-patient department is being built at which there will be a full consultant service.

    Old-Age Pensioners, Edinburgh (Survey)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of hardships now being experienced by old-age pensioners in the city of Edinburgh as revealed by a recent survey made by the medical officer of health for that city; and what steps he proposes to take to mitigate these hardships.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has seen a report of some preliminary findings from this survey, which is being conducted under the auspices of the corporation and the university with a grant from his Department. The purpose of the survey, which is not yet complete, is to learn more about the health and welfare needs of old people, and its findings will be of great assistance to both statutory and voluntary agencies in the further development of services in this field.
    Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the same survey also revealed that many pensioners do not know the facilities for assistance available to them? Will he have consultations with a view to making those facilities more widely known?
    Commander Galbraith: One of the objects of the survey is to discover what the old people require. Certainly when the survey is complete we shall take notice of all those things.

    REGULAR RECRUITING (QUARTERLY RETURN)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will arrange for the publication of a quarterly return, with comparative figures for previous years, showing the progress of internal Regular recruiting to Her Majesty's naval, air and military Forces from among National Service men during their period of service.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): The form of the quarterly return of Regular recruiting to the Forces is under review. My hon. Friend's proposal will be favourably considered.
    Mr. Iremonger: Could my hon. Friend give an indication whether the experience of Service men on National Service is disposing them in the main to re-engage for a longer period?
    Mr. Birch: I think that is a large question to answer now. There is a fairly steady re-engagement taking place.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Helicopters
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War on how many occasions Army helicopters have been used for transportation purposes to or from built-up areas near the centre of London; and what safety precautions are required to be observed.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): Although the Army has no helicopters of its own, there have been flights by Royal Air Force helicopters flown by Army pilots on Army tasks. These were dealt with by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air in his reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 12th May.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it is going a bit too far to risk the life of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff in a single-engined helicopter? What about the risks to people and property in flying above a built-up area in London?
    Mr. Hutchison: The safety Regulations are laid down by the Air Ministry and are very strictly observed so as to avoid to the maximum any risk. As to the risk to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, I do not think it is very great because I have flown in the same flight myself.
    Captain Ryder: Is it not about time the Army controlled its own helicopters?
    Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is safe to have landing stations on the banks of the Thames?
    Mr. Hutchison: The landing stations used obviously conform to the requirements.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War, (1) what progress has been made in the consideration given by his Department in respect to an experimental flight of helicopters, controlled and operated by Army units;
    (2) how many helicopters, and what types, are in service with the Army; and what orders have been placed by his Department to increase the helicopter strength.
    Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: The provision of helicopters in support of the Army is the responsibility of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air, with whom my right hon. Friend is at present discussing the Army's future needs. At present a flight of three Bristol 171 helicopters of the Royal Air Force, which are flown by Army pilots, is employed on special Army tasks, details of which were given in a reply to the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on 13th April this year.
    Mr. Dodds: Is not the hon. Gentleman really ashamed to make such a sorry story? Is he not aware that every United States Army division has 10 helicopters, every transportation company has 21, and that in the Malaya and Korea nothing did more to raise the morale of the troops than helicopters? Cannot the Army match the enterprise of the Navy, which has done a grand job with helicopters?
    Mr. Hutchison: As I have said in this House, and as has been said by my right hon. Friend, we are most anxious to have more helicopters and are at the moment discussing how they are to be got and operated.
    Mr. Beswick: In discussing the needs of the Army with his colleagues in the Air Ministry, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the facilities available in this country for training helicopter pilots?
    Mr. Hutchison: That is a different question, but, from the experience I have had of these helicopter pilots, it seems to me that their training is first-class.
    Mr. Beswick: No one suggests that it is not, but is the hon. Gentleman satisfied about the number of pilots being trained for the future?
    Mr. Hutchison: The number of pilots depends on the number of helicopters. When we know the number of helicopters we shall have at our disposal, the training of pilots will go on concurrently.
    Mr. Dodds: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment on Tuesday, 15th June.

    National Service Men (Pamphlet)
    Mr. Holtasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he will revise the small booklet entitled, "Your Service with the Territorial Army, W.O. Code No. 5803," which is issued to National Service men on finishing their two years' National Service;
    (2) if, preparatory to the revision of W.O. Code No. 5803, he will give instructions to ensure that all National Service men already in and all those about to enter the Territorial Army understand the details of what is meant by the expression 15 days out-of-camp training, and in this respect how many hours constitute half a day and how many hours constitute a whole day.
    Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Yes, Sir. An Amendment to make clear how days of training are calculated will be made to this pamphlet when it is next reprinted. Meanwhile, I do not think that any special instruction is necessary since the subject is fully covered in the Regulations and in another pamphlet, which are available in all units. I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing this point to my notice.

    Forces, Trieste
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for War how many married and how many single men of Her Majesty's Forces in Trieste have served there for longer than one year, two years, and three years, respectively; and how many married men of each category have never had married quarters.
    Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Two hundred and twelve married men have served in Trieste for more than one year, 94 for more than two years and 81 for more than three years. The corresponding figures for single men are 872, 116 and 42. The numbers of married men

    1065
    who have been there for more than one, two and three years respectively and have never occupied married quarters there are 120, 38 and 15.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Minister regret this break-up of families, which is necessitated by Governmental policy? Can he give any indication when Trieste is to cease to be regarded as a home station, or, alternatively, when the troops are to be brought back?
    Mr. Hutchison: I am afraid I cannot because control of that situation is not our responsibility at the War Office. As I told the hon. Member the other day, we are most anxious to have as many families reunited as possible, but, while diplomatic negotiations are going on as to the future of Trieste, my right hon. Friend cannot take further steps at the moment.
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for War how many wives of soldiers serving in Trieste have returned to that area since October, 1953, at their own expense; how many such wives have been allowed to take their children with them; and how many are granted overseas and ration allowances.
    Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Eighty. There are no restrictions on entry into Trieste and children may accompany their parents. There are now 64 children of Service men in Trieste. Because these visits are not officially sponsored, the husband gets the unaccompanied rate of local overseas allowance and draws either ration allowance or rations in kind. Ration allowance is not issuable to families.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is it not scandalous that wives are allowed to go back if they can afford to pay their fares? Is this not discrimination between the wealthier wives and families and those who cannot afford to pay their fares? Cannot the War Office either say they are not allowed to go or that all can go?
    Mr. Hutchison: I think it would be even more scandalous if we tried to direct ordinary members of the public as to where they can go and where they cannot travel.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend and make further inquiries into the matter?
    1066
    If, for diplomatic reasons, there is uncertainty about the future of Trieste and married men are in Trieste without married quarters, or without their wives and families, surely the War Office can provide out of its funds for the cost of transport of families? Surely something of that kind could be done?
    Mr. Hutchison: I think that it will be generally recognised that under the circumstances which exist in Trieste it is not desirable to encourage families to go back there.
    Mr. Shinwell: If that is so there may be good reason for it, but why keep married men there without married quarters and without their wives and families—in some cases, as the hon. Gentleman said, for more than three years?
    Mr. Hutchison: This situation has not existed for more than three years.
    Mr. Shinwell: In Trieste?
    Mr. Hutchison: The return home of the Trieste families is a fairly recent development. I think it unwise to make a move in this situation just now, while diplomatic discussions are going on.
    Mr. Hamilton: In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Military Attachés (Iron Curtain Countries)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many military attachés are posted to embassies in Communist-controlled countries; and the annual cost;
    (2) the cost of maintaining a military attaché and his department in Moscow; and what proposals he has to reduce this expenditure.
    Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Six military attaches and three assistant military attachés are posted to embassies and legations in Iron Curtain countries. The annual cost of maintaining these offices is about £106,000. Moscow accounts for rather more than a quarter of this. I see little prospect of substantially reducing this expenditure.
    Mr. Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman give some idea of what these people

    1067
    do for their money? Do they give information, or get information? Is there not a genuine case for economy in these officers?
    Mr. Hutchison: I know that the hon. Member is not particularly attached to military attachés, but we consider them useful members of the Service. They give advice to H.M. Ambassadors on military questions and act as military representatives in the country to which they are sent. They also keep in touch with their military opposite numbers in the countries to which they are accredited.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Will my hon. Friend invite the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to wear a military attaché's uniform and send him to Russia to see what information he can get?

    Territorial Annual Camps (Notification)
    Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to employers and employees by the late notification of the dates of Territorial Army annual camps; and whether in future it will be possible for this information to be given before 1st January of each year.
    Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Yes, Sir, and we do try to notify the dates early in the year, giving as much notice as possible and at least 50 days. It is not, however, practicable to notify all the dates as early as 1st January, since difficulties are bound to arise in some units.
    Mr. Alport: Is my hon. Friend aware that many firms make up their holiday rosters very early in the year—in many cases before January—and that if it is possible to give earlier information than is the case at present, it would be to the great benefit of management and employees alike?
    Mr. Hutchison: We realise that, and, broadly speaking, units try to get their notices out as soon as possible in the New Year. I shall, however, be glad to look into any case which my hon. Friend cares to put before me and where he considers that difficulties have occurred. But, when we have incidents such as those in British Guiana and Kenya occurring, it must disrupt the programme and it may be impossible to say early in the year
    1068
    exactly what Regular troops will be available to help in the training.
    Commander Donaldson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was considerable disturbance in South-East Scotland Territorial camps this year and will he give an assurance that next year as early notice as possible will be given of the dates of these camps which come under Scottish Command?
    Mr. Hutchison: Yes, Sir.

    Territorials (Insurance and Holiday Credit Cards)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War what complaints he has received about the refusal of employers to stamp the National Insurance cards and holiday credit cards of men attending annual camp for Territorial Army training.
    Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: I do not think that any difficulty should arise over National Insurance cards since these are stamped by the Army for the period of annual camp. There has been one complaint about holiday credit cards which, I understand, are used in certain industries under a special scheme for holidays with pay. I do not yet know exactly what the difficulty is but I am looking into it and hope that, with the good will generally shown towards the Territorial Army, we shall be able to get over it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will be received with satisfaction by those men who have felt themselves to be rather meanly and unfairly penalised by what is a comparatively small matter, which it is hoped will be rectified?
    Mr. Hutchison: I am always glad to hear of people who are satisfied.

    Bailey Bridges (Construction)
    Mr. W. Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for War in what circumstances units of the Regular or Territorial Army are employed on the construction of Bailey bridges for local authorities; and how many cases of such employment have occurred in the last 12 months.
    Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Tasks of this kind may only be undertaken if various conditions are fulfilled. The main ones are that the work has good training

    1069
    value which is not otherwise available: that it is undertaken for a public authority or other non-profit making concern; that the agreement of the trade unions and the employers' associations has been obtained; and that any cost above that essential for military training shall be borne by the civilian authority. Prior War Office approval is needed in all cases. This approval has been given on five occasions in the past 12 months.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that my advice is that some trade unions in the Manchester area have taken the strongest exception to his Department intervening in matters of this kind, and will he look into the matter?
    Mr. Hutchison: I will certainly look into it.
    Mr. Paget: Is the hon. Member aware that the trade unions and everyone else would be extremely grateful if he would build one at Hayling Island.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Film Production (Finance)
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been decided on under the powers conferred on him by Section 2 of the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act, 1954.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): None, Sir. The National Film Finance Corporation have not so far made any arrangements under Section 2 (1) of the Act and accordingly no occasion for using the powers conferred on the Board of Trade by Section 2 (2) has yet arisen.
    Mr. Wilson: In view of the rather far-reaching steps in connection with the activities of the British Lion Company which I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman is likely to announce this afternoon, may I ask if he will give an assurance that in any use of this power under the Act referred to in the Question the first priority will be given to the maintenance of film production in this country?
    Mr. Strauss: Any use will be governed strictly by the terms of the Act. I think that the particular matter in which the
    1070
    right hon. Gentleman is interested may be more usefully dealt with by supplementary questions to a later Question on the Order Paper.

    Cotton Piece Goods (Jamaican Imports)
    Lieut.-Colonel Schofieldasked the President of the Board of Trade the present conditions as regards the import of Lancashire cotton piece goods into Jamaica; what new restrictions are being imposed; and what action he proposes to take to protect the best interests of Lancashire cotton piece-goods exporters.
    Mr. Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade the nature of the restrictions which Jamaica proposes to impose on Lancashire cotton piece goods after 30th June this year; and what representations he has made to the Jamaican Government in this connection.
    Mr. Boardmanasked the President of the Board of Trade what information he has regarding the Jamaican proposal to ban imports of Lancashire cotton piece goods after 30th June; the average annual value of such imports; and what action he is taking to maintain the mutual interests of Jamaica and Britain in that trade.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): The issue of licences for imports of cotton piece goods of types which are now manufactured in Jamaica was temporarily suspended by the Jamaica Government on 13th May. I am glad to say, however, that the Chief Minister of Jamaica, who is at present in this country, has informed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the Jamaica Government is withdrawing this suspension.
    Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: Is the Minister aware that his statement will give great satisfaction, not only to British textile exporters, but to the Lancashire cotton trade in general?
    Mr. Holt: May I ask if it is the case that the Ariguanabo Mills, which are the only textile mills in Jamaica, were the people who made representations that these restrictions should be put on? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm statements in the Press that the Calico Printers Association of Lancashire have a financial interest in these mills?
    Mr. Amory: Certainly the mills mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are the most important anyway, and I understand that this suspension was imposed as an interim measure to prevent the abnormal import of cloth during the period between the presentation of the Yaxley Report and the decision of the Jamaican Government about what action they should take.
    Mr. Holt: The right hon. Gentleman has not said anything about the Calico Printers Association.

    Import Restrictions (Balance of Payments)
    Mr. Bishopasked the President of the Board of Trade which foodstuffs and other commodities imported from the dollar area and from non-dollar areas, respectively, are still subject to import restrictions for balance-of-payments reasons.
    Mr. Amory: Imports from the dollar area of nearly all manufactured goods as well as many foodstuffs and a few raw materials are still restricted to protect our balance of payments. A large proportion of our imports from O.E.E.C. and certain other foreign countries is free of restriction but we cannot yet afford unlimited imports of a limited range of foodstuffs and manufactured goods and a few raw materials. Except for certain commodities, mainly raw materials, imports from certain other foreign countries are also restricted. There are, in general, no such restrictions on imports from the sterling area.
    Mr. Bishop: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the prospect of getting rid of these restrictions entirely, especially in the case of imports from non-dollar areas?
    Mr. Amory: I think my hon. Friend knows that it is the policy of the Government to work for the progressive removal of import restrictions of all kinds. I think he would agree that considerable progress has been made in that direction during the past year, but we must still proceed with caution.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the proportionate figure of the dollar imports still subject to restriction?
    Mr. Amory: I am afraid that I could not give the proportion accurately now, but if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on the subject I will endeavour to give him an answer.
    Major Legge-Bourke: When my right hon. Friend says that the Government are working for the removal of import restrictions, may I ask him for an assurance that it does not mean that the position of horticulturists in this country has been overlooked, as they can only be protected by tariffs?
    Mr. Amory: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the position of our horticulturists will not be overlooked.

    British Lion Film Corporation (Appointment of Receiver)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects that the National Film Finance Corporation's Report for the year ended 31st March, 1954, will be published; and what action is proposed with reference to the British Lion Film Corporation.
    Mr. H. Strauss: The Report was laid before the House this morning and copies will be available in the Vote Office after Questions. It shows that the financial position of the British Lion Film Corporation has deteriorated seriously and that the National Film Finance Corporation has decided to call in its loan and exercise its right to appoint a receiver and manager. The Government have expressed their agreement with the Corporation in this decision, and I understand that the receiver is taking up his duties today.
    The policy issues arising out of this decision have been discussed between the National Film Finance Corporation and the Government. The Corporation has recommended, and the Government have agreed, that steps should be taken to create a new company, to come under the complete control of the National Film Finance Corporation or the receiver, in order to continue the distribution functions hitherto performed by the British Lion Film Corporation. The new company will not itself make films.
    Mr. Shepherd: While the House will naturally regret the necessity for this step, although it will recognise that it

    1073
    cannot be avoided, may I ask if my hon. and learned Friend will give an assurance that so far as possible other producers will be induced to go to Shepperton and thereby provide continuing employment in the studios.
    Mr. Strauss: I can assure my hon. Friend that the British Lion Studio Company is a separate public company which provides studio facilities for producers. The shares owned by British Lion will come under the receiver's control. Current film production will keep the studio running until the middle of August, when it is hoped that the new company will be in operation.
    Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the far-reaching and possibly—I say possibly—disastrous effects of this decision, will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that as far as possible he will do his best to maintain the continuity of the present distribution arrangements through the British Lion organisation? Secondly, will the new company have power to finance production by preproduction guarantees, and will money be available for that?
    Mr. Strauss: The idea of forming the new company is both in the interest of the wise disposal of the existing assets and in the interests of film production. As for advances to the new company by the National Film Finance Corporation, such advances are possible. As for borrowing by the National Film Finance Corporation itself, it has not used the powers of borrowing available under the 1952 Act.
    Mr. Wilson: Is it intended that this new company will be in a position to finance independent producers, as envisaged under the 1948 Act, or have the Government it in mind to drive the industry more and more into the hands of the big circuits?
    Mr. Strauss: We have certainly in mind the interests of the independent producers, but in answer to this Question I cannot attempt to allocate the work as between the new company, which will be a distribution company, and the National Film Finance Corporation itself.
    Mr. Beresford Craddock: Do I understand from my hon. and learned Friend that the appointment of a receiver may
    1074
    lead to the cessation of the production of films at Shepperton studios? Can he give an assurance about the future of those studios which, as he knows, are very well equipped?
    Mr. Strauss: I thought I had dealt with that point in answer to the first supplementary question. Current production will keep the studio busy until the middle of August, and we hope that the arrangements which will come into effect will keep them busy permanently in the interests of film production.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the British Lion Film Corporation was the only important British distributing company which provided facilities for independent producers—independent of the big circuits? Can he give the House an assurance that there will be no interregnum between the winding up of the activities of British Lion and the coming into operation of the new company which he has mentioned?
    Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that British Lion is not being wound up. A receiver and manager is being appointed. The arrangements which I have outlined, I think, diminish the risk of any interregnum, as far as they possibly can.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Can the hon. Member also—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—this is a very important matter for the British film industry; can the hon. and learned Member also say whether this new company is being formed by the Film Finance Corporation or by private enterprise?
    Mr. Strauss: The legal steps are somewhat complicated. I think it will be formed by the receiver.

    COMPANY DIVIDENDS
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that the course of company dividends in the first four months of this year meets the requirements of his financial policy.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): Taking account of the increase in the amount of capital employed, on the figures available, the shareholders' gross return on invested capital during the first four months of

    1075
    1954 was about 6·9 per cent., compared with about 6·2 per cent. in the same period last year. One could take the absolute amount of gross dividends reported—for which the increase is about 21 per cent.—but that would give a misleading picture. However, continued restraint in the distribution of dividends is necessary.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is the hon. Member not aware that even leaving aside this very large increase—21 per cent. as he says, and 26 per cent. as the "Financial Times" indicated recently—and even accepting the rather unsatisfactory basis of the percentage of capital employed, the increase in the first four months of this year appears to have been of the order of 15 per cent. above that of the first four months of last year? Will he indicate what degree of increase in dividend distribution would be regarded by the Government as showing a lack of restraint?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think it is for the Government to lay down for the guidance of individual boards of directors how much they should distribute by way of dividends. The gross return on the sum of invested capital in the first four months of this year has risen from 6·2 per cent. to only 6·9 per cent.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the present dividend position reflects adequately the exceptionally high level of business and industrial activity in the country today and the extraordinary level of prosperity everywhere?
    Mr. Jay: Does not this mean that the Government's dividend restraint policy has completely collapsed? With all these increased profits and this increased prosperity, is there any reason for delaying any longer the promised increase to old-age pensioners?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think there is any evidence here of a breakdown in the Government's policy of voluntary dividend restraint.

    INDO-CHINA (FIVE-POWER STAFF TALKS)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of the five-Power military
    1076
    staffs meeting in Washington in which Her Majesty's Government is participating.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): The five-Power military staff meetings between representatives of the Governments of Australia, France, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States are due to begin in Washington the day after tomorrow. It would, therefore, be premature for me to make a statement on their progress. They are without commitment by any of the participating Governments. The British representative will be Sir John Harding, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff.
    Mr. Warbey: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance that these talks will be without commitment, will he at the same time give an assurance that, bearing in mind the composition of this meeting, nothing will be said or done there which may drive a wedge between the Anglo-Saxon and the Asian members of the British Commonwealth?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think I ought to add to what I have said on the subject.

    MINISTRY OF FOOD
    Captain Duncanasked the Prime Minister if he will now name a date for the abolition of the Ministry of Food.
    The Prime Minister: Not yet, Sir.
    Captain Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend go as far as this: will he give an assurance that before the end of this Parliament the Ministry of Food will be abolished?
    The Prime Minister: That has certainly been well within the horizon which we have contemplated in the past.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall the extravagant promises about the abolition of the Ministry of Food made two years or more ago? Why this reluctance, this hesitation, this reserve, on matters of this kind?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that when and if this result is achieved the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety may be matched by his gratitude.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my anxiety is not about the possible closing of the Ministry of

    1077
    Food—there could be a very useful debate about that—but about the position of this Government in declining to implement their promises to the electorate? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer?
    The Prime Minister: Some questions are so obvious that they do not need an answer.

    NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will now alter their present policy whereby Ministers will not answer Questions calling for information on the administration of the nationalised industries; and if Her Majesty's Government will arrange that Ministers will in future answer such Questions.
    The Prime Minister: I see no reason to depart from the present practice whereby Ministers are not expected to concern themselves with the day-to-day administration of the nationalised industries.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the first and principal duties of a Member of Parliament is to be guardian of the public purse? How can he carry out that duty if he is not allowed to expose the Socialist policy of nationalisation and the fact that the nationalised industries are losing money and wasting money, especially in the case of electricity, gas, transport and coal?
    The Prime Minister: I think I have answered the Question on the Order Paper. I may reassure my hon. Friend about my own position: I have always been against nationalisation—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—of all industries except the railways, where, I admit, I have learned wisdom by experience.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Prime Minister say whether the only reason why he supports the nationalisation of the railways is because they are in an exceptionally difficult financial position? Is he in favour of the nationalisation of industries likely to lose money, and against the nationalisation of those in which profits are to be made?
    The Prime Minister: We have talked about these matters in the last eight years, and I have frequently been on record on the subject.

    ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONS
    Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether he will invite President Eisenhower to London to discuss with him how Anglo-American differences may be resolved.
    The Prime Minister: I must refer the hon. Member to my answers given to himself and to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 26th November, 1952, 20th May, 1953, 27th October, 1953, and 6th April, 1954.
    They all say the same thing in varying forms. The answer given to the hon. Member on 20th May, 1953, is the fullest. It was very carefully considered at the time and I do not think it requires any addition or modification to-day. I shall be glad to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of it if he desires.
    Mr. Wyatt: Has not the Prime Minister noticed that quite a lot has happened since he gave me the answer a year ago to which he has referred? Is it not common knowledge that whereas our aims in Asia are the same as those of the Americans, there has been considerable disagreement as to the methods? Is it not of the utmost importance that, as we approach the idea of a South-East Asian defence pact, we should work in harmony and understanding with each other; and, surely, that cannot be achieved by Transatlantic telephone conversations, but only by face-to-face meetings between the heads of States of the kind which the Prime Minister has long advocated?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that that is not covered by the answer I have given, and I am sure that, when the hon. Gentleman reads the answer given a year ago, his feelings of anxiety will be largely set at rest, and I think may even be accompanied by some admiration for our prescient and far-sighted wording.

    PENSIONS AND FIXED INCOMES (HARDSHIP)
    Miss Wardasked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that the Resolution on Pensions and Fixed Incomes (Hardship) passed unanimously by the House on 19th March will be implemented before the consideration of the Resolution on Members' Pay passed. only after a Division, on 24th May.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I think it would be an inconvenient rule if nothing could be done until everything can be done.
    Miss Ward: In view of the fact that most Conservatives are opposed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—to the increase in emoluments, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will bear in mind that his own personal obstinacy in this matter is causing great grief to those who owe him so much?
    The Prime Minister: I have certainly been very obstinate in thinking that everybody should do exactly what they like.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Prime Minister make it clear that he intends to go on disapproving of this mutiny against the bounty which has been approved by this House?
    The Prime Minister: There is no question of a mutiny on the bounty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Against."] Everyone must vote according to his conscience and conviction.

    FIRE BRIGADE LONG SERVICE MEDAL
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the grant of recognition for long service in fire brigades.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Queen has approved proposals for the institution of a Fire Brigade Long Service and Good Conduct Medal. A White Paper on the subject is available now in the Vote Office.
    Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this announcement will give very great satisfaction to men in the service who, hitherto, have been in the humiliating position of having to pay for their own long service medals?

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    European Payments Union
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how long it is proposed that the United Kingdom should participate in the European Payments Union.
    Mr. Maudling: The proposal discussed at the Ministerial Council on 5th and 6th May was that the Union should be continued for a further year, subject to renegotiation if the need should arise.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. Erhardt, the West German Finance Minister, after his recent talks with the Chancellor at Bonn, confidently envisaged that this would be the last year preceding general convertibility? Is that the view of Her Majesty's Government? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a substantial body of informed opinion which feels that in moving rapidly towards the convertibility of sterling we shall still incur a grave risk?
    Mr. Maudling: So far as the future is concerned, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the recent statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the effect that it is a good thing to look ahead, but it is not a good thing to look further than one can see.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Would the hon. Gentleman make it plain that Her Majesty's Government is not in agreement with the very categorical statement of Dr. Erhardt to the effect that convertibility was going to come in the very near future? Will he give an assurance, not only for the benefit of many people in this country but for the benefit of other European countries, which are seriously concerned in this matter?
    Mr. Maudling: Her Majesty's Government's policy in this matter has been announced continually by my right hon. Friend, and not by Dr. Erhardt.

    Commonwealth and Colonial Empire (Investments)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amounts of public and private investments, respectively, from the United Kingdom in the self-governing States of the Commonwealth and in the Colonial Dependencies for each year from 1946 to 1953.
    Mr. Maudling: I regret that I have little to add to the replies which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) on 1st April and to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) on 8th February. But, with

    1081
    permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures of the loans raised on the London market by Governments of the self-governing States of the Commonwealth and the Colonial Dependencies. These figures are included in item 31 of Cmd. 9119.
    Mr. Osborne: Without seeing the figures, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he and the Treasury are satisfied that there is no obstacle to money being sent out there, as it was before?
    Mr. Maudling: I think there has been a very great expansion in the outflow of capital from the United Kingdom to the Commonwealth for investment, and we are very anxious to encourage it. I certainly would not think that there was any limit to it.
    Following are the figures:
    The following is a list of U.K. subscriptions to Commonwealth and Colonial Government new issues on the London market in each year since 1946:

    £ million

    —

    Independent Commonwealth Governments

    Colonial Governments

    1946

    —

    —

    1947

    8·9

    —

    1948

    5·0

    3·2

    1949

    9·9

    11·3*

    1950

    10·9

    17·3

    1951

    5·0

    22·7†

    1952

    7·4

    25·7

    1953

    19·8

    11·0

    * Including local authorities' issues £1·0 million.
    † Including local authorities' issues £1·2 million.

    International Bank President (Chancellor's Talks)
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about his official talks with the President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
    Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend's talks with Mr. Black were informal, they discussed all outstanding matters which were of interest to the U.K. Government and the I.B.R.D.
    Mr. Jenkins: Was the question of making the sterling subscription available for loans outside the sterling area discussed, and what is the view of H.M. Government on it?
    Mr. Maudling: That is one of the things that was discussed, but H.M. Government have not expressed any view on the matter yet.

    British Government (Debts)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the figures of the total amount owing by the British Government to private individuals and corporations and Dominion and foreign Governments, respectively, distinguishing approximately between short-term and long-term indebtedness, at the 31st March, 1939, and for each year 1945 to 1954 inclusive.
    Mr. Maudling: I regret that this information is not available.
    Sir W. Smithers: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that we can only pay our debts abroad if we stop inflation and keep up both the external and internal purchasing power of the £ sterling by every means possible, and that an increase in the salary of Members of Parliament is against that principle?
    Mr. Maudling: These matters are constantly in the mind of my right hon. Friend.

    Property Conveyances (Stamp Duty)
    Mr. G. Longdenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to encourage house ownership, he will abolish or reduce the Stamp Duty on conveyances of property up to £2,500 in value.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I regret that my right hon. Friend cannot adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. I would remind him that, following the concessions my right hon. Friend introduced in 1952, conveyances on sale of property other than stocks and securities already enjoy preferential treatment for Stamp Duty purposes where the price does not exceed £3,450.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

    Honorary P.R.O.s
    Sir R. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the recent practice by which large industrial undertakings have lent public relations officers to some of the Government Departments, what travel or other expenses incurred in connection with the duties they are called upon to perform are chargeable to public funds.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Only one of the four honorary public relations officers in Government Departments is lent by a "large industrial undertaking," but I assume the hon. Baronet intended his Question to cover all four. Two, I understand, have not so far claimed any reimbursement of expenses. One receives a season ticket covering travel between his home and his office, and incurs no other expenses. The fourth receives subsistence allowances when travelling on Departmental business, and reimbursement of travelling and entertainment expenses, on the same terms as apply to paid civil servants engaged on comparable duties.
    Sir R. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice of using honorary P.R.O.s is unnecessary, unfortunate, unsatisfactory and one which should be abolished at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have noted my hon. Friend's adjectives.
    Sir R. De la Bère: I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment

    Establishment and Redundancy
    Mr. Stokesasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many married women have so far been informed that they have been established under the 1953 scheme for the establishment of temporary clerks as clerical assistants; and whether he will consider amending the redundancy agreement to meet the present difficulties caused by the closing of the Ministry of Food and the possibility of staff from that Ministry replacing staff in permanent Ministries.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to the first part of the Question is 185; to the second part, "No, Sir."

BUGANDA (STATE OF EMERGENCY)
Mr. Dugdale (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the re-imposition of the state of emergency in the Province of Buganda?
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): As the House will be aware, the Governor of Uganda yesterday re-imposed a state of emergency in the Province of Buganda. This step has been taken because an attempted trade boycott is now being intensified by threats and intimidation to the public in Buganda. Towards the end of April, the Uganda National Congress called for a three-months' buying boycott of everything but "bare necessities."
The boycott started fairly peaceably, but during the last week members of the public have been forcibly prevented from selling and buying goods; cases have been reported of people being compelled to return goods which they have bought, and coffee trees belonging to people who have ignored the boycott have been cut down. Intimidation has greatly increased, and criminal elements have been taking advantage of the situation.
The measures which the Government of Uganda have decided to take have the unanimous support of the unofficial Members of the Legislative Council, both Africans and others.
The Governor has decided, under the Emergency Regulations, to suspend the issue of three newspapers which for many months have been consistently stirring up disaffection against the Government and the Regents of Buganda and which have contained articles stirring up racial hatred. The Special Constabulary has been called up and troops are available should they be required, but at present the situation remains calm, and I have received no report of disturbances.
Finally, I should like again to emphasise that the Governor's action, the necessity for which I greatly regret, has been taken solely to enable the Government to carry out its first duty of maintaining law and order and to protect the law-abiding public from the activities of a comparatively small number of irresponsible agitators.
Mr. Dugdale: What is the effect of this state of emergency on the deliberations of Professor Hancock, who is now in Uganda? Secondly, what is the position of the Under-Secretary of State who, according to the newspapers, is now on a private visit to Uganda? Is it not unusual for an Under-Secretary to be on private business in a Territory at the moment when his chief declares a state of emergency in it? Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although we on this side of the House are very tolerant, we find it a little difficult to accept the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is constantly declaring states of emergency in the various Territories for which he is responsible?
Mr. Lyttelton: In regard to the last part of the supplementary question, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the number of states of emergency declared by this Government during their tenure of office is very much smaller than that of the previous Government. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will turn up the answer which I made on that point on a previous occasion. With regard to the second matter, the word "private" is a misnomer. It is a routine visit which happened to coincide with this situation. In regard to the third question, I cannot prophesy, but we hope—and I am quoting from the Governor—that the measures to restore law and order will create a calmer atmosphere in which the discussions may take place.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: Can my right hon. Friend indicate the racial composition of the Legislative Council unofficial members who approve of this action?
Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. The Legislative Council consists of 28 representative members, of whom 14 are Africans—three from Buganda—seven Asians, seven Europeans and 19 nominated members, six of whom are Africans—three from Buganda—and nine ex-officio members.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate the cause of the boycott, which has been proceeding for some time? Secondly, would he indicate that a peaceful boycott is a legitimate political action and that the declaration of a state of emergency is not declaring a peaceful boycott, as a legitimate political action, to be illegal? Has it now been decided that the request of the Africans to have
1086
assistance from outside when they meet the Hancock Committee shall be met, and has the ban upon outside assistance now been removed by Her Majesty's Government?
Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think that the last part of the question really arises out of the original Question. I will let the right hon. Gentleman know the position; I have not the facts in mind.
The boycott was solely against the Deportation Ordinance. I do not propose to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question about whether a trade boycott is a legitimate political weapon. What is certainly not a peaceful political weapon is intimidation to enforce a boycott which otherwise has been unsuccessful.
Mr. Attlee: As the right hon. Gentleman has quoted from a document may I take it that he will lay the document? He will know that it is a Rule of the House that if he quotes from a document, as he did in his reply, he must lay the whole document.
Mr. Lyttelton: To which document does the right hon. Gentleman refer?
Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman quoted something. He said "I quote from the Governor's letter," or something.
Mr. Lyttelton: I thought I added the words "in this sense."
Mr. Fenner Brockway: Had the Uganda National Congress not made an appeal for calm and non-violence before the state of emergency? Can the right hon. Gentleman give evidence of a single case in which there has been violence against any person who was against the boycott?
Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. I do not say physical violence in that sense, but as I have said, intimidation by the cutting down of trees belonging to those who have been ignoring the boycott has taken place.
Mr. Alport: Has my right hon. Friend any information as to the attitude of the Regents of Buganda in this matter? Is he aware that the people of Uganda greatly welcome this action, which prevents the state of security in the Protectorate from deteriorating and getting out of control before trouble

1087
happens rather than, as in the case of previous Administrations, after it happens?
Mr. Lyttelton: The Regents have expressed themselves strongly against the campaign of intimidation. With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I hope that these measures will restore peace and order, but it is a little early to say.
Mr. J. Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the unofficial representatives are solidly behind the Governor. Does that include the three Buganda Members? What is the attitude of the Lukiko in this matter?
Mr. Lyttelton: The Council are all in favour of the measures which the Governor has taken. That goes for the three Buganda members. I do not know about the Lukiko. I am talking only about the unofficial Members.
Mrs. White: Why could a matter of cutting down trees not be dealt with in the ordinary course of the law rather than by declaring a state of emergency?
Mr. Lyttelton: I was citing only one instance. There are widespread cases of intimidation which have made these emergency Regulations necessary.
Mr. S. Silverman: In order to resolve the controversy that has developed as to who or what is being intimidated by whom, and what the majority of the people of Buganda desire, would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to hold free supervised elections in Buganda, and to abide by the result?
Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir.
Mr. Brockway: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"The declaration of a state of emergency in the Protectorate of Buganda."
I submit that this is the earliest opportunity on which I could have raised this matter and that the matter is urgent and is of public importance; otherwise no state of emergency would have been declared.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the
1088
House under the Standing Order, on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"The declaration of a state of emergency in the Protectorate of Buganda."
I cannot, myself, form the opinion that this is an urgent matter. It is one incident in a series of events which have been with us since December and I cannot find that it comes within the Standing Order. I would point out that on Friday there will be the Adjournment for the Whitsun Recess and if there was a desire to consider the question then I think that it could be fitted in.
Mr. Paget: On a point of order. Is there really anything at all which, in one sense, is not an event in a series of events? Is not the declaration of a state of emergency in itself and of its own right an event within the meaning of the rule?
Mr. Speaker: All events are connected in the long story of history, and it is possible to connect one event with another. What intended to convey was that this was not a new matter so as to bring it within the Standing Order on the ground of urgency. We have had it before, and I do not find that it comes within the Standing Order.
Mr. J. Griffiths: With due respect, arising out of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, the declaration of a state of emergency is indeed both urgent and of the very greatest importance, but do I gather that your Ruling is on the ground that this arises out of incidents which have happened before and not that the emergency is not a matter of urgency and public importance?
Mr. Speaker: Had this been the first occasion on which this matter had arisen in this Territory, I could have come to a different opinion.
Mr. S. Silverman: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to what seems to be a very close, if not exact, analogy, when your predecessor ruled that there was a prima facie case. I refer to the action taken in Palestine in June, 1946, by the then Government. The circumstances were closely parallel to this. There had been a history of disturbance, a series of events, a number of discussions and questions, and then emergency action by the Government precisely similar to that which the right hon.

1089
Gentleman has indicated to the House today. On that occasion I did what my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) has just done. Your predecessor ruled that there was a case and invited the House to say whether it supported me or not. There being a sufficient number there was, in fact, an Adjournment debate at 7 o'clock that night.
Mr. Speaker: I remember the occasion to which the hon. Member alludes, but I think that it would not be difficult to differentiate this from it. This is not the first time that we have had a declaration of emergency in this Protectorate. It has happened before. As far as I could understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, nothing very startling has happened there yet. As I understood, this is merely a precautionary measure. If there were, as in other cases, widespread disorder it would of course put the matter in a different category altogether.
Mr. Brockway: May I say with respect that the very fact you, Sir, have said from the Chair that there is no indication of any great emergency in Buganda—no widespread disorder—is an argument for giving the House an opportunity to debate this matter, as it is an indication that the declaration of a state of emergency is unnecessary?
Mr. Speaker: That is another matter but it is not urgent. It is a matter of criticism of the Government. No, I must adhere to my Ruling. I have come to the best conclusion I can upon it.
Mr. Dugdale: On a further point of order. May I ask if the position is that if an emergency is declared in a Territory for the first time it becomes a matter which can be discussed in this House, but that if it is declared for the second or third time it cannot be discussed?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Member is trying to over-simplify the matter. Every case must be looked at with its own circumstances and contingencies. I have to make the best judgment I can on this matter. From my recollection of what has happened in this Territory before, and what has happened today, I do not think that this can possibly be considered to be within the Standing Order, and I must so rule.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal what business will be taken on Thursday.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. A debate will take place on agriculture in England and Wales.
It may at the same time be convenient to say that, as I informed my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) last Thursday, I am afraid that it has not been possible to arrange for a debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, but it may be helpful if I inform the House that the Government have given careful consideration to it and have come to the conclusion that it would be unconstitutional for the House to pass an order of the kind suggested, or for one of the Committees of the House to seek to act as such in a foreign country. The House cannot, in effect, assert a jurisdiction which it does not possess. It is, however, quite open for Members of the sub-committee privately to make such inquiries as they choose anywhere they may wish to, and to report upon them in due course to the Estimates Committee and, through them, to the House.
Captain Waterhouse: I thank my right hon. Friend for the consideration which has been given to the matter, but I would point out that at no time did this subcommittee ever consider proceeding abroad as a sub-committee. All that was hoped for was that, while we proceeded abroad as private individual Members, we might have the services of a Clerk of this House.
Mr. Crookshank: That may be, but the mere taking of a Clerk makes it into a Committee.
Mr. Ross: Is the Leader of the House aware that the method he is suggesting was considered in 1951 by the Estimates Committee in relation to the work of a sub-committee, the president of which was the present Solicitor-General? That committee's view was that the device now suggested was a quite unsuitable and undesirable means of overcoming the constitutional difficulties. Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, give the

1091
House an opportunity as soon as possible to deal with this vital constitutional point?
Mr. Nicholson: If hon. Members of the sub-committee go abroad as individuals, presumably with their necessary expenses paid, why cannot a Clerk of the House do the same?
Mr. Crookshank: It is really impossible to discuss this matter further at this stage. There is other business before the House. I merely state the position as the Government see it.
Miss Ward: May I ask whether between now and the Whitsun recess the Government will consider what steps can be taken to control national expenditure abroad, bearing in mind that it is a constitutional right, indeed one of the main functions, of the House of Commons to control expenditure?
Mr. Crookshank: As I said just now it it is very difficult to proceed by question and answer in this way. All I have dealt with is the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, which suggested a certain course of action. That course has been considered by the Government and the Government have come to the conclusion that it would be an improper action to take. As I thought it might be a convenience to the House to know, I added that it would be possible to obtain, in a private way, a great deal of the kind of information which the Select Committee wants.
Mr. H. Morrison: The Leader of the House has stated that this is a very difficult matter to deal with by way of question and answer in the House. Is not that a tacit admission that the best way to deal
1092
with it is by a debate, and would it not be wiser if he afforded facilities for a half-day debate? [Interruption.] This was a Report to the House of Commons. Hon. Members opposite may be in opposition themselves one day. Opposition time is sacred to the Opposition. Is it not right, on a Report to the House, that the Leader should give time for debating it? As he has now stated, it is really impossible adequately to deal with this subject by question and answer. Is not that an admission of the need for a debate?
Mr. Crookshank: I think the right hon. Gentleman is being very unreasonable. There was no need for me to make this statement at all. I made it because a request was made by my right hon. and gallant Friend for a debate, and I explained that it was impossible for me to arrange that. Therefore, I have stated the Government's view on the point.
Sir W. Smithers: As the business for Thursday is to be a debate on agriculture in England and Wales, can the Leader of the House say when the Crichel Down Report will be issued?
Mr. Crookshank: I am afraid that I cannot do that, but I do happen to know that there is a Question on that subject on the Order Paper to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Thursday.
Mr. Pannell: Could the Leader of the House give an assurance that before any debate takes place upon the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, somebody in the Cabinet will read the document? The answer of the Leader of the House this afternoon betrays the fact that there has not been any acute study of the issues involved.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TELEVISION BILL
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress 31st May].
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  TELEVISION BILL

    Clause 5.—(CONTRACTS FOR PROGRAMMES.)
    3.52 p.m.
    Sir Robert Grimston: I beg to move, in page 7, line 34, after "secure," to insert:
    "the most efficient and economical use of stations for the purpose of providing television broadcasting services, and subject to this duty to secure."
    It seems to me that as this Clause is now drawn and read in conjunction with another, the Bill appears to give a slightly contradictory injunction to the I.T.A. Clause 5 (2) reads:
    "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. Clause 3 (1, c) gives an injunction
    "that the programmes maintain a proper balance in their subject-matter and a high general standard of quality."
    When the I.T.A. is set up, one of its first duties will be the task of the allocation of transmitters to programme companies, and one has to bear in mind that at the beginning, owing to the shortage of channels and so on, there will be a very limited allocation. I feel that the I.T.A. should have complete freedom to weigh all considerations in coming to a decision about these allocations.
    The choice before them would be roughly two. One would be to crowd as many programme companies as possible on to what transmitters are available, and that, I think, would fulfil to the letter the provisions of Clause 5 (1). But if they do that, I think it will be impossible to comply with the maintenance of balanced programmes and standards of quality, because the business of seeing to all that, with a large number of programme companies on very few transmitters, would be practically impossible and I think it would make the situation chaotic.
    1094
    I may be wrong but, as the Bill reads at the moment, it appears to me that the prime consideration is to be competition. We want competition. We are going to get it with the B.B.C. to start with, but at the outset when there is this great paucity of transmitters I suggest that that should not be the priority consideration of the I.T.A. I therefore move this Amendment which seeks to provide that the Authority shall secure
    "the most efficient and economical use of stations for the purpose of providing…services"
    and that should be taken conjointly with the necessity to get as much competition as possible, but that the whole emphasis should not be thrown on competition.
    It may be that the Authority, having made inquiries, received applications and so on, will come to the conclusion that to produce the best programmes of the highest standard and proper balance they must have one company per transmitter, or two companies per transmitter on different days of the week, or some permutation or combination of one or other of those ideas. But what I want to ensure is that the I.T.A. shall have a free hand to use their judgment and discretion in the matter, and that nothing in this Bill shall prevent them from exercising their judgment in producing programmes which not only are competitive but also fulfil the conditions that have been laid down in Clause 3 (1, c).
    Mr. George Darling: I think this Amendment is far more important than it first appears to be. It seems to me that hon. Members opposite can have two views about it. I rather regret—although one cannot challenge the ruling—that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon)—in page 7, line 33, leave out from the beginning, to the first "to,' in line 34, and insert:
    (2) The Authority shall take reasonable steps to secure the most efficient and economical use of stations for the purpose of providing television broadcasting services, and, subject to this obligation.
    —was not called, because if both these Amendments had been called I should have been able to talk about both of them. Although they both more or less say the same thing, I think the motives behind them are somewhat different.

    1095
    I think there can be two views about this matter. It may be that hon. Members opposite are departing from the somewhat dogmatic and doctrinaire views that they have been forcing down our throats from the beginning of this discussion about a second television service—doctrinaire views on competition which, as I have suggested earlier, nobody on the opposite benches has yet attempted to define in connection with this Bill. The second possibility is that some hon. Members opposite want to obtain some advantage for the interests that they have been carefully looking after during the course of this debate.
    I would welcome the departure from the doctrinaire views which some hon. Members hold. I would welcome a departure from the doctrinaire views held on both sides of the Committee. I wish we could start again. I wish that we could get rid of this Bill and start again, and it might be a good idea of get rid of both Front Benches and let hon. Members of good will and understanding on the back benches of both sides of the Committee get together and produce a better Bill.
    The dogma that we have had on both sides—I say this quite seriously—has led us into what I am afraid is going to be the acceptance of a monstrosity of a Bill. If these Amendments mean that hon. Members opposite have had a change of heart about the meaning of competition and what kind of competition they want, that is all to the good—
    Sir R. Grimston: On this point of doctrinaire views and competition, may I point out that the first thing this Bill does is to provide competition with the B.B.C. and break the monopoly? That is the foundation of it. Although we have only a few channels now, in a few years' time there will be an enormous number of channels. Many of us have said that we regard this Bill, with the present set-up, as a half-way house.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Darling: I do not think that it is even a half-way house. Even from that point of view, it is a thoroughly bad Bill. If this Amendment can change the Bill for the better all will be well, provided that the motive behind it is as
    1096
    reasonable and straightforward as one would hope.
    The people do not want competitive programmes; they want alternative programmes. We have been trying to drive that point home for some time. Therefore, we have to understand the real meanings both of the word "competition" in the Clause, and of the Amendment. The hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) talked about sharing technical equipment between the B.B.C., the I.T.A. and the programme companies that may be set up within the I.T.A. I think that we should be in favour of that proposition. It would be absolutely absurd to set up new television masts for the programme companies. Any number of aerials within reason can be hung upon a television mast, and they ought to be hung on the masts which the B.B.C. is now using.
    If other television masts are set up all over the country the owners of television sets, instead of being faced merely with the cost of adaptors for their sets, will have to go to the expense of changing their sets or getting new aerials, especially if they live in terraced houses, where interference from neighbours' sets will occur. Where it is practicable, the sharing of studios and other equipment should also be encouraged, not only between programme companies and the I.T.A., but also the B.B.C. I do not see why the country should be involved in a great deal of unnecessary expense in this matter.
    To prevent the conflict, confusion and chaos which may develop if the Amendment is not accepted, and to make sure that the Bill will not be a disservice to the public, the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. must work together. Competition must be restrained and restricted over the whole field of their activities. They must work together if we are to have balanced alternative programmes. It is completely silly to suggest that there should be no co-ordination of any kind between the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. That would lead to both authorities putting on the same kind of programme at the same time, or both of them televising the same football match on a Saturday afternoon.
    It is about time the Committee began to consider the public and not the vested interests of the B.B.C., the I.T.A., the

    1097
    programme companies and the advertisers. I am not sure whether the motives of the hon. Member for Westbury are as clear as he would like us to believe, and whether he is considered only with providing a first-class television service to the people. It must be noted that the Authority can step in to make sure that the programme companies provide balanced programmes. That is another restriction from competition, if it is true that competition will lead to unbalanced programmes.
    The sponsors of the Amendment, unlike the hon and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon)—whose motives are always clear, straightforward, honest and above board—frequently talk about competition with their tongues in their cheeks, as do the Government. What they will get out of this Bill is the development of a monopoly within the I.T.A., and they want to add these words to cover up that development. In spite of all the talk we have had from hon. Members opposite, I suggest that there will be only one programme company in London. It may farm out some stuff to sub-contractors, but there will be only one programme company, for very good technical and financial reasons. It will be another monopoly, and this fact destroys all the silly talk we have heard about the virtues of competition in the doctrinaire approach which hon. Members opposite have made to the question.
    The suggestion by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), that one news agency should serve the new set-up, is another example of advocating a monopoly. There are five news agencies in this country, and the hon. and gallant Member proposes that the other four shall be cut out. He also suggests a monopoly in news films, namely, that this television service should be provided by the existing companies which provide newsreels to cinemas. For good technical and financial reasons the tendency will be to develop towards monopolies. It will be too expensive to set up all the services envisaged by the Bill. The talk of competition begins to wear thin as we approach the end of the Committee stage, and will entirely disappear when the Bill becomes operative and the new set-up begins to work.
    The proposed Amendment seeks to cover up that situation. Competition is,
    1098
    in the words of the Amendment, in the interests of securing
    "the most efficient and economical use of stations.…"
    If the Government are sincere and honest in this matter, it is still not too late to recognise the facts and to establish a second television service in such a way as to deal with the situation that arises with such a close division of opinion and numerical forces in the House. This division must lead to some compromise if the job is to be done properly. The Amendment should be looked at very carefully. I do not know the view of the Government on it, but if it can be turned to good account in the way I have suggested, I hope that they will help us to turn it in that direction.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): I am rather intrigued by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) that if we were to get rid of the two Front Benches we might get somewhere in this matter. I do not know what he thinks of his own Front Bench, but I find them very pleasant and agreeable people to deal with.
    Sir Leslie Plummer: What about your own Front Bench?
    Mr. Gammans: I also find them pleasant and agreeable.
    I cannot accept the Amendment as it is at present worded, but I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) some assurances, which I hope will satisfy him. The Amendment really seeks to put upon the Authority two duties which, in my opinion, are mutually contradictory. If the first duty of the Authority is to organise the most efficient television service, the obvious way to achieve that object is to hand the job to a single contractor, who would run a monopoly network for the whole country. It would not be a monopoly in the same sense as the B.B.C., but it would be a monopoly network. We cannot accept that, because we are pledged in the Bill to secure competition.
    My hon. Friend asked me whether the powers of the Authority would be circumscribed in any way. I can give an assurance that they will not be circumscribed. It is up to the Authority to find the happy medium—if that is the right

    1099
    word to use—between the two conflicting points of view. I do not know what attitude it will take. I think I can guess, for the reasons which the hon. Member for Hillsborough has told us. Nothing would be more ridiculous than that we should attempt to have a large number of contractors for one station. It just would not work. We should be duplicating outside broadcasting equipment and putting the Authority to unnecessary expense over studios and so on. What is more, we certainly should not be getting a balanced programme. There is nothing whatever to prevent one station being given to one contractor, but to decide about that is a duty which we shall put upon the Authority.
    Mr. Edward Shackleton: As the hon. Gentleman has reached that point, will he tell us which company is having the London station?
    Mr. Gammans: That is a very silly interruption.
    Mr. Shackleton: Perhaps it is a very painful interruption.
    Mr. Gammans: It is not in the least a painful interruption. I have not the faintest idea, and I could not have the faintest idea. The hon. Gentleman knows that the duty in that respect is placed not upon me but upon the Authority. If he has not grasped that now, he has not grasped the Bill.
    Mr. Shackleton: I do not agree. I have grasped the Bill.
    Mr. Gammans: I was asked whether the power of the Authority will in any way be circumscribed. It will not. We are setting up the body and endowing it with certain responsibilities and powers, and one of its chief responsibilities will be to select the programme contractors. I hope that, in view of the assurances which I have given, my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The complimentary remarks made by the Assistant Postmaster-General at the beginning of his speech did not seem to add up to very much when we came to his reply to the interjection by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton). The interjection by my hon. Friend was not silly. The hon.
    1100
    Gentleman knows that it was not silly. He knows that negotiations have been taking place behind the scenes. In the course of what I have to say, I hope to disclose some of the information which I have been able to pick up in connection with this matter.
    It seemed to me that the hon. Gentleman completely gave away the case for the Bill on the grounds of efficiency and the proper use of national resources. If we were to have the most efficient use of our resources, the B.B.C. should he handling them, and that is the answer to my hon. Friend. As the Assistant Postmaster-General said, if we are to duplicate the outside broadcasting units, the studios and the masts, it is a sheer waste of money. I believe that behind the Amendment there is the idea of creating a new monopoly.
    We had, first of all, anti-monopoly dogma from the benches opposite. We were told that the reason why we were to have the Authority was to break the monopoly. Let us see how far the monopoly will be broken. What has been argued is that the monopoly should be broken but not in such a way as to cause harm to the competitors. We shall see. After all, the public pocket is being picked under the cover of this dogma.
    The Government proposed originally that there should be adequate competition. If one reads the debates which took place in another place, on Second Reading and on the White Paper, one sees the argument that we must have the maximum competition to break down the monopoly, we must have transmitters everywhere and we must have keener individualism all over the country. We were told that there would be plenty of stations and that plenty of frequencies would be available in the very near future. Now we come to something entirely different. Now what is desired is not unrestricted competition but restricted competition. In fact, it is very restricted competition. We shall see.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: It is competition restricted by wavelengths.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That is not the reason behind the Amendment and the reason for the Assistant Postmaster-General's answer. The reason behind the

    1101
    Assistant Postmaster-General's argument was the cost of studios, transmitters and outside broadcasting units, and not the availability of frequencies, about which the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr- Ewing) has repeatedly reminded us, saying that there would be plenty of frequencies in Band IV. Apparently, the case is now pitched on the non-availability of frequencies.
    Sir R. Grimston: I can say quite categorically that if any number of frequencies was available tomorrow there would be no need for this Amendment.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That is quite contrary to what was said originally. The hon. Gentleman said that competition should not be the first priority.
    Sir R. Grimston: While so few transmitters are available.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: That means "now."
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Low power transmitters are not difficult to obtain these days. The hon. Member for Hendon, North, who probably knows much more about this than most hon. Members, will agree with me that transmitters are not the difficulty. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman pitched his argument on a false point.
    We now get back to the real reason. What has been taking place upstairs and in St. Martin's-le-Grand? What has been taking place in the 1922 "television sub-committee" and in discussion with the Postmaster-General? The intention is apparently to have not a multiplicity of programme companies but a small number of programme companies who will have a monopoly of the network. We can have as one network Birmingham, Manchester and London. Initially, that will be the network to be operated, and, as far as one can gather, it will be operated between three programme companies who will share studio facilities in London and transmit the same alternative programme from London, Birmingham and Manchester. I should be glad if the Assistant Postmaster-General would tell us whether or not the discussions which are now proceeding behind our backs without the authority of this House provide for that position.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General said that he accepted the spirit of the words
    1102
    in the Amendment and that the words at present in the Clause would be interpreted in accordance with the words in the Amendment. It seems to me that the situation will create an outburst in the country. All the newspapers who have made application are out.
    Mr. Gammans indicated dissent.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The newspapers are out and the three programme companies are going to launch this between them. The transmission rights are not to be vertical—one programme one station. What apparently is in mind is that they should be horizontal and the three companies should share the time from the best transmission stations.
    Mr. Gammans: That is a misconception.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman says that is a misconception, but there is a lot of information that confirms one in that view. When the Assistant Postmaster-General says, "It is a silly interruption"—that this is a matter being left to the I.T.A.—if it is being left to the I.T.A., why is the Postmaster-General having a discussion with the proposed commercial companies now? There is the position. I think that we ought to know something about it.
    This Amendment goes even further. It says that there shall be the most economical use of stations and equipment. What is involved in this? The B.B.C. is to be induced to lend its studios or rent its studios and its masts and its transmission facilities.
    Mr. Gammans: No.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: What is the use of the hon. Gentleman saying "No," when the Home Secretary in the debate on the Money Resolution said that that was to be the case?
    Captain L. P. S. Orr: The masts only.
    Mr. Gammans: What the Home Secretary said in that debate was that there was a strong case for both bodies using the same masts. There was no question whatever about the B.B.C. being compelled.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I did not say that the B.B.C. was to be compelled. The

    1103
    phrase I used was that the B.B.C. would be induced. We have had an assurance that there was to be no compulsion—that the B.B.C. was to be free to enter into these commercial arrangements and the I.T.A., whom the hon. Gentleman has advised us to trust so frequently, is the Authority to negotiate with the B.B.C. for the use of studio space. That is the position.
    After all, the hon. Gentleman has been arguing that the reason for calling it the Independent Television Authority is because it is to be completely free of the B.B.C.—completely independent of the B.B.C.—and now what is being done is to tie up technically to the B.B.C. so as to get the most efficient use of the resources.
    Let me take one or two other points. The hon. Gentleman was able to give an assurance that competition was not to be the first priority—breaking the monopoly was not to be the first priority—but the I.T.A. would be free to balance adequate competition with the efficient use of resources.
    Mr. Gammans indicated assent.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees. So this great fuss about monopoly and breaking the monopoly really does not amount to anything more—[An HON. MEMBER: "They are breaking it."] To what extent? It is only breaking it to such an extent as to leave the competitors still in a profitable position. In other words, despite the fact that £750,000 has been given to the I.T.A., and despite the fact that they have been given £2 million capital in addition, breaking the monopoly is not to be the first priority and adequate competition is not to be the first priority.
    Sir R. Grimston: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that when this Bill becomes an Act there will no longer be in this country a State broadcasting monopoly?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: There will be two.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That is quite true. What the hon. Gentleman suggests is that he will have created a new monopoly, and the new monopoly is the monopoly of advertising on television. I should have thought that a commercial monopoly
    1104
    was much more repugnant than a public monopoly.
    It seems to me that this Amendment in particular is designed to give cover to what is the establishment of a minimum number of programme companies—to give an excuse to the Government not to provide adequate competition, and to break the monopoly only in so far as it pays those who are engaged in running the programme companies. If this Amendment is pressed to a Division, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall vote against it.
    Captain Orr: I shall try to be brief, but the subject which we are now discussing is perhaps the most important that we have discussed throughout the whole debate, because on how this problem is solved depends whether the new scheme which we have set up is to work or not.
    The right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) has produced an extraordinary number of misconceptions about what may or may not be in the mind of the Government or anyone else. I propose to deal with the question of competition and monopoly. My hon. Friend has given us the assurance that under the Clause as drafted it would be possible for the Authority to decide that one programme contractor should have the use of one transmitter. I am not certain whether the words as they stand could necessarily be interpreted in that way, but it is very important that they should be, because that is the only method by which the new television would work.
    There are only two ways of doing that. Either we have a national network and two or three programme contractors operating the entire network, which is highly undesirable, or we have separate contractors for separate transmitters. Dealing with the question of two or more contractors operating the entire network, the first aspect of that is this: There would be a national monopoly, as the right hon. Gentleman has said. If we have two contractors and they are operating the entire network we immediately have a national monopoly. The object of this Amendment is that we should not have such a national monopoly, and I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General, in any discussions that he may have with persons who are

    1105
    to sit upon the Authority, will emphasise that particular point—that one thing we do not want is a national monopoly.
    The Beveridge Report talked about the Londonisation of the B.B.C. If we have the position of two or three programme contractors responsible for the entire national network, we shall get that very Londonisation which Lord Beveridge in his Report deplored, and I trust that will never be in the mind of the Government or the I.T.A., because the regional interests are liable to be ignored. There will be only one worse problem. That the national monopoly can only be broken by the setting up of another complete national network. I believe that there is no suggestion and no foundation in the various charges the right hon. Gentleman has produced. I hope that is not in the mind of the Government.
    The other way is one programme contractor to one transmitter. That is the only method that will work.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Monopoly of the transmitter.
    Captain Orr: I do not agree. First there is no national monopoly. There may be a separate regional monopoly to begin with. We are beginning a new service. At present the wavelengths are limited. The Television Advisory Committee has recommended that the whole of Band III be acquired for television. There will be at least one other channel when Band III is required. There will be any amount of channels when we get on to Bands IV and V. There is no reason to think that this regional monopoly cannot be broken. It can be broken by the setting up of one transmitter in a region, instead of the other method by which a whole national network would have to be set up.
    4.30 p.m.
    In addition, the viewer gets the competition by having a choice at the very beginning of three and, I hope, very soon, when Glasgow and Cardiff are included, five sources of programmes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. If there are separate contractors—one for Birmingham, one for Manchester and one for London—there are separate sources of programmes. No doubt if they get together in an affiliated network there would still be the separate sources of programme. But with the other system,
    1106
    whereby three or four programme contractors do a national network between them, it is no longer an affiliation in one company away in Glasgow, but they are all centred in London and there is only one choice of programme.
    Mr. Darling: Surely the hon. and gallant Member understands that there is a geographical limitation. The citizen of Sheffield cannot get television from London or from Glasgow.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: He can by coming to London.
    Mr. Darling: Therefore, under this new system—we are not yet certain where the transmitters will be located—the viewer gets the choice of two programmes. As a result, his competitive choice is limited to two programmes.
    Captain Orr: I do not think the hon. Member quite understood what I meant. A viewer in London gets a choice certainly of the B.B.C. and of the programme put out by the man operating the London transmitter. But with the national network being set up by affiliation, he will also get, as a source of his programmes, programmes giving him the Hallé orchestra from Manchester, something else from Birmingham, and perhaps something from Bristol. There are, at any rate, alternative sources of programme. They may come through the one national network, but that is far different to having two or three programme contractors with a complete national monopoly; one does get alternative sources of programme.
    The monopoly can be very easily broken. For instance, it should not be very long before another channel is available for London. It should not be very long before we get two transmitters in London. There can be programmes set up by a programme contractor operating now, and in a couple of years there might be one set up by, say, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), and we would have "Hobson's Choice" and somebody else's choice.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the hon. and gallant Member now saying that there will be quite a number of programmes in London before people in, say, Scotland, who have to pay the extra licence fee, get any programme? Is he not now admitting it?
    Captain Orr: No, I am not admitting that. That is a matter we might discuss sometime, but it must not be taken that I am necessarily admitting that. I see no reason why in a very short time there might not be two channels in London, in Manchester, in Birmingham or somewhere else.
    Mr. Darling: These technical issues are the most important in the Bill, and we should have had far more time on them. Two points must be considered. Is the hon. and gallant Member saying, and has he any foundation for saying, that there will be the other frequencies and, therefore, other services brought into the work of the I.T.A. without any further legislation, and that that will be done under the Bill? Secondly, if the programme companies operate in the way that the hon. and gallant Member suggests and join together in a national network, the semblance of independence that they may have at the beginning will for technical reasons quickly disappear.
    Captain Orr: The question of frequency is important. There is no need for further legislation. The Postmaster-General can merely revoke the licences of people who are already operating in any band, and can allocate to them licences somewhere else, in the way that already he is negotiating with some people in whom I am interested. If we were to pursue the question of bands that were available, we might get out of order, although I should love to discuss it at length.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This is most important. If the hon. and gallant Member bases his case on the assumption that other frequencies will be available for breaking the monopoly, is he not aware that the B.B.C. is not to be hampered in its development and that its claim for the next available set of frequencies is still outstanding? In view of the appreciation that the hon. and gallant Member has expressed of the B.B.C., I am sure he would not say that the B.B.C. must be entirely excluded until all the commercial demands are satisfied.
    Captain Orr: No, I am not suggesting that. But it must be remembered that the B.B.C. already has all the best wavelengths for television, and it has a bigger staff than anybody else. I would not necessarily say that the B.B.C. should
    1108
    have priority on other wavelengths that may become available. The proper thing for them to do is to experiment in Bands IV and V, but that is by the way.
    Perhaps I may come to the other important aspect of competition: namely, certain technical issues. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) suggested that the technical considerations are most important of all. Skilled technicians are very scarce. If we reach the position of having three or four contractors to any one station—if there is a multiplicity of contractors—there will not be sufficient technical staff available to put on a good service. The result will be shoddy, poor programmes, technically poor in every way.
    If there is a multiplicity of programme contractors, the question of studios arises. Who is to have the studios? [Interruption.] I am not at all defending monoply. I am asking if there is a number of programme contractors to any one transmitter, who is to have the studios. I bow to the hon. Member's opinion in many things, but for all that he says the programme contractors cannot all share the studio facilities. There are all sorts of difficulties—pre-lighting, light settings, overtime rehearsals and the rest. Therefore, there must be one contractor leasing the one transmitter and using the one lot of studios and putting on programmes. All sorts of other overheads are involved in the same way.
    I should like to develop the argument but—
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Remember the Guillotine.
    Captain Orr: I was about to say so; I do remember it. I hope that although my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General has given an assurance on the interpretation of the wording, he will look at it to see whether the legal interpretation would not preclude the Authority from allowing one programme contractor to transmit.
    I know that my hon. Friend has said it, but what he is reported in HANSARD as saying cannot necessarily be held by a court as being the proper interpretation of an Act of Parliament. I accept his assurance, but I should like him to make sure that that is really so. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) rightly says, there

    1109
    is a sinister right hon. Gentleman opposite who does not like this thing at all, and by a grave national misfortune he might conceivably be Postmaster-General again. We would not like that to happen, but it might happen and I invite my hon. Friend to bear that in mind. If my hon. Friend will give us an undertaking to have a careful look at this matter, have no need to press it further.
    Mr. Shackleton: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) always gives a great deal more information than the Government about the future shape of commercial television. He is so much better informed and has a very clear view of the future pattern. I think the time has come when we should have another White Paper from the Government. We have had a series already, but as yet we do not know what the Government's plans are.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General twitted me with not understanding the Bill. It was quite fair that he should do so as I said the same thing to him yesterday. But I should like to know what is going to happen in the future about commercial television programmes in this country. Are we to have single stations in each area, or single programme contractors? I think there is something in this Amendment. Quite frankly, I think the whole thing is a piece of nonsense. It would have been much simpler if we had allowed the B.B.C. to develop its second programme and then give the other fourth band to the commercial boys when they could really provide competition. There is quite a lot to be said about that, but we will not follow that argument further.
    The Government ought to tell us what is going to happen. We have been pulling the leg of the Assistant Postmaster-General about the people with whom he has been lunching and so on, but we should like to know who he thinks is going to do the job. That would affect our attitude to this sort of Amendment. If it were a respectable individual, say the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South—now he can become a director or programme contractor under this Bill—Who is going to run a company in London, we should all be very happy, but if it were certain other hon. Members—
    Captain Orr: The hon. Member himself, for instance.
    Mr. Shackleton: Yes, perhaps myself, but the fact is we want to know what the position is. The Government have repeatedly said, "We will trust the I.T.A. and the programme contractors," but who on earth are we trusting? That is really fundamental to this question of monopoly. I believe that the wording in the Bill at this point is a piece of doctrinaire nonsense by the Government to justify the action that they have taken, and to that extent I have sympathy with this Amendment.
    The Government might come off their high horse of competition and give us a real account of how the second programme is going to be provided, and then it will be possible to judge how necessary these sort of preparations are. One assurance we have had repeated in definite form is that there will be no compulsion on the B.B.C. to lease the use of their masts. I should like to know what would happen if the B.B.C. was so filled up by the development of its own programmes, including the second programme, that it would be unable easily to provide the facilities for the commercial system. Under those circumstances, it may be it would not be very willing to do so.
    I am sure the B.B.C. will be co-operative and responsive to the Government's wishes, but supposing it did not want to do this because of its own development. Are the Government going to force them, as my right hon. Friend said, and how, in fact, is it going to work? I would ask the Assistant Postmaster-General in all sincerity to let us have another account of what the Government plans are. Can we have another White Paper before the Report stage?
    Mr. Gammans: I would not have spoken again except that I feel I ought to reply to one or two of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards). I should not like some of the statements he made to be accepted. I would remind him that I am not accepting this Amendment. I rather thought he was suggesting that I was. I am resisting it.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether there was to be restricted competition? Yes, of course, there will be restricted competition. The competition

    1111
    will be largely restricted by the number of frequencies that are available. When we are dealing with only two frequencies, to talk about unlimited competition is, in my opinion, to bring an air of unreality into the whole of our discussions. Therefore, when hon. Members ask me if competition is to be restricted by the number of frequencies, the answer I would give is, "Yes, it will be."
    4.45 p.m.
    If a small number of companies is selected to do this job and that is called a monopoly, then I am afraid that hon. Members opposite must call it a monopoly because there is no other way round it. We are restricted in this case by the number of frequencies which we can offer. I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that he felt that if there was no restriction at all on the number of contractors that could, in fact, be employed on this job, then we in some mysterious way were in favour of a monopoly.
    All I am saying is that the task that will face the Independent Television Authority is to find what is the right and proper medium between two extremes. The one extreme is naturally that of efficiency, and I think it is quite clear that if we were only dealing with efficiency the thing to do would be to give the job to one person and let him run it throughout the whole country.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Like the B.B.C.?
    Mr. Gammans: Yes, except that he would be a single programme contractor.
    Mr. Gordan Walker: That would be the most efficient.
    Mr. Gammans: No, I do not agree.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: But the hon. Gentleman has just said he did agree. He said that the most efficient way to do this job would be to give it to one contractor and I said, "Like the B.B.C." He replied "Yes," thereby implying that for efficiency it should be given to the B.B.C.
    Mr. Gammans: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting what I said. What he asked me was whether I regarded the test of efficiency to be the giving of the job to the B.B.C.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. Gentleman said to one man.
    Mr. Gammans: To one man, and the right hon. Gentleman went on to mention the B.B.C. I said no, I would not agree that the most efficient way of providing the second programme would be to give the job to the B.B.C. I think the most efficient way of providing the programme would be to give it to someone else. That is one of the considerations at one end of the scale which must be in our minds.
    The other consideration must be one of competition. Somehow or other we have got to find what is the best way of keeping those two considerations in mind. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to make some revelations. When it came to the point he did not make any, but I think myself, in fairness to names that have been bandied about in the House,—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not now."] No, but earlier there were points made about sinister, shady characters creeping in at the back door of the Post Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, not 'shady'."]
    Mr. G. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman wants to be correct reference has been made to shadowy characters creeping in at the back door of the Post Office.
    Mr. Gammans: There is a simple answer to part of that—there is no back door to the Post Office. On this question of shadowy characters, I was asked whether we had had negotiations with them. The answer is that we have had no negotiations with anybody. What we have had is discussions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will tell the Committee some of the people with whom we have had discussions.
    Sir L. Plummer: Tell us what the discussions were about.
    Mr. Gammans: We have had discussions with the churches, the British Medical Association—
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Is this an exhaustive list?
    Mr. Shackleton: Are these the programme contractors?
    Mr. Gammans: I thought the hon. Member was serious. If he does not want to know, I will not tell him.
    Mr. Shackleton: No, please carry on.
    Mr. Gammans: We have had discussions with people who wished to ask us questions about what would be the rôle of a prospective programme contractor.
    Mr. Shackleton rose—
    Mr. Gammons: Let me finish; do not get too excited. We have had discussions with advertising agents. Of course we have. We have even had discussions with the Opposition in regard to this Bill.
    Mr. Shackleton: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government have had discussions with the Opposition on this point. Would he say what those discussions were about? Is he empowered to reveal to the House what was discussed?
    Mr. Gammans: I will not reveal what the discussions were about. I think that we have had quite enough of this attempt to suggest that we have been doing something improper. There has been nothing improper in all this. I have never known a Bill to be brought before the House by any party on which there had not previously been discussions. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has had very considerable experience of government. Does he mean to tell me that he ever introduced a Bill into the House without previously having had discussions upon it?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have never been afraid to disclose with whom I had the discussions.
    Mr. Gammans: I have given the names of the interests with whom we have had discussions. Any Government that introduced a Bill without first discussing it with some of the interests involved would be failing in their duty. The right hon. Gentleman knows that quite as well as I do.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has put the matter quite specifically. Whenever I had discussions with anybody, I was never afraid to disclose their contents to the House. I made no secret about it at all, and was quite free in informing Members of what had taken place. We are suspicious about the whole racket behind this thing because we feel that those who came along to participate in the discussions were only concerned to discuss material interests.
    Mr. Gammans: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is going a little too far in saying that. There is one assurance which I can give my hon. Friend and also the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton). The hon. Member for Preston, South asked who will do the job, who will get the contract for the Birmingham, the London and the Lancashire stations. I have not the faintest idea who will get the contract for those three stations. No decision has yet been reached, nor can be reached until the Authority has been set up and has got to work, concerning either the form of organisation, and whether it will be what the hon. Gentleman called the horizontal or the vertical form. No decision whatever has been reached.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: One has a very good idea.
    Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman says he knows.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I said that one could have a very good idea without having made the decision.
    Mr. Gammans: Then the right hon. Gentleman must know far more about the Authority—the names of whose members he does not know—than I do. After all, it is the Authority who has to decide that.
    Mr. Darling: I rightly call these people "shadowy figures" because we do not know their names. The hon. Gentleman has still not told us who they are. Will he give an assurance that his discussions with them have not in any way limited the choice of the I.T.A.?
    Mr. Gammans: I give that assurance absolutely and unreservedly. There have been no negotiations, no promises, no half promises, no pledges, or anything else. There have certainly been no negotiations which would in any way fit into the category mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: Will the Minister say what the object of these negotiations has been? Are their results going to be passed on to the I.T.A.?
    Mr. Gammans: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have just come into the Chamber because otherwise he would

    1115
    have heard me say that there have been no negotiations at all. Of course, there have been discussions with the churches. People come along and say that they want to be programme promoters. They ask what the Bill means in this way and that, and what are our views about this, that and the other. Of course, one does not turn round and say to them, "I shall not tell you."
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is giving a very innocent explanation of it, but is it not a fact that certain potential programme companies were invited to discuss the matter with him?
    Mr. Gammans: I can assure the Committee that there have been no negotiations of any sort whatever. There have been discussions on points arising out of the Bill which, in my submission, were absolutely proper and essential. I hope that we shall have an end to these insinuations that we have been doing something which is improper, or that half promises have been given to this man or that.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have not suggested that any promises have been made. What I asked was—and the hon. Gentleman fell into it, because he said it is a single contract and dropped the phrase which I had not used about whether it would be a vertical or a horizontal arrangement—whether it was to be one programme company for each station or three programme companies sharing the three stations between them. The hon. Gentleman referred to it being a single contract. I have suggested that consultations took place on that basis. I do not say and never have said that promises were made. I said that discussions had taken place in that direction, and that we ought to know what the Government intend.
    Is one programme company to be regarded as adequate competition and as an adequate brake on monopoly? Is one company per station or three companies sharing three stations to be regarded as an adequate means of competition upon which this Bill says that the I.T.A. must insist? The hon. Gentleman said that he was not accepting the Amendment, but he said it in this way. He said that he accepted the spirit of it while rejecting the words of the Amendment.
    Mr. Gammans: I did not say that.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I made a note of it, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he did not say it. But if he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will see that he said: "I cannot accept the words, but I give my hon. Friends an assurance that the I.T.A. is free to balance the priority of competition with efficiency."
    Mr. Gammans: That is right.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I say that the balancing of competition with efficiency amounts to this; that the discussions which have so far taken place have interpreted "adequate competition" as one company per station or three stations divided among three companies. The hon. Gentleman says that he will limit competition by the number of frequencies. The number of stations is only limited by the number of frequencies available, but there is no limitation on the number of companies. The limitation is on stations, and I should have thought that one company per station is a travesty of all that the Government have said about their desire to break monopoly.
    Sir R. Grimston: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    5.0 p.m.
    Sir R. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 7, line 38, to leave out from "as," to "it," in line 40, and to insert:
    "are specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act."
    The Temporary Chairman (Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray): It would be convenient to discuss at the same time the proposed new Schedule about public ceremonies and sporting events; the Amendment in page 7, line 38, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and the Amendment in line 48 in the name of the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston).
    Sir R. Grimston: The purpose of my Amendments and the new Schedule is to list in the Bill the ceremonies, public spectacles and sporting events that it is the purpose of the Clause to secure should not become the monopoly of anybody. The Clause leaves the definition

    1117
    of such public ceremonies and sporting events to the Postmaster-General. My Amendments list them, but leave it open to the Postmaster-General to vary the list and to bring the modified list to the House of Commons if he elects to do so. Subject to discussion, I think that this would be a better arrangement than leaving the matter entirely to the Postmaster-General.
    Paragraph 1 of the proposed new Schedule says that any ceremony, sporting event or entertainment, other than a sporting event or entertainment for which an admission charge is made, at which Her Majesty is present should certainly not become a monopoly of any programme contractor or the B.B.C. There may be a sporting event or a theatre performance which Her Majesty or another member of the Royal Family may attend in an unofficial way. It would be a little difficult if one did not make an exception of such a case, because that might happen at short notice, but any other event which Her Majesty attends should be ruled out from becoming the scoop of any programme company.
    In paragraph 2 is a list of national events. I believe that it comprises the main national events—
    Mr. G. Darling: Certainly not.
    Sir R. Grimston: —that certainly should not be monopolised on television. Paragraph 3 lists sporting events that have become national institutions, which, we think, should be included in the new Schedule for this purpose. There may be suggestions for adding to or subtracting from these lists, but, subject to discussion, I think that it might be better to list these events in the Bill rather than, as at present, to leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the Postmaster-General.
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I express no opinion on the Amendments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston), but I would say a few words on my Amendment that is being discussed at the same time. To explain the position I can do no better than quote a letter I have received from the Secretary of the Surrey County Cricket Club, who puts the point I am seeking to make better and more succinctly than I could if I attempted to use other language. The letter says:
    1118
    "In the view of the Surrey County Cricket Club the Clause as drafted appears to give either the I.T.A. or the Postmaster-General power to decide what sporting events should be televised, providing the Postmaster-General is satisfied that the facilities and terms are reasonable."
    I should like to make it clear that I do not object to the provision that the Postmaster-General has to be satisfied that the facilities and terms are reasonable, its great advantage being, from the point of view of Parliament, that, as he is responsible to Parliament for the manner in which he carries out his duties, he is answerable to Parliament in this regard, too.
    Mr. Mitchison: I take it that my hon. and gallant Friend's correspondent's business is cricket rather than law, but as law is the business of my hon. and gallant Friend, does he agree with that reading of the Clause?
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am putting forward an interpretation which, I hope, is accepted by the Assistant Postmaster-General. If it is not, I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will seek further clarification of the issue. The matter which causes some anxiety, as the letter goes on to say, is this:
    "If in point of fact this Clause gives the powers outlined above, then it would seem to be in direct contradiction to the assurance given a year or two ago when the Postmaster-General stated that no televising of any spectacle could take place without the promoter's permission, and on behalf of this Club we would earnestly request that this Clause be so altered as to leave the final decision to the promoter."
    That is a point of substance. I do not believe that it can be the wish of the Government to take rights under the Clause which would enable them to ride roughshod over the wishes of the promoter of any of the sporting events and other events referred to in it, however defined, whether defined as suggested by the hon. Member for Westbury or in any other way. If an assurance to this effect is not forthcoming, a certain amount of alarm and despondency will be aroused amongst the promoters concerned. A guarantee to this effect should be written in the Clause.
    Let us consider what could happen, say, at the Oval. Outside there are large blocks of flats, and when a match takes place there, various arrangements are made between occupants of those flats

    1119
    and other persons who want to see the game without going into the ground itself. What is there to prevent somebody operating under the Bill from hiring one of those flats overlooking the ground and televising the proceedings without obtaining the permission of the promoters, without paying any admission fees, and so destroying the copyright that ought to vest in the promoter of the sporting event concerned?
    I cannot believe that it is the desire of the Government to depart from the assurance given on a previous occasion that no televising of any spectacle should take place without the promoter's permission. I hope that either the Home Secretary or the Assistant Postmaster-General will give an assurance which will remove the doubts that certainly prevail at present in the minds of such reputable organisations as the Surrey County Cricket Club and individuals who promote events such as those referred to by the hon. Member for Westbury and the Clause.
    Mr. Gammans: I hope that the Committee will not mind my intervening at this stage, because I should like to have the views of all sections of the Committee on the way in which this matter should be dealt with, and therefore perhaps I had better indicate the views of the Government. There was considerable doubt as to whether or not it was right in this Bill to deal with sporting events at all and we have not made up our minds finally as to the best way of dealing with this subject.
    The Bill gives power to the Postmaster-General, in the last resort, to produce a list, which we hope would be a short one, of national sporting events and of national spectacles and ceremonies in which no contractor should be allowed an exclusive right at the expense of the B.B.C. The underlying idea of the Clause was that there were some events in our public life which were so national in character that it would be most undesirable that any one contractor should have an exclusive right in them.
    What we had in mind were the Test Matches, the finals at Wimbledon, the Grand National and the Football Association Cup Final. There are two other events which fall into this category, the
    1120
    Derby and the Boat Race. So far as the latter is concerned, there is some doubt as to whether the promoters have television rights to sell because the Derby is run in part on a public common. They certainly have television rights to sell within the stands, that is the central part of the course, but there is nothing to prevent anyone setting up a camera on Epsom Downs and taking a cinematograph film of what they want.
    Similarly, the Boat Race is rowed on the Thames, which is a public river, and the organisers of that race have nothing much to sell because anyone can set up cameras where he likes. What they may have to sell is the right of anyone to follow the race in a launch and get such shots as they want.
    However, these conditions of not having much to sell do not apply to other sporting events where the promoters have private rights over the whole enterprise. Even so the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) has reminded us that there is yet another complication in this matter in the case of the Oval and even of Lords. It is that a programme contractor could set up a modern camera in an adjoining block of flats and with a stereoscopic lens he would not do too badly and could pirate the whole event.
    What we had in mind as regards public ceremonies were the Trooping the Colour, the opening of an occasion similar to the Festival of Britain, and, if it is revived, the Aldershot Tattoo. In these cases there would probably be no great difficulty about the rights, because the rights of entry are vested in the Crown, and in such cases there would be no difficulty in giving facilities to the B.B.C. and to the programme contractors. Certainly I cannot imagine the Crown agreeing to give to a programme contractor rights in the Trooping the Colour which they were not prepared to give to the B.B.C.
    Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: Or the other way round.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Gammans: Or the other way round. There is one further way in which all this business could be controlled and which we must remember in our discussions. namely, by the Independent Television Authority itself. It alone can

    1121
    decide what goes out over the air from its stations and, if it thought that undesirable practices were growing up, it could take the line that because a national event was involved which it thought should be shared by everybody, it was not prepared to transmit a programme produced by one programme contractor alone. We must remember that this is in the background.
    Some people may argue that we should not interfere at all, and there is a case for that. They may say that the people who organise these sporting events have certain rights in them, and ask why we should say that the programme has to be shared with the B.B.C., to that extent diminishing the cash value to the organisers of those events, all of which are great national events.
    That is more or less the attitude of some of the promoters who say, "It is all very well, but it costs us a lot of money to run, say, the Grand National or perhaps the Wimbledon finals. By this method you are, in a sense, detracting from what could be the cash value of these events for television purposes." That is true, of course. Against that attitude we have to remember that, in the first instance at any rate, the I.T.A. network will cover only a proportion of the country and that for many years the viewers of the B.B.C.'s programmes have been accustomed to seeing some of these events. We have to decide whether it is right to listen to the views of the sporting promoters and give them a free market, as it were, or whether that market ought in any way to be controlled.
    That is the issue facing us. We must be clear as to the attitude of the sporting promoters. They do not like this very much, and I can see why. They say, "You are restricting us unnecessarily and, by an Act of Parliament, you are destroying the cash value of an asset which we have built up very largely and which we are forced to maintain.
    My noble Friend has been in close touch with the sporting promoters, and it is clear that from their point of view this proposal raises several difficulties. There is one important matter raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton which I must emphasise at this point. It is that no sporting promoter will be compelled to sell to a programme contractor or to anyone else if he does not
    1122
    want to do so. He is quite free. After all, we should be taking away one of his fundamental rights if we said that he must sell the rights of Wimbledon or of the Grand National. We have seen in the case of the Grand National how protracted negotiations can be from year to-year.
    There is no intention in this matter to nationalise sport and to say, "This has to be taken over and the State has certain rights in it." My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) has set out a list which he considers should be a guide to my noble Friend in this respect. My first criticism of it is that it is on the long side.
    Mr. G. Darling: It is far too short.
    Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman says that it is far too short, but is he thinking of the sporting promoters or of the viewers?
    Mr. Darling: The viewers.
    Mr. Gammans: We have other interests to take into consideration. We must remember that if we make the list too long the sporting promoters can always say, "You shall not have it at all."
    The final word rests with them, as the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton has said, and therefore we do not want to make this list too long. If there is to be a list at all it obviously must be a short one, and must contain only those sporting events which fall into the wide category, which I have suggested, of being of national interest. In any case, before coming to a final decision, and before such a list is completed, my noble Friend feels that he should consult the interests concerned. That is where the matter stands.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Do the interests concerned include, for example, the Association for the Protection of Copyright in Sport?
    Mr. Gammans: There are many interests concerned, one of which is the association which the hon. and gallant Member mentioned. I am not sure whether that association comes into these discussions but there are very wide interests here which seldom come together for other purposes. We are dealing with boxing, racing, tennis and

    1123
    SO on. They are very strongly divergent interests and the desire of the Government, and I imagine the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, is that there should not be exclusive rights in certain events which we regard as of a national character. On the other hand, we have the reluctance of sporting promoters to suffer considerable loss, as they might well do, on the monetary value of television facilities which they could offer to the programme contractors.
    My noble Friend feels that it would be unwise at this stage to come to a final decision. He proposes to continue to keep in close touch with the sporting interests concerned, and we hope that by the time the Bill is considered in another place it will be possible to come to a final decision. I hope, for these reasons, that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will not press their Amendments today.
    Sir L. Plummer: I am sure that the whole Committee will agree that the Assistant Postmaster-General has been very reasonable and fair in the case that he has put forward on the Amendment. I will not spend much time in following him up, except to say that I hope that in the consideration that will be given to the matter in another place and by the Government this whole Clause, which is perhaps the best Clause in this wretched Bill, will not be weakened. It is of great importance that the B.B.C. television viewers shall not be denied the opportunity to see the kind of great sporting events which they are now accustomed to see because an advertiser has been able to secure the monopoly of televising that sport.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: It would not be an advertiser but a programme contractor.
    Sir L. Plummer: The distinction is really one without a difference. The programme contractor produces a programme to create the climate for the advertising. The programme contractors will not be televising sporting events for the sake of the programme as such, or the viewer, but for the sake of the advertiser, and for this purpose the programme contractors will be advertisers'
    1124
    agents. To weaken the Clause would be most regrettable and retrogressive.
    We need not have a complicated argument about the law of copyright. It would be difficult to smuggle two or three television cameras into a boxing arena without the promoters knowing that they were on the premises. It is difficult to pirate in the way in which some people fear it might take place. It is tried often enough but promoters get wise to it and there are ways to make a camera inoperative by using searchlights. In any case, there is authority to deal severely with people who operate in that way. There are very few things in the Bill which I would willingly leave to the Government, but the provision in this Clause is one of them.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: At one time I was very closely connected with the televising of sporting events and I came up against the very complicated problems of negotiations which go on between sporting interests and the B.B.C. It is interesting to recall that the last time that the public were able to see the Derby televised was over 15 years ago, in 1938 and 1939. One of the greatest difficulties appears to have been this matter of copyright, and I hope that some Government will have the time and the courage some day to grasp that nettle firmly. It needs to be grasped if we are to solve this problem and make sporting events available for the television public.
    I hope that notice will be taken of the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) in page 7, line 38, which seems eminently sensible. Perhaps the correction can be made in another place. I should like to have the assurance of my hon. Friend on one other point which is that when it is stated that certain events should not be exclusive it means that they should be reciprocal. I hope that it means that the events should not be exclusive to the B.B.C. or to the programme contractors. Many of these events are at the moment exclusive to the B.B.C.
    It is most undesirable to have them remain for all time exclusive to the B.B.C. because in that event we shall not have those elements of change and difference of presentation. It might also mean that promoters of these events might suffer very considerably financially, because for a long time the B.B.C. has

    1125
    only paid a token fee for broadcasting the big sporting events. Until very recently only £5 was paid for broadcasting the Cup Final. It was merely a token fee for the seats that were taken up.
    I hope that the Schedule to the Bill will be short and that its provisions will mean that these events will not be exclusive either to the B.B.C. or to the contractors. There will be difficulties, because in so many places it will be not a matter of will but of space. At Lords, for instance, there is only one position for the camera behind the bowler's arm. Everyone will want that so as to show how the ball is coming back and how the batsman is shaping at it. There is only one small corner at the Wembley Cup Final from which one can televise Her Majesty The Queen presenting the cup to the winners.
    I come back to the main problem. Even though we produce a Schedule and we allow both the B.B.C. and the programme contractors to broadcast, I hope that we shall not force the programme contractors to take the B.B.C. programme output or vice versa because, where space permits, there is tremendous advantage in having two separate accounts. It might well be that a programme contractor in Manchester, wanting to show Aintree or the Grand National might think that he could do it better than the B.B.C. and he would be out to secure better commentators and pictures. Where there is the space I hope that both parties will be allowed to participate so that we may have true competition.
    Mr. G. Darling: This is the same point as that taken up on the previous Amendment. We must look at the matter from the point of view of the viewer and cease to think of the other interests involved. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) that we should provide within the context of the Bill, which deals with two sets of frequencies and two alternative sets of programmes, that both parties should go to the same cricket match on the same afternoon is certainly a suggestion which is not at all in the interest of the viewer.
    Many people are not interested in cricket. That surprises me and probably surprises the hon. Member, but I understand that there are such people. I see no reason why the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. should gang up to force cricket down the
    1126
    throats of people when it is possible to give alternative programmes. I suggest that, instead of looking at the matter in the way in which we have looked at it up till now, we should take the customer's point of view for a change.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I am sorry if suggested that it should be compulsory. I suggest that it should be permissive.
    Mr. Darling: It should not be permissive in the way suggested by the hon. Member. Looking at it from the customer's point of view, it ought to be our job, without compulsion if we can do it, to see that the two bodies give alternative programmes all the time so that customers have a choice and do not get the same thing at the same time.
    I was very glad to hear from the Assistant Postmaster-General that sporting promoters have now come out of the realms of shadowy figures. We know that they have been there and they probably went through the front door. Surely, if we are to look at this from the point of view of the sporting promoter, we ought to ensure that on the afternoons when the sporting promoter has fixed up with the I.T.A. or the B.B.C. for some sporting event to be televised there is an alternative programme. It would be in the interests of the sporting promoter that we did not get all the viewers tied up with the same sporting programme.
    The list in the Schedule proposed by the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) is again an example of the restrictive attitude he adopts towards the Bill. Free competition is going completely and restriction is taking its place. The Assistant Postmaster-General suggested that the list might be short. He mentioned the Aldershot Tattoo, but since when has the Aldershot Tattoo become more important than the Royal Yorkshire Tattoo? I object to this attitude on the part of the hon. Gentleman and the Government. We get the Rugby League Cup Final only because it is played at Wembley, whereas the Rugby League Championship play-off attracts twice the audience, or 50 per cent. more and takes place where this type of football is played. Why bring in Test Matches when Lancashire and Yorkshire matches attract far bigger audiences and are far more important?

    1127
    What about the St. Leger and the Manchester November Handicap as compared with the Derby? What about the Amateur Association Football Cup? Is that to be left out?
    As we look through the list it will be found that we cannot draw a short restrictive list without offending someone. On this Amendment for the first time—I do not mean this offensively—the Assistant Postmaster-General has been reasonable about the Bill. The way out of this difficulty would be to leave it to the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to talk it over. It should be implicit in the Bill that a duty is placed on those two bodies to see that viewers get alternative programmes. As the hon. Member for Westbury is departing from free competition and agreeing with us that there should be restricted, sensible competition, I am sure that, with a little more education of hon. Members opposite—if I may put it that way—they would come to the point of view that to provide viewers with alternative programmes is a task on which the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. have to work together. Why not put the duty on them to settle such questions as this, bringing in the Government to help solve the difficulties? I am convinced that that would be the solution to this and other problems of a like character.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Owing to the short time left us by the Guillotine procedure, we have no choice but to accept the proposal—which in itself is perfectly proper—that this question should be dealt with in another place, because we are coming to other details of the Bill about which we feel strongly. All I ask is for an assurance that we shall not find, as we did on an earlier occasion, that the Lords Amendments are also to be Guillotined. Otherwise, our rights of debate on these very important matters would become really derisory.
    Sir R. Grimston: We have had an interesting discussion and, in view of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Gammans: I beg to move, in page 7, line 48, at the end, to insert:
    (3) It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that no programme contractor acquires any exclusive or
    1128
    other rights in respect pf the broadcasting of any matter in sound only from stations in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, other than matter which is to be so broadcast in a programme or part of a programme provided by him under this Act.
    This Amendment relates to the Amendment in my name which was accepted in Clause 2, page 4, line 36. I will dilate upon the point if the Opposition wishes me to do so, but, if not, I move the Amendment formally.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: We shall be happy to accept the Amendment, which coincides very closely with one which we put on the Paper.
    Captain Orr: I take it that, although the Amendment refers to "sound only," it is not intended to apply to sound broadcasts which we have on the B.B.C. at the end of the day when the news, is given in sound only? There may be other occasions. I can envisage in the future the Christmas broadcast of Her Majesty the Queen being put on the air in the ordinary way in sound but also on the B.B.C. television service in sound only and on the programmes put out by the Authority in sound only. I should like an assurance on that point.
    Mr. Gammans: If my hon. and gallant Friend will read what was said in the debate on the Amendment to Clause 2, page 4, line 36, he will see that those items are excluded.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Chairman: Mr. Mitchison.
    Mr. Mitchison: It is not proposed to move the Amendment in page 8, line 4, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton). It is an important Amendment, but, as we consider other Amendments more important and, owing to the lamentably short time allowed under the Guillotine procedure—which has been taken up by Tory Amendments since 4 o'clock—we do not propose to move the Amendment.
    Amendment made: In page 8, line 7, leave out from "for," to "in," in line 9. and insert:
    "complying and securing compliance with the provisions of this Act and any restrictions or requirements imposed thereunder."—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]
    Mr. Philip Bell: I beg to move, in page 8, line 13, to leave out from "aforesaid," to the end of line 32.
    Those mysterious words mean that I am endeavouring to persuade the Committee to omit from Clause 5 the extraordinary provisions which apply to any contract which may be made by the Authority and the programme contractors involving a penalty of £500. Perhaps hon. Members will excuse me saying that this is an old-fashioned principle, in England at any rate, which goes back many hundreds of years. And that is that you do not put penalties on people for breaking contracts. People who break contracts pay damages but they do not have an extra criminal penalty attached to their civil liability. Indeed, the whole jurisdiction in equity grew up out of relieving people from their penalties.
    Many hon. Members, like myself, have probably had occasion to deal with mortgagees. They will have seen that in fact property is lost if there is no repayment; one is bound to repay within six months or lose the land or property. But it is a happy Chancery Equity provision which gives protection against that forfeiture. The first principle is that no one should forfeit land through some small failure. because it is inequitable and unfair.
    This provision in the Bill—I do not know why it was inserted—provides that the Independent Authority, if it wishes, can insert in a contract a penalty to the amount of £500 for any breach that the programme contractor may make. Therefore in theory the breach may be small. If the programme contractor were two minutes late in putting on a programme a penalty of £500 might be imposed.
    I know that my hon. Friend will say, as he has said so successfully before, "You can trust the Independent Authority. It comprises good and reasonable men and they would not put in a contract this sort of onerous provision." If that be so, I ask why we should put in any penal provisions. Why should we treat the Authority especially? It is not yet in existence; it is not yet known; it has not yet been tried, or even accused, let alone found guilty. Why should we put in this very exceptional arrangement about a penalty?
    There are enough provisions in the Bill and sufficient power in the criminal law
    1130
    to stop programme contractors from doing bad things. If they break their civil obligations they will have to pay damages. It might be thought that in some way the Government were suspicious of this Authority and therefore were treating it with great severity by putting in this penal provision.
    I believe that to be inconsistent with our views, and therefore I ask my hon. Friend to consider what grounds he has for imposing upon this responsible, immature and growing body these exceptional provisions of law. Why should it, of all the companies or organisations making contracts with the Government, be subject to a penalty? The National Coal Board or the Electricity and Gas Boards are excluded from this penalty of £500 in addition to damages if they break their contract. I am surprised—I am shocked—that the Administration which I am proud to support should bring forward a penal Clause which is more suitable for those hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, if they do not embrace, at any rate flirt with totalitarianism.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Gammans: I know that the Opposition wish to get on to another Amendment, but I must deal briefly with this matter. I fear that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. P. Bell) may have misunderstood the motives of the Government in including these penalty provisions. They were not put in, as he suggests, to place an additional burden on the programme contractors, but to make it possible for the Authority to take some action against an unsatisfactory programme contractor without invoking the drastic sanction of terminating his contract altogether.
    Mr. Bell: It is not necessary to break a contract. The contract can be maintained and one can still sue for damages. It is possible to say, "I will keep you to your contract, but in so far as you do not give satisfaction you will have to pay damages."
    Mr. Mitchison: Where are the Law Officers of the Crown?
    Mr. Gammans: That is perfectly true. I think, however, that my hon. and learned Friend has misunderstood the intention of the Government, which was that there should be some lesser sanction

    1131
    than the final one of termination of the contract. To that extent the inclusion of these penalty provisions is in the best interests of the programme contractors themselves.
    Mr. Mitchison: They certainly are.
    Mr. Gammans: The hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me. Under the proviso to subsection (5), no notice of the termination of a contract may be given unless the penalties as set out in subsection (4) have been paid by the contractors in respect of breaches of contract which have occurred on no less than three separate occasions. This, combined with proviso (ii) to subsection (4), which lays down that where there has been a breach of contract it may be settled by arbitration, will, in the opinion of the Government, provide reasonable safeguards for the interests of the programme contractors.
    They would also preclude the possibility of arbitrary or hasty action on the part of the Authority in terminating a contract. I hope my hon. and learned Friend now appreciates the motives which led the Government to this course of action. They are different from what he suggested, and for that reason I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) should suppose that the Government were going to be cruel to the programme contractors. I know that his knowledge of the law is profound, but his knowledge of Government psychology is somewhat deficient. I would remind him of another unsuccessful politician who was sent to govern New South Wales, where law and equity, as we have seen recently, are still strictly separate. He might find that a happy place in which to live.
    I have some sympathy with this Amendment though on grounds which were not stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Assistant Postmaster-General has rightly referred to the following subsection, and the two subsections cannot possibly be considered separately. As was just explained to us, the object of the Government in these matters is to prevent the programme contractors from being liable to the ordinary penalties for breach of contract. Under
    1132
    these two subsections they are to be put above the law.
    They may break their contract once, or twice, with complete impunity. Nothing will enable the Postmaster-General to terminate the contract, however grave the breach. There have to be three breaches, and not one. If that is not the case I fail to understand the significance of what the Assistant Postmaster-General has been saying, or the reference in the following subsection (3) to breaches of contract.
    The next matter we come to is the question of a penalty. I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is a very strange provision. It is so strange that, were we not dealing with the most peculiar relations between the Government and programme contractors, I should not have understood its object. However, we have had its object explained to us by the Assistant Postmaster-General.
    The Amendment, however, goes on to ask for the omission of the rest of the subsection. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not say a word about that when moving the Amendment, but I have something to say about it. One of the more remarkable provisions of the Bill is that in the event of a dispute about contracts between the Authority and the programme contractors provision is made for compulsory arbitration. As I see it, that is to the exclusion of the courts. If I am wrong, perhaps I may be told so, and why I am wrong, but at present that appears to be the case.
    The subsection contains the words:
    "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 shall be determined by arbitration."
    Why are those words inserted? What is it that will be sent to arbitration? The question is:
    "whether any such breach of contract has occurred. …"
    The penalty is for breaches of contract, breaches which involve the Authority's duty to enforce the requirements and provisions of the Bill.
    I want to make clear what we are dealing with. We have heard from the Assistant Postmaster-General time and time again that the Authority has what

    1133
    he calls powers and what I should call duties. We had a long discussion about that. Upon the Authority, and the Authority alone, rest the duties under Clause 3 to do all kinds of things to deal with the tone and style of the programme.
    It has to keep out matters offensive to good taste and decency, and encouragement or incitement to crime, it has to keep a proper balance of subject-matter, and it has to see that the news is presented with due accuracy and impartiality. All the public safeguards in the Bill rest on the Authority. We put forward an Amendment with regard to news, children and political and industrial disputes—
    Mr. Raymond Gower: Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that all the considerations which he has just quoted could better be decided by a traditional court of law?
    Mr. Mitchison: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I am about to say he would understand the point of what I am saying. At present he does not.
    On all these matters we have been met with the answer that it is the duty of the Authority to deal with it and that it is sufficient that the Authority should be there. The defence of the Assistant Postmaster-General on all those points was, "You always have the Authority." If I had a little more time I should quote from HANSARD, but since 4 p.m. we have been occupied with Tory Amendments.
    We then come to how the Authority is to carry out its duty. The only means which the Authority has under the Bill is through the contracts which it makes with the programme contractors. These are what the Home Secretary called its teeth. I should have described them as a very bad set of false dentures. When we look at the Bill to find out what powers of enforcement the Authority has, we find that all it can do is to take some action or other at the third offence, and that is after there have been hearings which are deliberately intended to be and are compulsorily made to be, hearings by arbitration.
    What is the object of the arbitration? It is clear that the Government do not want these things brought out into the open. They do not want litigation between the Authority and the programme contractors because they are afraid of
    1134
    what might come out. That kind of litigation about breaches of their obligations by programme contractors would involve an investigation by the impartial authority of a court of law, an investigation in public, into exactly what had been going on behind the scenes. The investigation would include what the contracts were, to start with.
    It might also include the circumstances in which they were negotiated, what had happened between the programme contractor and the Authority as to the execution of the contracts, and at exactly what point in any misdeeds of the programme contractors the Authority had interfered and at what further point it had been able to interfere to some effect.
    Mr. Philip Bell: I am joining in the attack on the penalty, but it is only fair to point out that the arbitration is only about the penalty and that there is nothing to preclude an open hearing of a dispute by an action for damages or for rescission of the contract. It is only the penalty which is in arbitration. I am inclined to agree that even the penalty ought to be decided in open court.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am not going into the matter at length because I have not the time. I would merely point out that subsection (4) says:
    "The contracts between the Authority and the various programme contractors shall contain all such provisions as the Authority think necessary or expedient …"
    for the carrying out of the requirements of the Bill.
    That is the only sanction possessed by the public, the Authority or anybody else for keeping the programme contractors in order. Then, the Authority can put in
    "all such provisions … as the Authority think necessary or expedient …"
    subject to a limiting provision in the Third Schedule, and
    "any such provision as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection shall be valid and enforceable …"
    Then they get out of the law about penalties:
    "Provided that every such contract shall be such as to secure."
    The Clause then refers to the penalty, and goes on:
    "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 …"

    1135
    As I understand it, that covers a breach of contract relating to the provisions which are the only sanction in the Bill for the enforcement of the Authority's obligations. Anything of that sort has to go to arbitration. Again, I regret the absence of the Law Officers, but I am pleased to notice that the Home Secretary is now present.
    What is the reason for all this? I will not repeat the reason for having compulsory arbitration in this case. I have stated my conclusions upon the matter. I merely say that I regard the two subsections as absolutely scandalous in view of the fact that they contain the only means of enforcement of the public duties of the Authority and the only means by which the rights of the public, as laid down in the Bill, can be enforced upon the programme contractors.
    I should have thought that there was a case for a penalty but not for a civil one. The Bill does not contain a single word about penalties in respect of anything of a criminal nature done by a programme contractor. Apparently a programme contractor can incite to crime and so on, but, so far as the Bill is concerned, there is not a word about a criminal penalty.
    Mr. J. E. S. Simon: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman is making a very bad point? The programme contractor is subject to the ordinary penalties of the criminal law.
    Mr. Mitchison: That was why I said, so far as the Bill is concerned." I fail to understand why a provision has been inserted to give special, unfair, secret protection to programme contractors where the point at issue is whether or not they are going to carry out the requirements of the Bill, where the only power of the Authority rests upon obliging them to do so, and where, so far as I can see, there is no excuse or reason whatever for scandalous preference being given to the gentlemen who have been talking to the Assistant Postmaster-General.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Simon: I apologise for detaining the Committee, but this is quite an important point. It is with great diffidence that I venture to criticise, on a legal matter, any Bill which is in the charge of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but, without in any way
    1136
    accepting the views of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), it seems to me that there are several unsatisfactory aspects of this Clause.
    In the first place, it is difficult to see why there should be special provisions to deal with breaches of contract by the programme contractors, and why it should not be left to the ordinary processes of the law and to the ordinary courts of law. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to satisfy the Committee on the question of breach of contract, and, possibly, a breach going to the very roots of the contractual duties of the programme contractors. There is no right on the part of the I.T.A. to determine that contract. On the contrary. it is not until there are three such breaches that it can do so.
    It seems to me very objectionable that a penalty can be enforced and enacted by a body like the I.T.A. It is quite true that the existence of a breach is determined by arbitration, and I should have thought that it could have been determined in the ordinary courts of law, but, even if it is determined by arbitration, it is only the breach which is so determined, and the penalty, it seems to me. is at the discretion of the I.T.A.
    Mr. Mitchison: Lest there be any misunderstanding, am I right in understanding the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he agrees with me that this is a provision for compulsory arbitration?
    Mr. Simon: I should not like to enter into a dispute between my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. I think it is compulsory arbitration, so far as any breach which would attract the penalty is concerned, and I should have thought that my hon. and learned Friend was correct in suggesting that the ordinary provisions for breach of contract should apply, but that was not the point I was making.
    The point is that a breach in the contractual duties of the programme contractors—in other words, the matters to which Parliament has directed attention in Clause 3—would allow the Independent Television Authority itself, once a breach had been determined by arbitration, to fix the amount of the penalty, and that

    1137
    amount might be the very considerable sum of £500. It seems to me that this is a serious innovation in our ordinary processes of law, and with all the strength at my command I ask my right hon. and learned Friend if he will consider looking at the form of this Clause again.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I cannot understand why the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), who has been such a friend of the programme contractors, is so worried about the Clause which he is is attacking. As the Assistant Postmaster-General has said, this is in the best interests of the programme contractors. Of course, it is, and it is designed to that end. We have all heard speeches from the other side of the Committee trying to make out that there is something serious in this Clause, and that it gives important powers, when it is really designed to do the opposite.
    This is the "joker" Clause in the Bill, the one which really makes nonsense of everything that we have been told up to now. The theme of the Government throughout these discussions has been that the I.T.A. is there to keep up the standard, and not to deal with matters that are legal and involve either the civil or criminal law. It is concerned with many more things—all sorts of things—which a court would know nothing at all about. Great duties are laid upon the Authority, and we have been told that we ought not to worry or try to write things into the Bill, because the I.T.A. is ready to enforce these things.
    Now, of course, when we come to the Clause which is supposed to enable the I.T.A. to enforce the great duties laid upon the contractors, we find that the Authority has not got the power. The only real power to enforce these duties upon a contractor is to prevent him from broadcasting if he has failed to carry out the duties laid upon him by the I.T.A. under the Bill. There is really no other power that will work, and the other powers are in fact unimportant.
    The only real way of enforcing these duties is for the Authority to say "If you do not keep a balance and do all the things laid down in the Bill, we shall not let you broadcast." Now, of course, we find that the I.T.A. cannot do that. Indeed, I must point out that the Government or the Minister have used the
    1138
    word "absolute" in such a way that it will rank in dictionaries of the future as having a new meaning which it has never possessed before.
    It is provided in Clause 5 (5), on page 8 of the Bill, that
    "… 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, … to serve on the programme contractor a notice in writing … to suspend for such period …"
    and so on. In other words, art "absolute right" is given to the I.T.A. to stop the contractor broadcasting, but, when we read on a little, we find that this "absolute right" means that there is no such right in the I.T.A. at all.
    First of all, it must prove two offences before the programme company can be suspended. Here we are adopting the doctrine of the "first bite," but we are providing that in this case the offender shall have two "first bites" before being suspended. The power to take away the right to broadcast has to be exercised by arbitration, and, therefore, there is no absolute right in the I.T.A. It is the right of the I.T.A. to take the matter before some independent body and try to persuade them, but that is no "absolute right," and this is an extraordinary misuse of words. I do not know how anyone composing a dictionary could give the interpretation of "absolute" in this Clause and make sense at all.
    Mr. Philip Bell: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be suggesting that what he understands by "right" is executive power without any control at all?
    Mr. Gordon Walker: That is what I understand by my reading of this Bill. There is an "absolute right" to suspend programme contractors, and it says so here. These are not my words; they are the words of the Home Secretary or somebody else who put them into the Bill.
    The truth is that the whole thing is now reduced to a farce, because the whole purpose of the Bill is to keep programme contractors in order. There would not have been a Bill otherwise. If we did not want to keep the programme contractors in order, we could

    1139
    have had a one-Clause Bill to say that anybody can come in and make as much out of it as he likes. Now, What we have got is that the I.T.A. is set up by this Bill to keep the programme contractors in order, and in this Clause we are depriving the Authority of the power of keeping them in order. The whole thing has come down to a reductio ad absurdum, and a sham fight that has been going on on the other side of the Committee is really designed to deceive people into thinking that this Clause has power in it, when really it has not. It is a very great defect of the Bill that there are no powers given to the I.T.A. to see that these obligations are carried out.
    I must curtail the other points that I wanted to make on this Clause, which I regard as a very bad one, because of the rapidly diminishing time, owing to the approach of the Guillotine, but perhaps the Home Secretary will answer one or two of the points that have been put to him.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I respond to the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman, and I will do it as quickly as I can. I hope he will bear that in mind. At least three points are most deserving of reply.
    The first is that raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) as to whether we should introduce a penalty at all. I think the justification for the penalty is that the damages, despite the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend, demand that there should be a pecuniary loss on the person who claims the damages. I frankly admit and recognise that there will not necessarily be a pecuniary loss on the part of the Authority. The Authority must have the right to demand something which will mark that the programme company has committed a breach of its contract and has acted wrongly. I will explain in a moment why ultimately that becomes an absolute right. The only thing which we can constitute to mark that event is a pecuniary penalty, until we come to the stage where the Authority has a right to terminate the contract of the programme company. If we accept that
    1140
    there should be any intermediate stage between one breach of the contract and its determination, we think that a breach should be marked by a pecuniary penalty.
    The second point is on the question of arbitration. It has been a commercial practice since the beginning of this century, and probably for 50 years before that, for disputes between parties to be dealt with by an arbitration clause which refers them to arbitration. I see no reason, nor have I heard anything in the arguments to show, why in this case one should depart from the ordinary position which obtains among commercial companies.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: This is not a commercial company but a public authority.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is so, but the contract between the two parties will be a commercial contract. To suggest that we do not have an arbitration clause in a commercial contract with a public authority is utter nonsense and entirely wrong. Over and over again there have been such clauses in contracts between public authorities and companies. We find them in the case of the National Coal Board, the British Transport Commission and other authorities of that kind.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is there any statutory provision requiring such an arbitration clause in these contracts? Secondly, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman talking about compulsory arbitration or optional arbitration?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am talking about contractual arbitration and the position which obtains normally in commercial contracts. For 60 years, and probably for 100 years, an arbitration clause has been common form.
    The next point which the right hon. Gentleman raised was why we should have compulsory arbitration. The answer is that there are two stages—this is where the totalitarian mind of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) fails to grasp the position. The first stage is that of establishing that a breach has been committed. Let the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that civilised countries have regarded with disfavour, certainly for 2,000 years, that anyone should, if it could be avoided,

    1141
    be a judge in his own cause. If the right hon. Gentleman wants authority for that he can read Sir Henry Maine's classical book, which many of us know quite well.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is not the Home Secretary, by virtue of his Office, a judge in his own cause on many occasions?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman can develop that point on a Vote to reduce my salary. I am making the point that it is necessary to have a procedure of deciding whether there has been a breach. I suggest that the proper procedure is the one that is usually used, the arbitration procedure, and that it is necessary to indicate in the Bill what the procedure will be. Therefore, in the Bill it becomes a compulsory arbitration procedure. It is left entirely to the Authority to decide what the penalty will be. I agree that that is an unusual and very stringent right to give to the Authority. It is almost unprecedented that an Authority should decide what the penalty should be, but, in this case we were determined that the Authority should have teeth to deal with the situation. That we are not too far wrong is shown by the fact that we are being shot at from both sides of the Committee. We say that the Authority must have the right to deal with the matter in that way.
    6.15 p.m.
    Now the attack swings back from the right to the left. The next point is whether it is proper that there should be three breaches before the right of determination arises. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point irrespective of the differences between us. What is likely to be more effective as a weapon to the Authority? If, as soon as one breach is established, the Authority has to get rid of the programme company immediately, what is the effect likely to be? It is such a heavy weapon, such an enormous gun to fire, that the danger will be that the Authority will be inclined not to use it.
    On the other hand, we have put what we believe to be stringent injunctions upon the Authority. It is possible, and I am not going to say it is more than that, that the first breach might be hotly contested as to whether there was a breach or not. It might be something into which the programme company had involuntarily strayed.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: On the other hand it might be very grave.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It might be grave. That is a perfectly fair point. In legislating, one has to find something which will cover the majority of cases, but there is always the hard case. I have tried to avoid that for years, but I do not know a Bill in connection with which that has not happened. It is fair, and practically efficient, to say that there should be a minimum of three cases.
    Mr. Mitchison: What puzzles me is why the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not leave this question to the courts. It constantly occurs that the courts have to decide whether a breach. as the phrase goes, "goes to the root of the contract." The right hon. and learned Gentleman could put provisions into the Bill to give the courts an indication what the root of the contract is in this case. Why not let the parties go to law in the ordinary way? If there has been a single grave breach going to the root of the contract, let the court decide the matter.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have tried to deal with that point. I do not want to go into it in great detail. I say that that has all been done to reduce the delay which can take place before an action at law is decided. The difficulty that may arise in leaving the action—because that is implied—to the view that the court takes is not practically applicable to the problem here.
    I want to say again that the inclusion of the three bites at the cherry, if I may so put it—or, to use the right hon. Gentleman's simile, giving the dog three bites instead of one—is in my view the only method by which one will get effective action here. One has to take into account the background—the things that can happen to the programme company. I am sorry to take so long but this is important and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I am sure, will consider this point carefully.
    To sum up the powers and sanctions which can be used against a contractor who goes wrong, there is, first of all, the exaction of penalties to a maximum of £500. Secondly, there is the damage for breach of contract recoverable if there is a provable loss—but in my view there will be many cases in which there will not

    1143
    be a provable loss. Thirdly, there is determination or suspension of the contract, with all the consequential losses of advertising revenue, if a breach has occurred on at least three separate occasions. There are also the powers contained in the Third Schedule.
    Therefore, if hon. Members opposite consider this carefully and objectively, I do not think that they can possibly say that the programme company is put in an ultra-favourable position. I sympathise with the desire that this should be left to ordinary process of law, but I do not think that if my hon. Friends consider the background they can really complain against the line we have taken. I know that no position in life is more difficult than that of those who try to take the middle course. Here we have taken a middle course which we feel is logical, defensible and right.
    Mr. Charles Williams: There is a great deal of force in what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. Many of us on all sides, and certainly many people outside the House, have a great reluctance to allowing any authority, whatever it may be, which is in contract with someone, to have the power to fix the penalty in case of dispute. Although I realise the difficulties raised by this Amendment, I would ask the Government whether, between now and another stage of the Bill or in another place, they cannot look again into this. There is a very real feeling that it is not right that anyone who is party to a contract can, in a dispute, also fix the penalty. This is a very difficult matter, but I would ask the Government to see if they cannot find a better way out.
    Mr. Robson Brown: I completely support what has been said by the right hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams).
    Mr. Mitchison: My right hon. and hon. Friends propose to divide on this Amendment because it asks for the abolition of compulsory arbitration, because they object to the limitation of the penalty and because of the reason given by the Assistant Postmaster-General. He said that the Clause must be taken with the following subsection, which provides for three bites at this bogus cherry.
    Mr. Williams: I have no row with the Government. I speak with a certain sense of responsibility and with knowledge of the difficulty of the Government's position, but if I can have the Government's assurance that they will look at it again, I shall be happy.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have never at any Committee stage gone beyond saying that I am always prepared to, and always do, go through everything that is said. All that is said is also checked by everyone connected with the passage of the Bill. I will read everything which has been said today, but it would not be honest to hold out to my right hon. Friend hopes that the Government may think that what they have put before the House is not the proper way to deal with the matter. In fairness to my own sense of honesty I must say that, but subject to that we shall, of course, look at it.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the end of line 24 stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 232.

    Division No. 131.]

    AYES

    [6.30 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Crouch, R. F.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Braine, B. R.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwoge)

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt Hon. P G. T.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Bullard, D. G.

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

    Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Carr, Robert

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Barber, Anthony

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Drayson, G. B.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Drewe, Sir C.

    Baxter, A. B

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Bennett, F M. (Reading, N.)

    Cote, Norman

    Duthie, W. S.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Cooper-Key, E. M

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Black, C. W.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Boothby, Sir R. J. G

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt Hon. H. F. C

    Fisher, Nigel

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Fort, R.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Foster, John

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Renner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Russell, R. S.

    Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Schofield, Lt.- Col. W.

    Gammons, L. D.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Scott, R. Donald

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Glover, D.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Shepherd, William

    Godber, J. B.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Gower, H. R.

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Speir, R. M.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Marples, A. E.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Maude, Angus

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Maudling, R.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Mellor, Sir John

    Summers, G. S.

    Head, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Heald, Rt. Hon Sir Lionel

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Heath, Edward

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Teeling, W.

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Neave, Airey

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Thomas, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Holland-Martin, C. J

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Hollis, M. C.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Hope, Lord John

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Turton, R. H.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Horobin, I. M.

    O'Niell, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Osborne, C.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J

    Page, R. G.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Hylton-Foster H. B. H.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Jennings, Sir Roland

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Wellwood, W.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Kaberry, D.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Wills, G.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Redmayne, M.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Kerr, H. W.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Renton, D. L. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Langford-Holt, J. A

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Major Conant and Mr Richard Thompson.

    NOES

    Adams, Richard

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G

    Cove, W. G.

    Albu, A. H.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Bowen, E. R

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Bowles, F. G

    Grossman, R. H. S.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Brockway, A. F

    Daines, P.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Baird, J.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Balfour, A

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Bartley, P.

    Burke, W. A.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Bence, C. R.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    de freitas, Geoffrey

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Deer, G.

    Benson, G

    Carmichael, J.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Champion, A. J.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    Blackburn, F.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Clunie, J.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Coldrick, W.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Boardman, H.

    Collick, P. H.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Ross, William

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Royle, C.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Short, E. W.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Legan, D. G.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Finch, H. J.

    MacColl, J. E

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    McInnes, J.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Follick, M.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Foot, M. M.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mallalieu, E. L (Brigg)

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield, E.)

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Glanville, James

    Manuel, A. C.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mason, Roy

    Sparks, J. A

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Steele, T.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Stress, Dr. Barnett

    Grimond, J.

    Monslow, W.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Hale, Leslie

    Moody, A. S.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Morley, R.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Thomas, Iorweth (Rhondda, W.)

    Hannan, W.

    Mort D. L

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Hargreaves, A.

    Moyle, A.

    Thornton, E.

    Hastings, S.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Timmons, J.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

    O'Brien, T.

    Osborne, H. C.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Viant, S. P.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wade, D. W.

    Holman, P.

    Oswald, T.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Holmes, Horace

    Paget, R. T.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Holt, A. F.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Weitzman, D.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Pannell, Charles

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Parker, J.

    West, D. G.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Hynd, J. B Attercliffe)

    Popplewell, E.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Porter, G.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Janner, B.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Williams, Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'Y)

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Rankin, John

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Reeves, J.

    Willis, E. G.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Keenan, W.

    Rhodes, H.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Kenyon, C.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Yates, V. F.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. James Johnson.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    It being after Half-past Six o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to complete the Proceedings on that part of the Bill to be concluded at that hour, including the Questions on Amendments moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to Clause 5 and Schedule 3.
    Amendment made: In page 8, line 24, at end, insert:
    (i) that no such power as is referred to in the Third Schedule to this Act is exercised by the Authority unless the Authority are satisfied that it is necessary that they should exercise that power having regard to a breach which they apprehend on the part of the programme
    1148
    contractor of any provision included in the contract in pursuance of this subsection.—[Mr. Gammans.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Third Schedule.—(PURPOSES FOR WHICH PROVISION IS TO BE MADE IN CONTRACTS WITH PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS.)
    Amendment made: In page 18, line 12, leave out from "thereof," to the end of line 13, and insert:
    "to the Authority for examination or reproduction."—[Mr. Gammans.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    Clause 6.—(GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER AUTHORITY AS TO CERTAIN MATTERS.)
    Mr. J. Grimond: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 13 to 30.
    The Chairman: I suggest that with this Amendment we might also take the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) in page 9, line 25, leave out subsection (3).
    Mr. Grimond: I cannot help thinking that when hon. Members opposite read the first three subsections of this Clause they must have been caused considerable dismay. When the Government first decided to set up a new Television Authority instead of relying solely on the B.B.C., that decision was supported by appeals to principle on the very highest grounds. The Areopagitica was called in aid, and their arguments rang with cries of liberty and detestation of oppressive authority. Since then the discussion has taken rather a tumble, and lately it has centred around who is to pay for the service and who is to get whatever pickings there may be going.
    It seems to me that we have travelled a long way from Areopagitica, particularly when we come, for instance, to subsection (1) of this Clause. Under that subsection:
    "The Postmaster-General and any other Minister of the Crown may, if it appears to him to be necessary or expedient so to do in connection with his functions as such"—
    whatever that phrase may mean—give notice to the Authority:
    "to broadcast, at such times as may be specified in the notice and from such of the stations used by them as may be so specified, any matter …"
    In subsection (2) the Postmaster-General has equal powers to forbid the broadcasting of any matter.
    These are not reserve powers; they are not to be used merely in an emergency. They are not limited in any way. I cannot help thinking that Milton must be turning in his grave if the news has reached whatever part of the other world he now rests in. They allow the most wide discretion to the Executive.
    If it is argued that the same powers are given to the Minister over the B.B.C., that makes matters even worse. Are these powers necessary? What are they
    1150
    for? It may be suggested that the Executive must have the power to direct that official announcements are made on the air. If that is so, let the Government write the necessary provision into the Bill. The B.B.C. itself has asked that their powers be thus limited. If they are prepared to specify the type of announcement they would want to have made, there ought not to be very much objection to that.
    These announcements are sometimes overdone. There is a certain bleak indigestibility about their matter and they are not presented in such an attractive manner as always to hold the public's attention. I view with some misgivings the continual creeping increase in the number of impartial statements and handouts which emanate from the Government. Many of these statements cannot really be impartial. They are the means of building up a Minister or supporting a policy.
    There may be occasions upon which announcements of this sort might have to be made, but does anyone suggest that the I.T.A. would refuse a reasonable request from the Government? Would it refuse to broadcast the Postmaster-General's request to post early for Christmas, or an appeal from the Home Secretary on Civil Defence? It is true that the Civil Defence appeal might be limited in the Midlands. It is time that we got to the stage of treating the Authority as an adult and not a child. It would respond, surely, to any reasonable appeal from the Government.
    There is a far more serious possibility that at some future time the Clause may become a real danger, because it might be used to control opinion. It is extremely wide, and empowers a Minister of the Crown to forbid the Authority to broadcast certain matter entirely. We all know that broadcasting is one of the most potent instruments in the hands of factions which aim at some sort of dictatorship. I do not pretend that there is much danger of the Clause being used in that way in this country at the present time; but times change. I do not suggest that we are suddenly going to descend into a Fascist or Communist dictatorship, but tyranny has a great many faces. It comes slowly, very often dressed in what appear to be very reasonable clothes. It appeals to what seem to be justifiable

    1151
    grievances. It may gain support—as Hitler did in his early days—from people who are otherwise perfectly good democrats.
    It may not be a tyranny of the Fascist or Communist type, but of good and well-meaning men, and that kind can be one of the worst. It may be a tyranny of perfectly respectable political parties which get together to maintain the status quo and defend their vested interests. In Northern Ireland it may be used to prevent Republicans or Catholics from broadcasting over the Authority's stations.
    Suppose there were widespread unofficial strikes? Under the Clause the Government can use all the media of the Authority to state their own point of view, and can forbid the Authority to broadcast any answer by the strikers. It may well do that with the concurrence of the official Opposition.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: That has happened with the B.B.C.
    Mr. Grimond: That may be so. It is not then altogether a remote danger. I cannot think that it is in accordance with complete freedom of discussion as we understand it. I am not so worried about the possibility of the Government preventing the Parliamentary Opposition from broadcasting, but it might prevent certain of its own dissentient supporters from broadcasting.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: That also applied to us.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Grimond: It may prevent broadcasts by those who want to criticise Parliamentary Government as a whole, those who do not think that Members of Parliament should have a higher salary, or even the Temperance League or the pacifists.
    We have been told that the new Authority will be a highly responsible body of men, and I believe it will, though if that is so I do not see why Clause 3 should be written into the Bill in its present form. Would it not be better for us to leave the decision on this kind of matter in the hands of the Authority? This Clause is written in in an old-fashioned state of mind. It is the sort of thing which Governments have become
    1152
    used to writing into Bills. I do not think it is necessary to do so, certainly not for the party which now claims that "Change is their Ally." Let this new body judge these matters and act, if necessary, as a breakwater against the Executive.
    I shall be told that the B.B.C. is subject to certain overriding limitations. I do not think it should be, but, even so, is there any reason why the new Authority should be a kind of shadow-B.B.C.? If the Government have these powers over the B.B.C., is it really necessary that they should have the same powers over this other body? Might it not be a good thing if the Authority were able to feel that it was free to take a different view from the Government or the B.B.C.?
    I am not suggesting that the Authority should be free from all Parliamentary control. It would be appointed by Parliament. Its general behaviour would be debated. If there are certain specific matters in connection with which the Government want powers, let them write the words into the Bill. If they want emergency powers in time of war they will take them in relation to this body, just as they do in relation to others. If they want to suppress unseemly advertisements let them write the necessary provision into the Bill.
    The Clause gives the Executive wide powers, and in its present form it defeats one of the strongest arguments which have been put forward by the Government themselves, one of the few arguments for the principle of setting up the Authority at all. Is it to be argued that the Postmaster-General is the best judge of these matters, and that the Executive should decide questions concerning the freedom of speech? If that is so it is a serious departure from the views we have held hitherto. It is not agreed by Milton, Mill or Laski that the defence of freedom of speech can be entrusted to the Executive. The Executive has a vested interest, in torpor—torpor of the mind—and is mainly concerned with keeping things as they are. It does not encourage new wine to get into the old, comfortable bottles and burst them.
    Some hon. Members on this side of the Committee want an alternative to the B.B.C. which is not merely a purveyor of music hall jokes and after-dinner games but a serious alternative, broadcasting intellectual discussions of all kinds. They

    1153
    want a new adventure and they are prepared for it to take some risks and make some mistakes. Whether it is to be partially supported by commercial interests and by advertising or not, it seems to me that the Government will have missed a great opportunity in the Bill if they do not give the new Authority the means to sponsor serious and disturbing programmes without a continual fear of interference from the executive.
    So far in this country we have got along very well with public discussion under the laws of libel and of obscenity. We have needed no more. We have needed no interference from the Government in these matters. I very much hope that we shall not now reconcile ourselves for all time to having written in the Bill these extremely wide powers which enable a Government to do anything they like to prevent the Authority from broadcasting at all, to tell it to broadcast anything they like or to order it to cease from broadcasting anything they like. I cannot believe that the Committee will be wise to leave the Clause in its present form.
    Captain Orr: I find myself in almost entire agreement with practically everything which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, except for his suggestion that perhaps someone in Northern Ireland might wish to prevent the expression of minority opinion through the medium of television.
    Mr. James Hudson: That was the best comment of them all.
    Captain Orr: It was a good point but based on an inconceivable premise.
    I want to talk for a moment about subsection (3). The Amendment which we have on the Paper suggests that this subsection be deleted, and our reason for desiring this is that the subsection gives power to the Postmaster-General to give directions in writing to the Authority about maximum and minimum times of broadcasting. This is a highly important and, indeed, a highly dangerous power to be in the hands of the Postmaster-General.
    Let us suppose that the Postmaster-General fixes a maximum time and, at the beginning, fixes too high a maximum time. Supposing he says that the Authority and its programme contractors shall,
    1154
    from the beginning, produce programmes for the same number of hours as does the B.B.C. Supposing he fixes too high a figure. What is likely to happen? It might be an intolerable burden on the programme contractor.
    Sir L. Plummer: The hon. and gallant Member surely means a minimum number of hours.
    Captain Orr: No, I mean maximum. He might fix too high a maximum. I am sorry: I should have said "minimum."
    Supposing he fixes too high a minimum time. It would place an intolerable burden upon a new programme contractor. The new contractor might have to fill an enormous number of hours for which he had neither the material nor the capacity in the early stages of development. He might have to do all sorts of undesirable things in order to fill the time. Instead of there being the large number of live broadcasts which we want, we might find him filling time with telefilms or with potboilers in order to meet his contract.
    He might even fail to fulfil his contract and be subject to all the penalties which we were discussing under the previous Clause.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: In the one case we are discussing the programme contractor and in the other case we were discussing the Authority. That is an entirely different matter.
    Captain Orr: Surely if the Postmaster-General gives the Authority an instruction about the minimum time, the Authority must in turn give the same instruction to the programme contractor. If not, how can the Authority meet the instruction of the Postmaster-General? If it gives this same instruction to the programme contractor, then obviously it is part of the contract, and if the programme contractor, fails to carry it out, he is committing a breach of contract and, consequently, is subject to the penalty Clause.
    Let us consider the matter the other way round. Supposing a maximum time is fixed. The reverse might happen. Once the scheme develops, after two or three years, we may find that, with the amount of money available and the great resources which have been developed, the new Authority is in a position to put on programmes for many hours of the day,

    1155
    which the B.B.C. cannot do. It is conceivable that the Postmaster-General, by some quirk or whim, may decide that the new programme contractor shall not put on programmes for longer hours than the B.B.C. That would be a highly undesirable position. It would be like tying a racehorse to a cart-horse. Why tie the new, enterprising, vigorous programme contractor to the hours of the B.B.C.? I can see no earthly reason for doing that.
    Those are the two dangers, and I want an indication from my right hon. and learned Friend that this Clause is designed to be used solely for purposes connected with the national security and the national interest—in other words, that it is not to be used for the sort of purpose which I have described. There is one reason no doubt why a minimum time should be fixed. A Government might argue that if we are giving the frequency space and the channel—
    Mr. G. Darling: And the money.
    Captain Orr: —to the Authority—and if we are giving it the money, which is a pity—we must be satisfied that reasonable use is being made of the facilities.
    I entirely agree with that. I should like an assurance, however, that the power to fix a minimum time will be used for that purpose and that purpose only; and that the power to fix a maximum amount of broadcasting time will be used only in cases of national security and the national interest.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) suggested that to include the Clause in the Bill was to be old-fashioned. In listening to the doctrine which he put forward, I felt that I was listening to a surviving voice from the past, because we are here dealing with a public corporation, which is to be a public servant, and the inclusion of this Clause follows the precedent set in the case of other public corporations, particularly that of the B.B.C.
    The hon. Member put up some Aunt Sallies to be knocked down. When he suggested that the Government could control information by making use of the powers in the Clause to give directions to the Authority to broadcast any material, he was stretching the position rather far
    1156
    and ignoring other Clauses of the Bill. He also suggested that the I.T.A. should be able to put on the air views about unofficial strikes—presumably to put out those views supporting the strike and those opposed to it, thus becoming a forum for the discussion of these very controversial subjects. That is completely contrary to the tenor of our discussion so far, and to the Clauses in the Bill which seek to establish impartiality.
    7.0 p.m.
    It would be extremely dangerous if the I.T.A. was used for such a purpose. This is a commercial Authority. We oppose it for that reason. For this commercial Authority to become a forum for controversy of that sort when a controversial situation has arisen would be a very considerable danger. Surely it is far better, if it is necessary for national announcements to be made, that they should be made under the ægis of the Government, so that the Government should answer to Members of this House for what it has instructed the I.T.A. to put out.
    This is the case with the B.B.C. The B.B.C. can announce that it has received a directive from the Government, and we are then in a position to know what directive has been given and, if necessary, we can challenge the Government for having given it.
    Mr. Arthur Holt: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that on a day when there is an official strike the only kind of announcement about it which should go over the air should be either the official Government view or the official trade union view?
    Mr. Davies: Certainly not. Obviously, news would be put out, and the news has to be impartial in accordance with the Bill.
    There should not be a power within the I.T.A. to put out partial and controversial matters contrary to the whole purpose of the other Clauses of the Bill. There are a number of other reasons why it is necessary to include in the Rill the provisions of the Clause which the hon. Gentleman would delete.
    Why should the I.T.A. be put in a more privileged position than the B.B.C.? It is necessary to have more control over the I.T.A. than it is even over the B.B.C.. because the I.T.A. is

    1157
    not so directly responsible to this House as is the B.B.C., and, as a consequence, it is much more important that the B.B.C., which is not subject to commercial considerations, should not be in a worse position than the I.T.A. That is to say, we need more protection against the I.T.A. than we do in regard to the B.B.C. I hope that the Government, as I am sure they will, will resist the Amendment.
    In the case of the B.B.C., this power has been used so far very sparingly. So far as I am aware, the directive for refraining from broadcasting any specific matter has only been used in one particular, which is to prevent the B.B.C. from broadcasting its editorial opinions. That is already incorporated in this Bill as regards the I.T.A. in Clause 3 (2), where it is provided that the Authority shall not include expressions of its own opinion, subject to certain qualifications. This Clause gives the protection which it is necessary to have, particularly in view of the nature of the I.T.A.
    Turning to the Amendment about which the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) spoke, there again it would be very dangerous if that subsection were excluded. It would enable most unfair competition with the B.B.C. to be introduced. The B.B.C. is providing a national service, and its main and only consideration is to provide the best service possible within its means for the community. The I.T.A. will be concerned solely with providing a service which will bring in the maximum revenue possible through the programme contractors.
    If the I.T.A. were free to broadcast the hours it wished, and could pick and choose what times it was going on the air, it is possible that, if commercial considerations were paramount, it would pick only the peak listening hours, and put out the programmes at those times when it would have a peak audience, and be able to collect the largest revenue from the advertisers. I do not say that that would happen, but there is that danger. If minimum hours are not ordained by the Postmaster-General there may be not only unfair competition with the B.B.C. but the choosing of particular hours when television transmission takes place.
    1158
    It is necessary that there should be some control over the number of hours, not only for these reasons, but also for technical reasons—availability of technicians, materials, and so on, so that the requirements of the B.B.C. are not encroached upon. I therefore suggest to the Home Secretary that he should resist both these Amendments.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that it would be convenient if I indicated briefly the Government's view. I am afraid that we must advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment which my hon. Friend has suggested. I enjoyed enormously the way he put it, and especially the Miltonic refrain which went through his speech. I was reminded of something which we had to learn at school:
    "Milton! Thou shouldst be living at this hour; England hath need of thee; she is a fen Of stagnant waters."
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) should congratulate himself on having disturbed this pool into the unusual situation of the Government and the Opposition being united on this point.
    The hon. Gentleman did seize on some words and said that their meaning was not clear to him. I think that if I draw his attention to some words in subsection (1) he will find that they will help him with his point. The words are:
    "…with his functions as such, …"
    That means the Postmaster-General and any other Minister of the Crown may only ask for something in connection with his Departmental functions. Fascinating as Departmental functions are, I cannot believe that a Minister would take up a great deal of time by discussing them over the air.
    Mr. Grimond: The Prime Minister presumably has almost all functions in his power, and can ask the Authority to do anything he likes.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is a very interesting point. But my point does still hold good that, broadly, the broadcast of Ministerial functions is a very different matter from the broadcast of Government policy or anything of that sort. In fact, under subsection (1), the requirements have been confined almost entirely to such things as police messages, notices of flood warnings, warnings of agricultural disease and the like.

    1159
    I think that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment had a point—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) will recognise it, too—that the Clause is wider than the use that has hitherto been made of it. That is a fair point and I am sure that the whole Committee would like me to look at it. I cannot help feeling that, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East said, the Clause is so well known and so much used that there must be a reason for the wording. The hon. Member made a case that it is drawn too widely for the powers for which it has hitherto been used, and I will look at that point.
    Mr. Shackleton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it is drawn too widely for the powers for which it has hitherto been used. As far as I know, no similar Clause has ever been operated. It bears no resemblance to the clause in the B.B.C. Licence.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is putting it a bit too far to say that it bears no resemblance. The same powers are used in regard to the B.B.C.
    Mr. Shackleton: They are much more precise.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Exactly. I will bear that in mind.
    Mr. Grimond: In its evidence before the Beveridge Committee, the B.B.C. drew attention to that and asked that the powers taken by the Government in their licence might be curtailed and made more definite.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is agreed, I think, that I should look at that aspect of it. Equally, we are all agreed that this is a power that in regard to the B.B.C. has never been misused or made the instrument of either politics or tyranny or any other sinister purpose.
    Subsection (2)—the "require … to refrain" provision—is an emergency power. As I said on Second Reading, the intention is to provide for a situation in which there is great international tension or some other emergency of that kind.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman certain of that? In the case of the B.B.C., it was this
    1160
    very power which was used to give it a general directive not to broadcast any editorial opinion, which is certainly not a question of emergency. Surely, this would give the Postmaster-General power to request the organisation to refrain from broadcasting any matter, irrespective of any national emergency or otherwise.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I said that the intention of the Clause was to provide for an emergency. It was not to give a power to deal with editorial opinion, because we thought that that had already been covered by the Clauses which the Committee has discussed. I am completely accurate as to our intention. It certainly was not intended to cover a second time the ground with which the Bill had already dealt.
    What we have to face is whether there should or should not be such a power in the Bill. I think that there ought to be. I think that the Government ought to keep this reserve power. I point out to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that there is no argument here about Parliamentary control. This concerns the action of the Postmaster-General, and if he misuses the power he can be called to account at once in the House and in the sharpest way.
    7.15 p.m.
    Subsection (3) is the one which interested my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). I sympathise with him in the difficulties which he envisaged. The answer lies in the common sense of the Postmaster-General in his utilisation of the powers. My worry was not the same as that of the hon. Member for Enfield, East, but it is a very real one. In my conception, the functions of government include dealing with high minimum standards, and by maintaining these standards preventing abuses in various ways. It is a social matter of interest to government, and something that cannot be divorced from government, how many hours of the day television should function. I am not arguing between the B.B.C. and commercial television; I am dealing with the whole field. I think that that is a social matter over which the Government ought to keep control.
    I base my opinion on my own philosophy, which I have just explained.

    1161
    but whatever our philosophy of government I think we all agree that it is a function of government to keep some control in this matter. The difficulty which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland envisaged can be met by the fact that there is direct Parliamentary control. This is something to which Parliamentary attention could be directed at once. I am sorry if I have occupied too much time, but I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Sir L. Plummer: I am glad that the Home Secretary has indicated that he cannot accept the Amendment, but I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I think he has confused the issue a little in believing that because Clauses such as this are not made imperative upon the B.B.C., it is wrong that they should be made imperative upon the Independent Television Authority. There is all the difference in the world between the control that is necessary over a public corporation like the B.B.C. and a public corporation designed, as is the I.T.A., to run a service which in its turn is designed for profit. It is necessary, therefore, that there should be Clauses of this kind.
    When the Bill was first introduced, it looked as though these Clauses were not as necessary as we now see them to be, for we did at one time envisage that the I.T.A. would be an independent authority, completely objective. But we know now that it can contain advertisers, people whose interest it is to see that it is made a good commercial proposition for advertisers and advertising agencies. It is essential, therefore, that Parliament should retain in its hands, through the Postmaster-General, these powers of direction and excision which Clauses of this kind give.
    Subsection (2) is, in fact, the public defender. The situation may well occur when it could be used, not in the sense that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, in cases of emergency, but when there is a direct difference of opinion between the members of the Authority and the Postmaster-General; when the Postmaster-General is loath to take the action that is in his hands—that is, to get rid of the members of the Authority—but finds it is necessary to prohibit certain matters or classes of matter from being broadcast: programmes which are offensive but which might not be
    1162
    offensive to the members of the Authority who, by virtue of the fact that they are in business themselves, take a less sensitive view than other people, including the Postmaster-General, would take, and would permit something which would be offensive to Parliament. The Clause gives the House power to ask the Postmaster-General to take action and for the Postmaster-General to inform and consult the House on any action that he proposes to take.
    I am perfectly certain it would not be used in the interests of advancing a Fascist or Communist cause. After all, if either of these systems established a dictatorship they would use television, not in the sense of this Bill, but in the sense of their own interests. Any question of law would then go. While I concede that there might be abuses of this Clause, provided the power remained in a democratic House of Commons, as it would under this Clause, we could control those abuses.
    Mr. G. Darling: The Liberal Amendment, with a capital "L," is full of dangers, and the Liberal Party have got to learn that our law can be preserved if the Government can step in now and again to see that it is preserved. This laissez faire of the Liberal Party does a disservice to liberalism, this time with a small "1."
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) mentioned the possibility of the Government stepping in to instruct the Television Authority how it should, for example, handle unofficial strikes. This is a serious matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) suggested that the B.B.C. has not always been impartial in the past in reporting these strikes. I think I am in order in replying to that to draw upon my own experiences.
    For some years after the war I was the B.B.C. industrial reporter and it was my job to report on unofficial strikes. I got tired of doing it. I thought we paid too much attention to them. I would rather have reported what the other 99 per cent. of the workers were doing, and that was working pretty hard and getting this country on to its feet. But people wanted to listen to talks about the unofficial strikes. It was impossible for the B.B.C. to do anything else but report the two,

    1163
    three or four sides of unofficial strikes, and anyone trying to bring pressure to bear upon the B.B.C. about them was told that it would not allow pressure to interfere with its reporting. But there was no comment put out by the B.B.C.
    We have got to bear in mind something that was said on previous Amendments and is germane to this, that the only way one can safeguard the impartiality of any broadcasting organisation in its presentation of news, facts and information is to make sure that the staff on the job are protected from any pressure that may be brought to bear on them. We have got to be more careful in the case of the I.T.A. than would be the case with the B.B.C.
    The I.T.A. will be subject to business pressure. It may be that a business concern enters into a contract with a programme company or advertising agency to put on a whole series of programmes, say once a week for six months. Then it may find itself involved in an unofficial or, indeed, an official strike. One has got to be absolutely sure that the pressure on the contractor will not be such that anything connected with the view of the business concern about the strike finds its way over the air as news, partial or biased, or by way of comment.
    The Government have got to make sure that business pressures are not used for the partial reporting of facts or comments on such a matter, and I would suggest that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary is going to look at this Clause again to see whether the subject cannot be defined more clearly, he ought to be very careful indeed that the door is not closed to Government and Parliamentary intervention. He must ensure that the I.T.A. and the programme company do what we want them to do, and that is to make sure that if there is any offence Parliament will have a full opportunity of saying what it thinks and bringing its influence to bear to make sure that there shall be impartial reporting and that nothing shall be done that contravenes the view we may express in this Committee.
    It is important that this should be borne in mind and that in redefining this Clause it should be done in such a way that we shall not lose a lot of liberties and give too much authority, power and
    1164
    influence to the business interests that will be engaged in commercial television.
    There is a further point. I do not know how under this Clause one could make sure that news, views and comments about politics and industrial affairs shall be as free and as unbiased as they have been in the B.B.C. The only way that it can be done is by putting control of all programmes in the hands of the I.T.A. and making the I.T.A., in effect, a public service corporation. We cannot do that now because the Clause dealing with it has been approved. I am convinced, however, that that will have to be done eventually so that this commercial undertaking will become a second public service corporation.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
    Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—
    Sir R. Grimston: I find myself in considerable agreement with much that was said by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in introducing this Amendment. At the same time I think we are all agreed that the Government must have these powers over broadcasting certain matters in certain cases. What we have to be careful about is that they are not left too obviously open to abuse. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend is going to look at the wording of this Clause as it is drawn extremely wide.
    Some mention has been made of unofficial strikes. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) said either yesterday or on a previous occasion that he had used similar powers to give instructions to the B.B.C. to refrain broadcasting something that was going to be broadcast about the personalities engaged in an unofficial strike.
    Mr. Ness Edwards rose—
    Sir R. Grimston: I would be glad it the right hon. Gentleman would tell us exactly what the position was.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I did not use the power, but the Minister of Labour—I was then the Parliamentary Secretary—did in these circumstances. A state of emergency had been declared as a result of a dock strike, and the Minister requested

    1165
    the B.B.C. not to allow the leader of the unofficial strike to state the case for the strike over the B.B.C. network.
    7.30 p.m.
    Sir R. Grimston: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I am trying to blame him. I am merely taking that as an illustration of the sort of case in which one has to be very careful, because, when all is said and done, the right to strike is surely absolutely inherent in the subject in this country, and whether it is official or unofficial does not affect that vital fact.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that on this occasion it was not the right to strike that was at stake, but the right to strike in breach of a contract.
    Sir R. Grimston: The point here was really that a state of emergency had been declared in this instance, and that seemed to me to put the thing quite beyond any controversy. I do not think that we can argue about the other points at the moment. I quote that as an illustration and I wish to say how glad I am that my right hon. and learned Friend is going to look at the wording again.
    I have one or two Amendments on the Paper which follow this one, which I hope are going to be called, and which I believe are some safeguards, so I will not pursue that subject now. Much as one would wish it otherwise, I think that the Government must retain the power in this Clause.
    Mr. Shackleton: I am not in entire agreement with some of my hon. Friends in their attitude towards the Amendment moved by the Liberal Chief Whip. The first point I wish to deal with, and which was, in fact, the last point dealt with by the Home Secretary, is the power of the Postmaster-General with regard to the maximum and minimum time of programmes. This appears to be one of the arguments to which trust in the I.T.A. does not apply and which we now add to religion and medicine, they being subjects in which the Government or somebody else has to intervene.
    I do not wish to deal with this so much as with the first two subsections. In the past the Home Secretary has evinced a good deal of anger at the suggestion that this Clause was too widely drawn. The
    1166
    right hon. and learned Gentleman said that really we are doing nothing which, in fact, does not already apply in the case of the B.B.C. But it is precisely because the wording is so much wider than in the B.B.C. licence that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in saying that he will look at it again. Since he is going to look at it again, may I draw his attention to the points on which I think there is a real difference between the practice in the past and the wording, as opposed to what he says are his intentions under the Bill.
    There is no reference in the first subsection to any emergency under this Bill. The wording in the B.B.C. licence is very much more specific. It merely gives power to a Government Department to broadcast an announcement—and it specifically says an announcement—in an emergency. In the attempt to make this Bill as short and as vague as possible, that has been run together and has left a real gap which I think must be made clear.
    It is not good enough merely to say that there is no intention of misusing this power. In that case, why has the Minister varied the not unsatisfactory wording—it may not be perfect, and this is a very important and dangerous subject—in the B.B.C. licence?
    There is another thing. The B.B.C. is allowed, both in cases where it is compelled to broadcast something and where it is compelled to refrain from broadcasting something, to make an announcement to that effect. But, under this Bill, the Government will be able to prevent the Authority from making such an announcement to the effect that it has been compelled to put it out.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: There is an Amendment on that point which I was going to accept. I thought that the Committee would probably agree with that.
    Mr. Shackleton: Quite obviously the Government cannot accept the Liberal Amendment as it stands, but I think that it is a worthwhile Amendment from the point of view of stimulating this debate, and I think that the Home Secretary, who has persistently said that anybody who has tried to achieve this is an anti-libertarian and is just being troublesome, must acknowledge that there are some real grounds so far as the wording is concerned.

    1167
    It is all very well to say that my hon. Friends on this side and the Government are at one in saying that no Government would do such a thing, but, in that case, let us get the wording right in the Bill, I agree with my hon. Friend that a democratic House of Commons is the main protection in these matters, as well as in avoiding the passing of sloppy legislation.
    Mr. J. Hudson: I am extremely glad to have heard from the benches on this side an indication that opinion is not entirely united in complete opposition to all that the Liberal Party says on this occasion. In fact, it is well worth while now and again finding the Liberal Party trying to save its soul for Liberalism after going in other directions.
    I think it is an important thing that we are trying to do, particularly under Clause 6 (2) where we are asked to give the Postmaster-General—and such a Postmaster-General as we have seen operating in the House—power at any time to require the Authority to refrain from broadcasting. There is no question in the Clause of any emergency, though it is true that the instructions to the Authority has to be in writing, which I think is important.
    During the course of these discussions, I have been engaged in making propositions about certain classes of matter that I thought ought not to be broadcast. I wanted to make it clear by the actual Amendments moved to the Bill what those classes were. That does not lead me to suppose that I want to give to the Government, especially when they have turned down reasonable propositions after reasonable proposition, the right to come along and have the absolute power to rule out certain classes of material.
    I am not in the least consoled by my hon. Friends who say, "It will be all right because we shall get a full debate in the House when the Postmaster-General indicates in writing his power to forbid the discussion of certain things." In the course of this debate we have had an example of how completely, this Government pay no regard whatever to important bodies of opinion on their own side as well as on this regarding the material that ought not to be broadcast.
    I can well imagine that there are many things that have not been discussed in
    1168
    this Bill at all in which I am certainly interested and regarding which I certainly would not be allowed by the present Government to broadcast any of the things which I hold to be extremely serious. If anybody has any doubt about this they should bear in mind that the B.B.C. is not altogether free under its Charter from taking a very absolute attitude concerning things which it regards as being not altogether popular.
    I was recommended by Philip Snowden a long time ago as a likely broadcaster for the B.B.C. to consider. I became a Member of Parliament for the first time more than 30 years ago, and yet in all that time I have not broadcast once about anything under the sun. I know what the power of the B.B.C. can be in forbidding unpopular opinion. I am not a bit anxious to put into the hands of this Government such a power. The Liberal Party may be inspired by John Milton, but he was often denied by the Liberal Party, which has, particularly in wartime, said and done things directly contrary to the principles that it is now preaching. However, I am glad it gives a warning today on this matter, and I am willing to support it in giving that warning. I do not want to put into the hands of the Government the absolute powers for which they are asking, least of all those given by subsection (2).
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I shall deal first with subsection (3), because that seems to be the matter on which there is least dispute. I was rather surprised that Liberal Members had not more to say about it. If that subsection were deleted, the I.T.A. would be free to transmit during as much time as it liked, while the B.B.C. would be limited by the existing provisions. I am sure that it is not desired to give such preferential treatment to the I.T.A., and I think that the subsection should remain.
    The amount of time devoted to television is a social matter, and a very important one. Any Government that thought of extending the amount of time for transmission would have to give very serious thought to the social consequences of extending it, and especially if an indefinite extension of time for transmission were contemplated. It is a matter of great social interest and any extension of time should be allowed only after very great consideration. I put it to Liberal

    1169
    Members, that they at least are prepared to see fair play for the B.B.C. in this matter, and that it should not be put in a worse position than the I.T.A. by not being allowed to transmit as long.
    I agree that the wording of subsections (1) and (2) is wider than the wording of the B.B.C. Charter. I am glad that the Home Secretary will look at this again, so that the I.T.A. shall not be more under the control of the Government than is the B.B.C. I have had some experience of the operation of similar provisions in relation to the B.B.C. I do not remember a single complaint in the House about the operation of those provisions.
    Mr. Shackleton: I do not think my right hon. Friend has made his opinion quite clear. I take it that he is suggesting that the I.T.A. should be only in the same position as the B.B.C.? Obviously he is in favour of the Government's exercising control over the I.T.A. in other directions.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Oh, yes. I shall come to that. The Liberals are apparently prepared to lay down that the House of Commons shall impose limitations on the I.T.A., but they are not prepared to let the servants of the House lay down those limitations, even although those servants, that is, Ministers, are answerable to the House. In that respect I thought that the Miltonic, very delightful speech of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was very much wide of the mark.
    7.45 p.m.
    I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would consider what the position would be without some such safeguards. Without these safeguards, the I.T.A. would be absolutely free to do what it liked. Having regard to the purpose of commercial television, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that no curbs are desirable? Does he think they are not, when we remember that the I.T.A. and the programme companies may be drawn from one strata of the community? Should they or should they not be allowed, if they so desire, to encourage insurrection in Northern Ireland, to encourage unofficial strikes—
    Mr. G. Darling: They would do it every day.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: —to encourage actions against the State—
    Mr. Ede: Or apologetics by the Bishop of Leeds.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: —and all sorts of things like that? Putting it as narrowly as one can, there could be occasions on which the Authority ought to be under the control of the House, as, for instance, in a state of emergency, and when it ought not to be encouraged to state the case for actions against constituted authority in this country. I put it no higher than that. That is the position of the B.B.C.
    Suppose there were an unofficial strike that led to a declaration of a state of emergency. It would be wrong for the I.T.A. to put up an unofficial striker for the purpose of extending the unofficial strike. I agree that in the news it would be right for the facts about the unofficial strike to be told objectively and impartially, but I do not think we should encourage illegal actions, which, without such a limitation as is imposed by the Clause, would be possible. We should think, the trade unions would think, the Committee would think it wrong if the I.T.A. were to put up people for the purpose of encouraging illegality.
    Mr. Grimond: If the Clause stated that these powers were wanted in a state of emergency I should have some sympathy with it, but, as the right hon. Gentleman has himself rightly said, it is widely drawn.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I think we are now getting very near agreement. In other words, the Liberals agree that if this limitation were the same as that on the B.B.C., they would have no case for their Amendment. I take it that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) also agrees that there should be precisely the same amount of transmitting time for the B.B.C. as for the I.T.A. I am sure that even he, who is pro commercial, would not argue that the I.T.A should have complete freedom and the B.B.C. be tied.
    Captain Orr: That is so.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: We are getting agreement that if the Amendment were agreed to and these subsections deleted we should have an unfair situation. In the circumstances, and in view of the undertaking we have had from the Home Secretary that he will look at this matter

    1171
    again, and try to put the I.T.A. on a par with the B.B.C. on broadcasts in an emergency, I trust that the Committee will not be called upon to divide.
    Captain Orr: I think we are pretty nearly in agreement about subsection (3). The Home Secretary produced a formidable case, and convinced me of the necessity of having power to fix maximum transmitting hours. Would my hon. Friend go so far as to give an undertaking that while the Government envisage the retention of this power in order to fix the maximum number of hours which may be devoted to television in the national interest, they do not envisage the use of this power in order to tie the new Authority to the hours of the B.B.C. or vice-versa?
    In other words, it will not be used to protect one from the competition of the other but simply in the national interest to decide the maximum number of hours which either of the two may broadcast. If it is decided in the national interest that there may be eight hours television a day and if the B.B.C. says that it cannot produce as much as that, will the Government give an assurance that they will not necessarily tie the new Authority to the same number of hours and that they do not envisage this Government at any rate using the power for that purpose?
    Mr. Gammans: As far as I am aware, there has never been any question of tying the hours of the Authority and the B.B.C. together, either as to the total number of hours or the specific time of day when each may broadcast, but my noble Friend would have to take notice of the number of hours which the B.B.C. had broadcast because it has had so much more experience in this matter than anyone else.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has said something new. It opens new doors. Does he mean that the Postmaster-General will allow the I.T.A. to transmit at hours different from those now provided by the B.B.C.?
    Mr. Ellis Smith: The Home Secretary did not say that.
    Mr. Gammans: That could possibly happen. After all, we are talking about alternative programmes and, as has been pointed out on the other side of the Com-
    1172
    mittee on more than one occasion, it is very undesirable to have two authorities broadcasting virtually the same type of programme or it may even be the same programme at the same hours. I do not want the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) to read more into my words than they imply. I was asked whether it was intended that the I.T.A. could only broadcast the same number of hours as the B.B.C. I said that my words did not mean that at all. I was also asked if I meant that they would have to broadcast at the same hours. No decision has been taken or promise given and I am not attempting to give such a promise.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is speaking in a different voice from that of the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Gammans indicated dissent.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The Home Secretary was quite explicit. As he put it, the I.T.A. was to put out an alternative programme during the present transmitting time and a change or extension of the hours was a matter which would have to be very seriously considered. I understood him to mean by that the extension of present hours of transmission. It will be within the memory of the Committee.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: The Home Secretary used these words—that it was a social problem which he undertook to consider in the light of what was said in the Committee.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I agree, but on the other hand we can see the possibility now that on Saturday afternoons, or perhaps after the B.B.C. has closed down, the I.T.A. will be allowed to continue to transmit.
    Captain Orr: Possibly.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: But as the B.B.C. at present transmits at times permitted by the Postmaster-General, is there no possibility that the Postmaster-General will change the times of the B.B.C., giving preferential treatment to the I.T.A.? We should have a definite assurance about that. My impression was that the Postmaster-General would try to be fair about this matter and allow the I.T.A. to transmit, if it could, within the same periods as the B.B.C., and that any extension of transmitting time in this

    1173
    country would be a matter in which both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. would be treated fairly and that that would be done after great consideration by the Cabinet. I hope that the hon Gentleman does not seek to go further than that.
    Mr. Gammans: I do not seek to go further than anything. I gather that what my right hon. and learned Friend said in my absence was that the Postmaster-General has control over the number of hours during which the new Authority may broadcast, the same as he has with the B.B.C. I was asked the rather different question as to whether or not there was anything in the Bill to prevent the Postmaster-General from allowing the new Authority to broadcast longer hours. I said that there is nothing in the Bill but that he would have to be guided in that by the experience of the number of hours which the B.B.C., with its great experience, could broadcast good programmes.
    I was also asked whether the hours of broadcasting by the two Corporations had to be identical and whether such was laid down in the Bill. The answer is, "No." There is nothing whatever laid down in the Bill that both have to broadcast at the same time. If we were to put such a provision in the Bill we should be doing a very foolish thing and hampering the development of the new Authority.
    On the point made about fairness, there is no conceivable reason why the Postmaster-General should be more fair to one Corporation than to the other. He has direct responsibility for both. It is taking a very poor view of the attitude of or conception of duty by a Postmaster-General to assume that he would be more fair to the one than to the other. I hope that I have resolved the doubt of the right hon. Member for Caerphilly. He raises so many doubts and pursues so many bogies where I assure him none exist.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Unfortunately, the bogies that we have pursued in this Committee have become realities. The bogies that we pursued about advertising and about putting money in people's pockets to help certain friends have both proved to be facts. In view of the fact that when the decision is
    1174
    taken it can be discussed in the House of Commons perhaps it is not necessary to push the matter further at this stage, but I warn the Assistant Postmaster-General that if the I.T.A. is to be allowed to transmit at hours at which the B.B.C. is not permitted to transmit there will be a first-class row in the House of Commons.
    Mr. Grimond: Although at some point in the debate I detected a coalition of the orthodox growing up, the sort of coalition which often in history has cramped propress and confined liberty, I know that there are some pretty sound rebels on both sides of the Committee. In view of the undertaking which was so courteously given by the Assistant Postmaster-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir R. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 9, line 20, at the end, to insert:
    Where the Authority broadcast any matter in pursuance of a notice under this subsection they may, if they think fit, announce that they are doing so in pursuance of such a notice.
    It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in page 9, line 24, at the end, to insert:
    Provided that the Authority may at its discretion announce or refrain from announcing that such a notice has been given.
    The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that if the Postmaster-General instructs the Authority to refrain from broadcasting, or to broadcast something, the Authority in either case may announce that it is not doing it or is doing it at the request of the Government, whichever the case may be. I believe that I am right in saying that this condition appears in the B.B.C. agreement. In view of the fact that this is some little safeguard in relation to what we have been discussing on the previous Amendment, and that it is incorporated in the B.B.C. agreement, I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Committee will see fit to accept the Amendment.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: I should imagine that the Committee will agree with this Amendment and the one to line 24. I cannot quite understand why they were not incorporated in the original Bill.

    1175
    During the hearings of the Beveridge Committee the B.B.C. made representations concerning this matter and the new Licence of the B.B.C. was amended accordingly. It certainly seems desirable that these two Amendments should be accepted by the Government.
    Mr. Gammans: I have no objection to the first Amendment. As a matter fact that same provision is in the B.B.C. Licence and I think it is very desirable.
    I am not sure whether the Committee realise the implications of the second Amendment. There we are dealing with a legalistic question—which, so far as know, has never arisen—as to what powers the Postmaster-General has over the Authority and over the B.B.C. The point could arise in this way—I put it forward not because it has ever happened or that I could imagine it happening, but, as we are discussing this legalistic point we ought to consider it:
    "the Authority may at its discretion announce or refrain from announcing that such a notice has been given."
    Here we have to assume that both the Corporation and the Authority are irresponsible bodies which would not take notice of such a Government warning. A very embarrassing situation would arise, as the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) with his knowledge of foreign affairs would agree, if, for example, we were having some difficulty in regard to a foreign country.
    For the sake of argument, let us say that in reference to Nicaragua or Guatemala something came in and the B.B.C. and the Authority were asked not to broadcast it. I am quite sure they would not do so, but if this Amendment were accepted it would be possible for the Authority to say, "We have been asked not to say anything about Nicaragua, or Guatemala." I think that would be undesirable. I admit that that power exists in the new B.B.C. Licence, but I think it was a mistake to put it in. It would have been much better if we had followed the form I have mentioned and then neither the Authority nor the B.B.C. would have been empowered to announce that they had been asked to refrain from mentioning the matter.
    1176
    I could see such a situation arising, it may be in regard to industrial trouble such as the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) mentioned. It would be very undesirable if when the Government asked the authorities not to broadcast a matter they announced, "We have been asked not to broadcast it because we are having trouble in such-and-such an industry." This is certainly not a party question, and I think that it would be undesirable if I were to accept the second Amendment, although I should be quite happy to accept the first Amendment.
    Mr. Joseph Reeves: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there would be disparity between the two bodies? Does he think that situation is likely to last? This seems to be a serious departure.
    Mr. Gammans: The hon. Member asks if that disparity is likely to last. I think that when the B.B.C. Licence has to be considered again that point should certainly be considered also.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir R. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 9, line 23, after "notice," to insert:
    "being matter or classes of matter the broadcasting of which appears to him to be contrary to the national interest."
    The Amendment raises a matter which is akin to those we have been discussing. It is designed to provide that the Postmaster-General shall not give directions to refrain from broadcasting except on matters which appear to be contrary to the national interest. I think that this is a further safeguard. I put it forward for that reason and for no other. In the normal course of events, the Postmaster-General would not be actuated by any other motive, but we have been discussing what could conceivably happen and this would be a further safeguard.
    Mr. Shackleton: Although I was glad to give some support to the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) a little earlier, I hope that on this occasion the Government will resist the Amendment, not because it goes further than the B.B.C. Licence but because it appears to me that this is a power which must be reserved to the Government.
    As the Assistant Postmaster-General was out of the Committee when the Home Secretary was defending the

    1177
    attitude of the Government on earlier Clauses, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he added this particular field to those in which he said, "Do not trust the I.T.A." The Assistant Postmaster-General and the right hon. and learned Gentleman can put that alongside the other items. I am sure that it is a power which is quite properly in the hands of the Postmaster-General, answerable to this House. I hope, therefore, that the Government will resist the Amendment.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: I also hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will resist the Amendment. not only for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), but because I think that there is another cogent reason which was put forward in discussion of previous Amendments by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). He pointed out that subsection (2) gives power to the Postmaster-General to
    "require the Authority to refrain from broadcasting any matter or classes of matter"
    which could be used for purposes which would be helpful should a difference of opinion arise between the Postmaster-General and the Authority.
    If a situation arose in which it was desirable to request the Authority to refrain from broadcasting any specific type of matter regarding advertising or the like the power could be used, and it may well be that it would not be possible to interpret that as in the national interest in the sense in which we generally understand the national interest. That, I think, is an added reason why it would be undesirable to accept this Amendment, but, if that argument is not acceptable, I would add it is difficult to define in connection with this Authority what exactly would be the national interest and what would not be the national interest. In the case of other public Corporations the Minister responsible has the right to give directives of a general nature "when the national interest requires." The phrase, "when the national interest requires," is used in most cases, but there we are concerned with commercial undertakings and the national interest would be easier to define because of the scope of the organisation, but in this case it would certainly be very difficult to do so.
    Finally, there is the reason that this would bring about another disparity
    1178
    between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. There does not seem any reason why the I.T.A. should be in a different position from the B.B.C. in this regard. If the Amendment were accepted, it would mean that the I.T.A. was in a better position than the B.B.C. which would be quite undesirable in view of the difference which exists between the two Corporations. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say that he cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. F. Blackburn: In many of the previous Amendments the Assistant Postmaster-General has asked, "Do not you trust the Authority?" The position now seems to have been reversed and we are having to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, "Do not you trust the Postmaster-General?" This is a matter which may be left to the Government—even to a Conservative Government—and I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will resist the Amendment.
    Mr. Reeves: We are now considering a matter of great importance, regarding the estimation in which our system of broadcasting is held by other countries. When we established the B.B.C. as an independent Corporation, and in a sense divorced from Governmental interest, it had an important impact on listeners abroad. The B.B.C. was able to build up a measure of confidence possessed by no other broadcasting system in the world. We found that of great value during the war, when people in other countries listened to our broadcasts believing them to be factual and impartial, and we were able to advance our cause considerably on that account.
    If it is felt that these Corporations— especially the new Corporation—are to be the instruments of the Government we shall lose that valuable asset. I do not like the emphasis on the national interest, because that could be interpreted in many and in most dangerous ways. We might be having an acute political dispute and the Government might feel impelled to use such a Clause to prevent the proper dissemination of news on such an issue. The Assistant Postmaster-General would be wise to resist the Amendment.
    Mr. Gammans: The point raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) is a minor one, but I think that

    1179
    I had better reply to it. He was talking about sound radio, I take it, because television programmes broadcast by this Authority will not be picked up abroad.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Reeves: But we have already taken French programmes over the B.B.C. That is the kind of development which we hope for in the future. It is possible to obtain such link-ups in these days.
    Mr. Gammans: I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was referring to direct broadcasting, but it is not relevant to the answer which I wish to give to the point raised by my hon. Friend. I wish to try to convince him that the Amendment is unnecessary for a reason which has not yet been advanced in this discussion but which I understand is fundamental to our Constitution. It is always assumed that any Minister acts in the national interest. To depart from that dictum of our Constitutional practice would be undesirable.
    During the Second Reading debate the Home Secretary said that the power conveyed to the Postmaster-General by this subsection:
    "is one intended for and always restricted to, matters of high policy, such as defence, special circumstances in the international field, or something of that kind. Everyone who has had anything to do with government, of whatever party, knows that this power is very sparingly used. The corresponding powers … are contained in the Licence and Agreement of the B.B.C. The experience of the last 25 years shows there to be no real difficulty equally in practice."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 25th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1457.]
    If my hon. Friend fears that a Postmaster-General who did not happen to like the Corporation and the type of work it was proposing to do, could act arbitrarily in this matter, I do not think he need worry, because any Government who wished to destroy this Corporation would not need to take advantage of this Clause to do so. They would do it in a very much more direct way.
    So far as the general dictum is concerned, it is always assumed—we cannot assume otherwise—that where a Minister acts—and as I have quoted from the speech of the Home Secretary—this subsection has a somewhat narrow and important connotation—he must be acting in the national interest. I hope therefore that I have convinced my hon. Friend
    1180
    that the words "national interest" are superfluous.
    Sir R. Grimston: In view of the explanation from the Assistant Postmaster-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I beg to move, in page 9, line 36, after first "Authority," to insert:
    "a copy of which shall be laid before each House of Parliament."
    The object of this Amendment is to ensure that such instructions as are given to the Authority are publicised and known to the House. I feel that it is in the general interest that it should be known what the Postmaster-General of the day is instructing the Authority to do. This subsection says that he can give it instructions to extend the areas served, and to improve the strength or quality of the transmission. He can give technical instructions and instructions to install new stations in places which he chooses.
    That may place a considerable financial burden on the Authority which may not be well placed financially, certainly in the early years, and the least we can do is to ask that such instructions shall be available for examination by the House so that we may know what is going on.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: I think that this Amendment should be accepted. My reasons for supporting it are different from those advanced by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), though I do not disagree with him.
    It is very important that the House of Commons should be informed of any extension of the activities of the I.T.A. We on this side of the Committee are zealous that the B.B.C. should not be prejudiced in any way, or that the Authority should be extended at the expense of the B.B.C. Therefore, if the Postmaster-General gives instructions to the Authority on technical matters referred to in the subsection, and particularly regarding the extension of its services, the setting up of new transmitters and so on, we think that this House should be informed and be given the opportunity of questioning the Postmaster-General or debating the matter, so that the rights and interests of the B.B.C. are fully protected. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
    Mr. Gammans: I appreciate what is in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing). It is that the new Authority may be asked to extend its range of operations unreasonably by what I might call the caprice of a Postmaster-General. My hon. Friend wishes to have any notice telling the Authority to extend their operations laid before this House but I hope that I can persuade him that it is not necessary to do so
    Under Clause 6 (4) the Postmaster-General may lay down
    "… the adoption or use of such technical measures or processes as may be specified in the notice, or the installation, establishment, maintenance or use of such additional station …"
    As my hon. Friend said, this is very largely a technical power, and many of the directions which would be given under the Clause would be essentially of a technical nature.
    In the case of the B.B.C. the Postmaster-General has equivalent power in Article IV of the Licence. In the case of the B.B.C., before he suggests or insists that it extends its range or, what more generally happens, agrees to its request that its range shall be extended—I do not think that it has ever been done in the positive way; it has always been done in the negative way—he has an obligation to see that the Corporation has sufficient funds available from this House to start the new stations.
    In the case of the Authority there is no such obligation, and the cost of any extension would have to be met from advertising revenue. That is the basis of my hon. Friend's Amendment. He fears that, because there is a different source from which the revenue comes, an unreasonable Postmaster-General might give directions which it would be very difficult for the Authority to carry out. My hon. Friend feels that there should be safeguards against that.
    What we are really discussing is not whether there should be safeguards but what form those safeguards should take. My hon. Friend thinks that the best safeguard would be to lay a copy of any notice before this House. I doubt whether that is really necessary. As I have said before, any order given by the Postmaster-General would be very largely of a technical nature. However, I am convinced that, even if we do not
    1182
    lay the notice before the House, there is no conceivable reason why the matter should not come before the House. After all, as I have said many times during these debates, any action taken by the Postmaster-General can be raised in the House at Question time or on the Adjournment or in other ways.
    I should have thought, from past experience, that if a major step such as unreasonably requiring the Authority to extend its range were taken, the people in the Authority would be a pretty dumb lot if they did not find some way of bringing it before the House in one form or another. I do not think it is necessary to take the extreme step which has been recommended, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept my assurance to that effect.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I agree that in the case of technical requirements it seems to be unnecessary to report to the House or to lay before the House a copy of instructions relating to the quality of transmission, the frequencies in use and so on, but matters of additional stations or apparatus being situated in certain places are of prime importance to the House. If the Postmaster-General were to require the Authority to have a second, third or fourth station in London while other parts of the country were left unprovided for, that is a matter about which hon. Members should show great concern. Equally, if the Postmaster-General required the Authority to have half a dozen stations in the Orkneys or in Northern Ireland, that would be a matter about which the House ought to be informed.
    It is not enough for the Assistant Postmaster-General to say that hon. Members could raise such matters in the House. How are hon. Members to know what written instructions have been given to the Authority? It would be wrong for hon. Members to have to rely upon information obtained surreptitiously from the Authority about the Postmaster-General's instructions. The cleanest method is for the Postmaster-General to inform the House and let us discuss the matter on its merits instead of waiting until his instructions have been put into operation. Foundations may be laid, structures may be begun and machinery and equipment may be ordered, and then it may dawn on one that something unusual is taking place, and a Question

    1183
    may be asked and the reply may be that what has taken place is the result of the Postmaster-General's instruction.
    There is something of substance in the Amendment which ought to be met. I agree that there is no urgency about technical matters, but in the case of the number and location of stations and installations there ought to be a direct report to the House. If the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) presses his Amendment, he can be sure of support from the Opposition.
    Captain Orr: I think that our fears in this matter are clear. For once in a while, probably for the first time in this Committee, I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards). I am not certain whether this is the best way of achieving what we want, but I feel that there is something in the right hon. Gentleman's point that Members of Parliament may have difficulty in hearing about directions until a considerable time after they have been given.
    Very important technical directions can be given under this provision. The question of the power of the transmitters to be used is one of utmost importance. I suggest that the Assistant Postmaster-General might think about this again to ascertain whether there is any means by which hon. Members could be informed about major technical decisions, if they could be distinguished from the petty day-to-day details instead of having to learn about them through surreptitious channels.
    There might be very important questions arising from the extension of stations. There might be a question of a programme contractor being allowed to convert to his own use a transmitter which he leased from the Authority. Such a matter might come within these provisions, and it would be something about which hon. Members might have a right to be informed in advance. Perhaps my hon. Friend will consider this point. I do not think that we need necessarily press this Amendment, but we ought to have some more information.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Blackburn: We ought to hear again from the Assistant Postmaster-General on this important matter. I am
    1184
    rather concerned about the wording of the subsection as it stands, because I can envisage the possibility of a conflict between the Authority and the Postmaster-General. According to Clause 1, the Authority has the duty of providing television services
    "… for so much of the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands as may from time to time be reasonably practicable."
    Yet, in Clause 6 (4), the Assistant Postmaster-General may give instructions for the use of
    "… such additional station, stations or apparatus as may be so specified, situate in such places and complying with such requirements",
    and so on. Let us suppose that the Authority says the instructions of the Postmaster-General are not "reasonably practicable." I think the hon. Gentleman should look again at this Clause to see if he cannot accept the Amendment, which would give some safeguard, or find some other form of words that would meet the points which have already been raised.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I do not want to press this point, because I think the Assistant Postmaster-General has the sense of the Committee, but I hope the Government will not have to shelter under the technical umbrella. If we look at the history of broadcasting in this country, which has been so well written by Mr. R. H. Coase in "The Monopoly of Broadcasting," we see that it is quite clear that the monopoly in this country, unlike any other country in the world, was set up by the Postmaster-General on the grounds that it was required for technical reasons. It is quite astonishing how many things one can get through the House of Commons if we say that it is for technical reasons that we have to do them. Everyone puts their papers down and thinks that if it is technical it is all right. This monopoly has grown up without any justification, under the umbrella that it was created for technical reasons.
    I do not accept this point of view that because it is technical we should not know about it, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend will give us some assurance that, when he gives instructions to the Authority he will not mark them "Private and Confidential." If the Authority is to be in a position to pub-

    1185
    lish those instructions, the spirit of my Amendment will be met, and 1 should then be very happy to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: I do not think we would be willing to assent to the withdrawal of this Amendment, and, indeed, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not seek to withdraw it, because it is a matter of importance, as was indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards). Subsection (4) gives substantial powers to the Postmaster-General, and they are powers of direction that might alter the balance of television broadcasting. They might have important commercial consequences to the undertaking, and they might have repercussions on the B.B.C. Indeed, there are all sorts of possibilities consequential on the very large powers given by this subsection.
    I cannot see why the Amendment should not be accepted, but my doubt is whether it is strong enough, and whether it should not relate to a Statutory Instrument, which could be the subject of a Motion for annulment, if necessary. It may be necessary to raise this on Report stage. This Amendment merely says that a copy shall be laid on the Table, and, indeed, gives the House of Commons no rights at all, except that we are to be informed about it, can put down Questions, and, possibly, raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment. This is a milder Amendment than I would have liked, but I do not think there is any reasonable case for the Assistant Postmaster-General resisting it.
    If nothing is done when these directions, some of which are of real substance and importance, can be given, the House of Commons may know nothing about them, but they may be matters of public interest and involve issues of public policy. It is true that somebody from the I.T.A., or possibly somebody else connected with this affair, may give information or inspiration to Members of Parliament, but that is not the best way to do things. I do not like it being done that way, and it is far better for these things to be plain and above board. Therefore, it is quite wrong on the part of the Government to resist an Amendment which in itself is reasonable.
    1186
    The Assistant Postmaster-General seemed to think that somehow these things would leak or come out, but that is not the way in which Parliament ought to do its work. I suggest that he either accepts the Amendment or gives an undertaking to reconsider the matter between now and Report, including the point which I have suggested, that there ought to be a Statutory Instrument. If he Government like to think they can distinguish between tin-pot stuff and more substantial stuff, it may be worthy of consideration, but, as a matter of principle, I am sure that the Amendment is right and I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will think again.
    Mr. Gammans: We are running out of Amendments. I will do what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I was asked to give consideration to this Amendment; of course I will, but I cannot give guarantees. I want to give consideration to whether or not the situation which has been outlined in the debate would, in the opinion of the Government, be covered. The Amendment is supported on different sides for entirely different reasons.
    Mr. Ede: That shows how good it is.
    Mr. Gammans: Not altogether. We have heard on one side that it is necessary in case we had a capricious Postmaster-General, but the Opposition tell us that it is a safeguard against an over-indulgent Postmaster-General. We have not much more to discuss. I am happy to give the assurance that I will look at this matter again to see whether I think it covers the various points which have been raised in this short debate. If I do not think it does, I will come along with an Amendment on the Report stage, but I cannot guarantee that I will do so. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has asked me for that, so I hope he will rest assured with what I have just said.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: In view of the statement of the Assistant Postmaster-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Shackleton: I assure the Assistant Postmaster-General that there is still plenty to be said about the Bill. This is one of the most important Clauses. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who moved a very important Amendment, drew attention to fundamental principles of which the Government had apparently not been aware until the debate. I would draw the attention of the Committee and of the Minister to the fact that the powers given to Ministers of the Crown by the Clause will extend to Ministers of the Crown in Northern Ireland.
    I have not taken an extreme part by advocating the abolition of the Government of Northern Ireland, and I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends would strongly disapprove of me if I did; but it is one thing to give powers to a Minister of the Crown in the Parliament of the United Kingdom and a different thing to give powers to Ministers in the Government of Northern Ireland. I do not know how far the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Government have considered this point, but the powers given would apply to the Northern Ireland Government.
    There is some danger that these provisions might escape the notice of the House of Commons. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to tell us the attitude of the Northern Ireland Government on this matter. Are the Government aware that they giving the Northern Ireland Government these powers? Are they therefore intending to draw these first two subsections a good deal more specifically and clearly than they are at present?
    We know that there are grave accusations flying around Northern Ireland about the use the Government there make of Government machinery to put over Government propaganda. I do not necessarily lend my support to those charges but merely say that they are made. Yet, quite without any explanation, we find these very considerable powers extended to the Northern Ireland Government.
    I hope that, in the light of the debate which we had earlier on the Liberal Amendment, the Assistant Postmaster-General will say a few words. It should not really take long for either him or the Home Secretary to see that the arguments which have been deployed from both side
    1188
    have to be met. Unless they are met we shall have to put them a little more clearly on the Report stage and, if necessary, force them to a vote.
    I should like to turn to that part of the Bill which deals with the Postmaster-General's power to require the Authority to extend the area served by the Authority's broadcasts. Will the Assistant Postmaster-General tell us how it will be done? Suppose the Postmaster-General finds no programme contractor willing to set up a station in Northern Ireland or in the North of Scotland, how is this power to be applied? In the Amendments to Clause 1 we sought to ensure that there was proper coverage. The Assistant Postmaster-General said then that it would be unfair to impose on the Authority an obligation not imposed on the B.B.C. We merely said that we should like the Authority to assume the same responsibilities as the B.B.C.
    In the last resort, if I understand the Clause correctly, there is in the hands of the Postmaster-General this residual power to compel the Authority—and presumably the Authority by some means or another to induce the programme contractors—to set up television services in those areas. How will it be done? I take it that the I.T.A. cannot coerce the contractors to do it; if so, the Authority certainly has not the money itself to do it. It certainly has not enough money under the Financial Resolution. Perhaps we could have some explanation of that point.
    In general, before the Bill leaves the House I would ask that close attention be given to all the implications in Clause 6 Potentially it is the most dangerous of the Clauses. It is a Clause which I am quite content—as we all are under present circumstances—to assume will probably be properly administered, but it is important that the wording should be clear. At present the wording is obscure and sloppy, otherwise it would not have deceived the Home Secretary as apparently it has done.
    Captain Orr: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) referred to the inclusion in subsection (1) of references to Ministers of Northern Ireland. Obviously, if the Bill is to extend to Northern Ireland as it does at present this is a sensible provision and one which exists in the case of the B.B.C.

    1189
    8.45 p.m.
    This House of Commons has devolved upon the Parliament of Northern Ireland control over certain matters. I can think of health and Civil Defence in particular where a Minister may require "in connection with his functions," as the subsection reads, to broadcast upon a matter. A United Kingdom Minister can broadcast, in so far as his authority extends at present for England, Wales and Scotland, but his authority in these matters might not extend to Northern Ireland, in which case it would be necessary and right that a Minister in the Government of Northern Ireland should have a similar right in connection with his functions.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) was not intending to suggest that a Minister in the Government of Northern Ireland would or could misuse his powers or would be likely to do so under the Clause.
    Mr. Shackleton: He could.
    Captain Orr: Well, I do not know. The subsection says:
    "The Postmaster-General and any other Minister of the Crown may, if it appears to him to be necessary Or expedient so to do in connection with his functions as such …"
    Perhaps he could, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that he would or would be likely to do so. No Minister in the Government of Northern Ireland has done so yet, any more than a Minister in the United Kingdom Government has done so.
    Mr. Shackleton: I was careful not to get drawn into a discussion on Northern Ireland politics, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that at least one-third of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland are convinced that the Northern Ireland Government are capable of that sort of thing.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order. The hon. Member quite properly declined to be drawn into that subject.
    Captain Orr: There is no suggestion that a United Kingdom Minister has ever misused the powers which exist in respect of the B.B.C.—not even a Northern Ireland Minister. The Northern Ireland Minister of Finance broadcasts his Budget statement. There has never been any suggestion that those powers have been misused.
    Mr. Shackleton: The point is that both the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Home Secretary seem to think that the powers that have been exercised in the past have been exercised under the Clauses in the Bill, and they have persistently referred to this Bill. I would again draw attention to the fact that in the past the powers have been exercised under a Charter and Licence of the B.B.C. which is worded differently.
    Captain Orr: Yes, I appreciate that point, but if, as the Home Secretary has said will be done, this Clause is to be looked at with a view to bringing it into line with the provisions in the B.B.C. Charter, I do not see why, in those circumstances, we should not extend a similar power in connection with the new Authority to Ministers in the Government of Northern Ireland, in the same way as we do in the case of the B.B.C. My view about this matter in relation to Northern Ireland can be summed up by the fact that I have handed in a manuscript Amendment to the effect that the Bill shall not extend to Northern Ireland, but of course that is not yet under discussion, and I do not propose to pursue the matter.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes because we are now only on Clause 6. We have nine more Clauses to discuss, including the very important financial Clauses, before the Guillotine fails at 10.30.
    I rise because of some of the statements made by the Assistant Postmaster-General when we were discussing subsection (3). He made some rather worrying remarks which could not but give us concern. We were discussing the question of his right to fix a maximum and minimum time during which the Independent Television Authority should transmit its broadcasts, and he refused to give any assurances that these broadcasts would be confined to the same hours as those of the B.B.C. and that they would not be outside the hours during which the B.B.C. was transmitting. It causes us very much concern to think that the Authority might be given preferential treatment.
    He endeavoured to claim that the Postmaster-General would certainly never give preference to one authority or the

    1191
    other, but because of the discussions we have had up to now we cannot have any confidence in that claim. I want to stress once more how important it is that no preferential treatment should be given. Unless the maximum hours and the hours of broadcasting coincide as between the two authorities there is a danger of that. I can foresee a situation in which the I.T.A. might decide that certain hours were more remunerative for broadcasting than others, or that it was more remunerative to transmit at periods when the B.B.C. was not transmitting, and the Postmaster-General might be persuaded to give the I.T.A. authority to do so in view of the need to increase its revenue.
    That brings me to another point. All through our discussions the assumption has been made that the I.T.A. will succeed. What worries me is that if it does not it might be tempted to reduce its standards in order to increase its revenue. That is one reason why I consider the Clause to be very important, and that is why I do not object to it being drawn somewhat wider than the relevant section in the B.B.C. Charter.
    My view is that it is necessary for Her Majesty's Government to have more control over the I.T.A. than over the B.B.C. That is all the more important in view of the fact that it will only be through the I.T.A. that the Government will have any control over the programme companies, who will not be answerable directly to the House. By this Clause it may be possible to control their activities, because the Government would be able to give directions to the I.T.A. to refrain from broadcasting certain matters, and this would have its effect upon the programme companies.
    In the case of the I.T.A., commercial standards will govern broadcasting, and since those commercial standards should be subject to some measure of control the Clause is even more important in its relationship to the I.T.A. than to the B.B.C. All the arguments about the necessity to have these powers over the B.B.C. are equally relevant in the case of the I.T.A. When the Assistant Postmaster-General takes these matters into consideration and introduces a further Amendment on the Report stage. or in another place, I hope that he will not necessarily use the same wording as
    1192
    is used in the B.B.C. Charter. There may be other considerations which he ought to bear in mind.
    Mr. Donald Wade: I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will give very careful consideration to the point raised in connection with subsection (6). As the Committee will appreciate, it contains the words, "any Minister of Northern Ireland." By virtue of this subsection any Minister of Northern Ireland will have the wide powers contained in subsection (1).
    My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has already referred to the general principles involved in the Clause, and I shall not repeat his arguments. I think we should carefully consider the powers provided by the Clause and consider whether it is right that subsection (6), in particular, should be included in the Bill.
    I do not propose to repeat the arguments, but I want to ask two questions. First, has the Minister considered circumstances arising in which there was a difference of view between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Northern Ireland? What would happen in such a case? How would the Clause be interpreted?
    Secondly, is it clear that a Minister of Northern Ireland, in exercising powers under subsection (1), would be able to exercise them only within Northern Ireland? Is it clear that those powers could not be exercised elsewhere than in Northern Ireland by order from Northern Ireland?
    Mr. H. Morrison: The programme would be bound to reach the North of England.
    Mr. Wade: It is not clear from the Clause that these powers are so limited. It seems to me that they are wider, and perhaps wider than is intended.
    Mr. Gammons: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) asked me two questions. The first was about Northern Ireland. I think that at first I misunderstood him, for I thought he was suggesting that there would be two Ministers in charge of the Bill when it became an Act, one the Postmaster-General here and the other a mythical

    1193
    person, the Postmaster-General of Northern Ireland. Of course, the Postmaster-General in this country is equally the Postmaster-General of Northern Ireland.
    I gather from what the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) said, however, that it was in rather a narrower connotation that he raised the point, for the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West asked what would happen if there were a difference of opinion between Northern Ireland and the Minister here. I remind him that the powers of the Minister in Northern Ireland refer only to the television station of the Authority in Northern Ireland, when one is erected, and such powers as the Minister in Northern Ireland may possess can therefore be exercised only in respect of that station.
    The second question which the hon. Member for Preston, South asked was what would happen if we could not get a contractor for either Northern Ireland or the Highlands of Scotland. If we cannot get a contractor there will not be a programme. That is all.
    Mr. G. Darling: Will not the Authority provide one?
    Mr. Gammans: No.
    I remind the hon. Member for Preston, South that getting a contractor for one of these parts of the world may not be quite as difficult as he suggests. I will explain why. If we were to rely on the advertisement revenue which a contractor could get from a station in one of the more thinly-populated parts of the country, we might find that he would not get very far, but there is such a thing as network operations. In other words, under such operations it is not necessary for the particular station, which may be established in one of the more remote parts of the country—where the advertising revenue which can be collected is necessarily small—to pay for itself by the revenue which can be obtained locally.
    Mr. Shackleton: What is the point of the Postmaster-General taking this power if it is meaningless—this power to require the Authority to extend the area served?
    Mr. Gammans: We assume that before giving orders to the Authority to
    1194
    extend the Postmaster-General would have satisfied himself that it is in a position to extend. That is exactly the attitude which has been adopted by successive Postmasters-General about the extension of the B.B.C. programmes. The initiative has never come from the Postmaster-General. It has always come from the B.B.C., who says, "We want to extend; may we please do so." I imagine that the same attitude will be taken by the Authority.
    9.0 p.m.
    The other point raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) arose out of what I said earlier. He wanted an assurance. I think that he was not satisfied with what I said.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Far from it.
    Mr. Gammans: He felt that in some way the hours which the new Authority can broadcast must be identical with those of the B.B.C., both in length of time and also the actual time. I do not know whether he has considered this in detail, but to my mind that would be a most hampering situation. It would restrict the type of programmes which the new Authority could set up to exactly the same times as the B.B.C.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: No.
    Mr. Gammans: It would very largely. Whatever may be the virtues of this new Authority, one of the chief virtues would be to introduce variety into the time of these programmes.
    Mr. Davies: There is no reason why, if the B.B.C. are broadcasting a play, the I.T.A. should not be doing music or variety. There is no reason why there should not be a balanced programme as between the two, one supplementary or complementary to the other. There is no reason why this should have to be done at separate times.
    Mr. Gammans: We have to think of the viewers. We want to provide them with a different type of programme at an hour when the B.B.C. does not want to broadcast. If we accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, we are accepting something which will hamper the whole development of television in this country. The reason which I think the hon. Gentleman gave was that the programme companies would be thinking of revenue

    1195
    and would be getting revenue, as it were, when they ought not to get it.
    Mr. Davies: Skimming the cream.
    Mr. Gammans: I do not mind what expression the hon. Gentleman uses. Whatever revenue might be got by the programme companies, it does not affect in the least the revenue received by the B.B.C. The B.B.C. revenue is obtained by the licences. However many people who go on television by reason of this, there is only one person who benefits, and that is the B.B C.
    If as a result of these new programmes some people decide to buy television sets, the chief beneficiary, so far as licences are concerned, is the B.B.C. I think that the hon. Gentleman if he considers this in detail will see that so far as that argument is concerned there is not a great deal of relevance in it. I am sorry if I have not managed to convince him that it would be putting undue restriction on the development of television if we were to specify that the two authorities should broadcast the same number of hours at identically the same time of day.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I do not think that we have quite done with this Clause yet. The Assistant Postmaster-General seems to have argued himself into a tangle. He says that in the case of the B.B.C. it is not necessary for the Post Office to go to them and ask them to develop, extend and do this, that and the other. On the contrary, the process is the other way round, whereby the B.B.C. goes to the Post Office and says, "We should like to make this progressive development; will you kindly agree that we can do it? The Assistant Postmaster-General says "Yes" or "No"—probably he says "yes."
    He says that this new Independent Television Authority will be doing the same. If that is so, why does he want subsection (4), which provides that the Postmaster-General may instruct them to do this, that and the other. It may be that he is right—I would not like to say that he is wrong—and that these new people will not be progressive. It may be that they will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) says, be the skimmers of the cream. What Lord Ashfield used to call
    1196
    "Creaming the traffic" when the pirate buses were knocking about. It may be, therefore, that it is necessary for the Postmaster-General to give this direction, but we ought to know which way the argument is to go round.
    Then in answer to the point as to whether sparsely populated areas like the Highlands of Scotland, North Wales and, to some extent, Northern Ireland are to be catered for by the new Television Authority, the hon. Gentleman said that there is such a thing as a link-up or a network, which, I presume, means the building up of a monopoly in the new circumstances. Is that not so? It means co-operation, building up together.
    Mr. Gammans: It does not necessarily mean that.
    Mr. Morrison: It sounds to me a little bit of a monopolistic tendency, which should shock hon. Members opposite if only they did not believe in monopolies, which of course they do. There is a certain lack of logic in the argument.
    However, I am very glad to hear from the hon. and gallant Member from Down, South (Captain Orr) that he is going to move that Northern Ireland be excluded from the Bill; I gather he will do that. He is quite right, because that would be more realistic and Northern Ireland will not get much chance of being within the operations of these gentlemen. Secondly, the hon. and gallant Member shows that although he wants to foist this thing on the English, he has enough patriotism to prevent its being foisted on Northern Ireland. As a friend of Northern Ireland, I agree with the hon. and gallant Member.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not going further than that. We have not reached that yet.
    Mr. Morrison: I was only following up what the hon. and gallant Member had said, and I was not going any further. I thought I was entitled to go as far as he had gone and to encourage him in his noble intention.
    We may as well clear up Northern Ireland while we are about it. I speak as one well known in the House as rather a friend of Northern Ireland. Anyway, I have met trouble from folks from Southern Ireland at public meetings now and again because of my friendship for

    1197
    Northern Ireland and its friendship with the United Kingdom, not that I think the Northern Irish are always perfect
    Subsection (6), I gather, is a new provision entirely. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) has had a look at the Charter and I have had a look at it. So that we could get a check up, we asked the hon. and gallant Member from Northern Ireland to look at it, and none of us has been able to find—of course, we may have missed something—any specific provision in the Charter to the B.B.C. whereby Ministers in Northern Ireland have a specific authority—which, of course, is a limited authority under the Bill; it is not an authority to prevent anything being broadcast; it is an authority for them to broadcast themselves or to require something to be broadcast—within the functions of Ministers of the Northern Ireland Government. If I am wrong, I shall be glad to be put right straightaway by the Assistant Postmaster-General, but we could not find in the Charter that any similar power exists in the case of the B.B.C.
    Captain Orr: Northern Ireland Ministers do, in fact, exercise the power.
    Mr. Morrison: I gathered from the Assistant Postmaster-General that in his opinion that was so, and I am not disposed to contradict him.
    I gather that the Assistant Postmaster-General is in communication with his sources of information. I hope that if he gets information that I am wrong, he will tell me and thereby shorten the argument. But if I am right in saying that there is no specific provision in the Charter, how comes it that Ministers of Northern Ireland Government can exercise the right of directing the B.B.C. to permit them to broadcast? It may be that they have not exercised any such right and have merely asked the B.B.C. to be good enough to grant facilities to the Minister of such and such a Department in Northern Ireland to do this, that and the other.
    But that is a different thing. The Northern Ireland Government is a Government of less Parliamentary status than this United Kingdom Parliament. I think that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, whom I know very well, would not be a party to Ministers fooling about; but although I do not want to be unduly
    1198
    controversial, I have known one or two Ministers in Northern Ireland, and so has my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who I should not like shooting around anyhow on broadcasts and requiring the B.B.C. to say exactly what they liked, although I would hope that the Prime Minister would hold them up.
    What I want to know is, did those Ministers separately and individually have a right to do this sort of thing, because I would be a bit doubtful about it. It may be a matter of courtesy that the B.B.C. would give them facilities, but the B.B.C. would see that everything was all right. I am very doubtful whether this Television Authority is to be trusted like that, because this is a matter of political judgment which the B.B.C. has been learning over the years.
    I do not like the new Television Authority being put in a different position vis-à-vis the Ministers in Northern Ireland and the Ministers here. I hope it will be careful about this because this business can be abused. If a Minister in Northern Ireland wishes to give directions that something should be broadcast, there is the possibility that the Bill could provide that he can only do so with the consent of the Government of the United Kingdom or the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is the Minister who deals with Northern Ireland.
    It is a possibility that some Minister in Northern Ireland may run away with something. I admit it is possible here, too, and, Heaven knows, our Government here is not perfect either, but nevertheless it is not so easy for a Minister in the United Kingdom Government to run away.
    Captain Orr: Why?
    Mr. Morrison: There are two other points on which we should hear from the Assistant Postmaster-General, because if this provision in the Bill is new we ought to know that it is new, and we ought also to know why it should be different in this respect from the Charter of the B.B.C. I wish to refer to the provision in the Clause whereby a Minister can give directions to the Television Authority as he can to the B.B.C. that it should broadcast something or should not broadcast something. I gather that an Amendment

    1199
    has been accepted whereby if a Minister directs the Independent Television Authority or the programme company— I do not know which it is; I suppose it is the Independent Television Authority—that it must disseminate something, it can say that the Minister has directed it so to do. I am very glad about that, because these are rather serious powers.
    They are very great powers, and if they were intensively abused they could advance us on the way to totalitarianism. Nevertheless, in situations of difficulty or emergency, it may well be right that they should be used. I do not remember such powers being used when the Labour Government were in office, and I am not at all sure that they have been used in Conservative Governments either. If that is so it is a good thing, and it shows we are a decent, liberal Parliamentary democracy. But it is a serious power to direct the Corporation or the Authority to disseminate something. As I say, the Assistant Postmaster-General has accepted an Amendment providing that the Authority has a right to say it has been so directed. To that extent we are protected.
    We come to a more difficult case, namely, when the Authority is told it must not disseminate something. The Foreign Office case was mentioned by the Assistant Postmaster-General, and, indeed, the whole point of telling it that it must not do something is possibly that it is not desired that the public should know what it is going to say.
    9.15 p.m.
    But if the Authority were in the position to say, "We were proposing to say something about something"—not necessarily all that the Authority was going to say—"but the Government have stopped us," it might mess up the whole thing. Therefore, it may be that we cannot effectively deal with that situation. However, if this is in the B.B.C. Charter, as I gathered that it is, I am not at all clear why these people should be better or differently treated.
    I wish the Home Secretary had been here, not because I wish to depreciate the Assistant Postmaster-General, but because this is peculiarly a Home Office point. There ought to be a most responsible and firm undertaking on the
    1200
    part of the Government that this very great power which could be a very dangerous power will not be abused and that they will be careful about it. Let them remember, as we have been told, that even if nothing were said the chances are that the matter would leak out. The chances are that if such a negative direction were given some hon. Member of this House would find out. It might be that somebody would see to it that he found out. The Government should remember that if one commits murder one may be found out and if one commits sins against civil liberty one may be found out.
    This is a very great power and I hope somebody from the Government Front Bench will be able to give a firm assurance that there will be no abuse of it. This is a very important Clause and it is well that we should have had such a good discussion of it. It confers considerable powers and there are some points which still need to be cleared up from the Government Front Bench.
    Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has asked me whether this power conferred on Ministers in Northern Ireland is or is not contained in the B.B.C. Charter. I do not think that it is, but I am not quite sure. If we accept the right hon. Gentleman's theories about the actions of the Government of Northern Ireland we can only do so on one assumption—that they are not really responsible people. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be the last person to make that suggestion. He paid tribute to the Government of Northern Ireland and, quite correctly, to their Ministers. To suggest that one of Her Majesty's Ministers in Northern Ireland is not capable of acting responsibly in matters of this kind is an assertion which I believe none of us in this Committee would wish to make.
    I would remind hon. Members that the powers which Ministers have under Clause 6 (1) are somewhat limited. The subsection states:
    "The Postmaster-General and any other Minister of the Crown may, if it appears to him to be necessary or expedient so to do in connection with his functions as such, …"
    Surely that means that if a Minister takes this power under the Clause he can do so only in connection with his Ministerial

    1201
    appointment and not as a party politician. That is a very severe limitation. If we went further we should have to say that because a man happens to be one of Her Majesty's Ministers in Northern Ireland he is going to abuse that power and mix up his political views with his views in connection with the office which he happens to hold, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to lend himself to such an assertion.
    I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with us that when the Authority is asked to broadcast something it should be in a position to say that it had been asked. I am sure that that is right. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with me that it would be dangerous if we asked the Authority not to broadcast something and the Authority was able to say, "The Foreign Office say, 'Please do not broadcast anything about this or that part of the world'." That would lead to great dangers and difficulties.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked if such an order would be given by a Minister in a responsible way and of course I can give the assurance for which he asked. He has known over many years so much about the inside of government that I should have thought it hardly necessary for him to ask the question. I think that he knows the deep consideration which would be given to such a question. So far as I am aware, in the whole history of the B.B.C. this question has never been raised and I do not think it ever will be so long as we succeed in getting, from whatever party, men who take a responsible view of the positions they hold. I cannot see that it can be otherwise, but if the right hon. Member would like me to give the assurance, I gladly do So.
    Mr. Ede: I am glad that the Home Secretary has returned, because I want to put a point to him which has not been raised so far in the course of the discussion on the Bill, but which arises very acutely on this Clause. Throughout the discussions on the Bill, whenever there has been a matter of dispute we have generally been told, "Well, can't you trust the I.T.A.?" On one or two matters we were able to point out that the Government themselves were not doing so.
    1202
    The calibre and power of the I.T.A. and its personnel arise very acutely on this Clause where the possibility is very acutely raised of conflict with the Government on the discharge of their functions or in being able to resist some unlawful demand the Government might make of them. It is no use growing old unless one cultivates memory, and it is no good having memory unless one can call it to one's aid in difficult circumstances. During the eulogies which have been paid by hon. Members opposite to the personnel of the I.T.A. it occurred to me that a very similar position has arisen on a previous Bill, which was also guillotined and where the discussions on the Committee stage were very limited.
    I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember the Bill, the Licensing Bill, 1908, which went through this House without any great assistance from the Conservative Party and was then so mauled about in another place that the Government of the day thought it unwise to proceed any further with it. During the Committee stage the Liberal Government of the day were saying, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his partner in promoting this Bill have been saying to us, "Why can't you trust the Licensing Commissioners?" The Conservative Party said, "We should like to know who they are before we see whether we can trust them or not."
    They asked the Government, as I ask the Government now, to tell the House, before the Bill leaves us, who these wonderful people are who are going to be able to discharge all these functions and, when necessary, to stand up to the Government. I will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the reference. It is 19th November, 1908, in column 1402 of HANSARD:
    "Mr. G. D. Faber (York): I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the pledge given on behalf of His Majesty's Government during the Committee stage of the Licensing Bill that the names of the three Licensing Commissioners proposed to be appointed should be announced on the Report stage of the Bill, he will now make the announcement."
    The answer was given, quite appropriately, by the Home Secretary of the day:
    "The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Gladstone, Leeds, W.)."

    1203
    That was Mr. Herbert Gladstone, the son of the statesman generally alluded to as "Mr. Gladstone," whose name I had always to pronounce in my early youth with the utmost reverence and for whose work on behalf of Southern Ire- land I still have the very liveliest recollection and gratitude.
    "I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. Friend. The following are the names approved by His Majesty: the right hon. Henry Hobhouse, to be Chairman of the Commission, and Mr. Arthur W. Chapman, J.P."—
    who got the job—or who would have got the job had it been created—as a reward for fighting Mr. Broderick in the 1900 General Election at Guildford—
    Mr. Wade: May I ask if that is in HANSARD?
    Mr. Ede: No, that was obviously an interpolation. I do not think it possible that it even deceived anyone as slow-witted as a Liberal Member.
    "… and Mr. F. H. Mellor, K.C., to be members."
    I suggest that that is a precedent which the Government should consider following in this case. We all know that suspicions have been aroused—it has been mentioned frequently during our discussions—about the origin of the Bill. It gives new powers to and a new relationship between the people who disseminate news and views and the commercial interests of the country.
    I can well understand that the Conservative Party, who are always anxious that the brewers should be well treated, should want to know who were the Commissioners dealing with them before the House could give its final consent to a Bill. But these people will have powers not merely over the bodies but the minds and souls of the whole population of this country. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said quite frankly on several occasions, these are people who will have great powers; that we can trust them and that he will trust them, but I cannot help thinking that the Government have not yet embarked upon a proposal to put a maximum of 10 and a minimum of seven such persons in this great position.
    We have the Whitsun Recess before us and there will be some days, I understand, after that before we resume consideration of this Bill. I hope, there-
    1204
    fore, that before we come to Report stage and have to consider further the powers of these people over the minds and souls and recreative activities of our people, we shall know who are the people whom the Government propose to appoint.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Philip Bell: I welcome the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend that he will look again at this provision. There would seem to be a certain amount of unanimity about the Clause. We all agree that the Minister must have certain powers, and I believe we agree that those powers should be defined.
    In subsection (1) we are told that it is necessary when dealing with the positive powers of the Minister to put something into a programme that he can do
    "if it appears to him to be necessary or expedient so to do. …"
    That phrase seems to suggest a little frivolity on the part of the Minister, as if he might do something which was not necessary or expedient unless we reminded him. The phrase surely would run quite as easily:
    "The Postmaster-General and any other Minister of the Crown may, in connection with his functions as such, by notice in writing. …"
    Why have this cotton-wool-like phrase,
    "… if it appears to him to be necessary or expedient so to do."?
    Subsection (2) states:
    "The Postmaster-General may at any time …"
    He need not bother about whether it is necessary or expedient, or get into a fuddle about that. I hope that the Government will agree to use words to provide that the power will be restricted when the Postmaster-General feels that the broadcasting of the matter would be contrary to the national interest. It seems to be the sense of the Committee that if we are to use a veto, thus qualifying the matter and not leaving it at large, we should say that the Postmaster-General should do this when he believes it to be a serious matter. As we omitted the words "necessary or expedient" on that occasion, I think that those rather fluffy words might come out of subsection (1).
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7.—(GENERAL DUTY OF AUTHORITY AS TO FINANCE.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. G. Darling: We ought to look rather closely at the Clause. My view— I do not know whether anyone else shares it—is that the income of the programme companies and of the Authority will not allow
    "… the Authority so to conduct their affairs as to secure that their revenues become at the earliest possible date, and thereafter continue, at least sufficient … to meet all sums properly chargeable … and … to make provision towards … necessary capital expenditure"
    —unless the programme companies and the Authority turn out cheap, low quality programmes, thereby debasing the television standards which have been built up by the B.B.C.
    I believe that it will be far more expensive to run these programmes than some of the optimistic hon. Members opposite have suggested. I think that, in the rather limited coverage envisaged in the Bill, coverage which will not be spread to the whole country for some time, the cost to cover three, four or five areas will amount to £5 million or £6 million per year. That is more than in the case of the B.B.C. The reason is that the B.B.C. achieves a lot of economies in the running of its programmes because it has the general broadcasting set-up of the country to call upon.
    The huge sums which I have mentioned in the case of the Authority will have to come from the advertising allocations of the manufacturers and general advertisers of the country. At the moment when one looks at the problem there is a tendency to look at the very few advertisers, such as the detergent people and the motor car manufacturers, and to assume that all the other advertisers have as much money to throw about as they have.
    I do not think that is the case. I believe that it will be very difficult indeed for commercial television to get the amount of money which will be required to maintain programmes of high quality for six or seven hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. It will be a very expensive business. The money will have to come from the general advertising allocations of manufacturers
    1206
    and other advertisers. Already we find that newspapers and magazines are feeling the pinch economically. If the advertising allocations which they now have were taken from them, it would mean the end of some newspapers and magazines.
    Therefore, when the manufacturers and advertisers see what is likely to happen with commercial television, they will tend to restrict some of the allocations which they might have thought of making to television, and not be so ungenerous as perhaps they have been thinking of being to the newspapers and magazines. To support the argument which I am putting forward, I would draw the attention of the Committee to a very important speech made by the Chairman of the "Sunday Pictorial" Newspaper Company this week.
    Mr. Cecil King pointed out that there are 11 Sunday national newspapers in this country, and that two of them are "slipping very badly." He said that there were eight national daily newspapers published, and that only the "Daily Mirror" and the "Daily Telegraph" are expanding and developing. He said that two Sundays and four dailies are "finding life very difficult." I am paraphrasing his speech in order to save time. Mr. King said that the outlook is pretty grim for some of them, and now newspapers have to face the possible effects of commercial television.
    He went on to say that, last year, it looked to him as if the Government would introduce commercial television in a reasonably workable form, but that it now appears that the Government are more afraid of Lord Halifax than their own back benchers, and that they have retreated to a position in which the initial losses on commercial television are likely to be as great as ever, but the chances of subsequently recovering those losses have become more and more problematical. In his own words, he says:
    "The whole story is a shocking one of ignorance and cowardice"—
    that is, on the part of the Government, and he adds:
    "Where the 'Daily Mail' and 'Sunday Pictorial' are concerned, they might still intervene in commercial television"—
    in other words, become advertisers, and, although sponsorship is not a very popu-

    1207
    lar word to use, sponsor a television programme—
    "the outlook is not very encouraging."
    That is the end of the quotation.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think that Mr. King used the word "sponsor."
    Mr. Darling: No, he said that they might still intervene in the form of taking up commercial television, but the outlook was not very encouraging, and that was the end of the quotation. In other words, and I speak for myself in this matter, it looks as if the Government have scared off potential competitors in the field of commercial television by setting it up in the way in which they have done in the Bill. Even from the point of view of those who defend commercial interests, this is a bad Bill. It is not clear, straightforward and honest in the development of competitive television in the way which hon. Members opposite wanted it at one time, and, from our point of view, those who wanted—
    Dr. H. Morgan: May I ask whether this is in order?
    The Chairman: Yes. It is quite in order on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Darling: From our point of view, of course—that of those who wanted competitive television set up in a different form—the Bill is very bad indeed, but I feel sure that commercial television, as organised in the Bill, will not be able to pay its way, and, therefore, the terms of the Clause will not be carried out, and the Government have to face that situation, unless they allow the debasing of programmes and they are done on the cheap.
    For some years to come there will be in operation only four or five—perhaps six, I do not know—television stations, covering less than half of the population, and I do not think it will be worth while to advertisers who want national coverage for their advertising, and who are willing to pay for it, to take the limited service that commercial television will provide for them. They would have to pay at extravagant rates, as compared with advertising in newspapers and magazines, for half the national coverage that they would like to have.
    1208
    Many of the calculations upon which the Bill is based are far too optimistic. Clause 7 is far too optimistic. The I.T.A. will run into very serious financial difficulty, and that will be another limiting and restricting factor. We shall see that the trend to monopoly will be encouraged by the great cost of commercial television and that only a few programme companies will be able to come into the business. We shall end up with one programme company in each area and for each station—only one. The trend of monopoly will go on all the time, and the I.T.A. will not be able to pay its way. The Clause will become a dead letter, because the conditions that the Clause seeks to impose upon the Authority will not possibly be carried out.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to divide into two parts the few remarks I have to make in answer to the speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling). The first might be entitled "A short homily on the danger of quotations." For the last five days on this Committee we have been told from the benches opposite that we are whittling away the safeguards which we proposed to put in the Bill. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down quoted the effective proprietor of two newspapers supporting the party opposite as saying that this Committee is giving too much attention to Lord Halifax and too little to my hon. Friends. For that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
    On the other point, about the structure of the Clause, I do not accept the basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument, or the pessimism that is the foundation of his argument, as to whether commercial television will work or not. We have set a standard which is higher than that set for the usual public corporation. Generally speaking, public corporations are subject to a direction to balance their accounts taking one year with another. We have all discussed that at considerable length in relation to many corporations. The effect of that is that they have to render service at not less than cost but they are not bound to do more than that.
    In this case it is positively desirable in our view for a continued surplus to be earned. The Clause therefore lays on the Authority a duty to secure that its

    1209
    revenues attain as soon as possible a level at least sufficient—I repeat the words "at least"—to cover in full all revenue expenditure and to provide for capital expenditure, at first in part and as soon as possible in full. I believe that it was right to take that healthy and optimistic view of what will happen. To emphasise that point I have stressed that this is the belief on which we base the wording of the Clause.
    Mr. Blackburn: What provision is there in the Bill if the optimism which the right hon. and learned Gentleman now expresses is not fulfilled? There is provision, if the Authority makes a good profit, to pass it into the Treasury; but suppose the optimistic view does not materialise? There is a great fear that it might not. What provision is there in the Bill to deal with that emergency?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: We have provided for the £750,000 a year and the £2 million borrowing powers. That, in our view, is amply sufficient and we do not need to contemplate anything more pessimistic.
    Mr. Blackburn: But what will happen if it is not sufficient?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: We do not accept the premise.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) was expressing his own personal view. Many of us think that there are fat pickings in this set up for commercial people.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 8.—(GRANTS BY POSTMASTER-GENERAL TO AUTHORITY.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: This Clause provides for the payment of a sum not exceeding £750,000 in any one financial year to the Independent Television Authority. It will be recalled that on the Financial Resolution we on this side had an Amendment to delete the payment of this £750,000 to the Authority. In view of what has since happened to the Amendments put forward by Government Members and in view of statements made
    1210
    by Government spokesmen, it is quite clear that the Authority has had some of its powers whittled down.
    As a consequence, there is even less need now than when we were discussing the Financial Resolution for the payment of this £750,000. The powers of the Authority and the duties originally conferred upon it to put out programmes have been substantially reduced. All the Amendments which we put forward to give the Authority the duty to put out certain programmes such as news and the like and limiting those to the Authority were rejected by the Government. It is therefore open to us to question whether, with its reduced powers, this sum is really required by the Authority and whether the Government should authorise its payment each financial year.
    We previously contended, and I think our arguments tonight would be stronger, that if programmes of a public service nature are put out they should be put out by the Authority itself and not by the programme contractors. It is the advertisers who should pay for them and not the Authority—not the licence payer. The money received from the advertisers should be used to finance those public service programmes.
    For what purpose will the Authority require the money? During the debate on the Financial Resolution the Assistant Postmaster-General gave several instances where the Authority itself would be responsible for programmes of what we call a public service nature. For instance, he said:
    "Another item with which, possibly, we should not want advertising associated is the news, which we are bound by our pledges in the House to present with impartiality, and maybe, even the Children's Hour. Those are the sort of things on which this money would be spent."
    Nevertheless the Amendments we put forward to limit the broadcasting of the news and the children's hour to the Authority were rejected by the Government. So, for the expenditure of this money, that purpose no longer stands.
    The same applies to some of the other suggestions made at that time. The Assistant Postmaster-General then said:
    "The reason we chose £750,000 was that it represented, roughly—and I want this to be taken in that sense—one hour's television a day. We thought that that figure of one hour's television per day should be sufficient for the sort of programmes which I have men-

    1211
    tioned and, maybe, provide the balance as well."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1747–8.]
    In other words, we were then told that this money was required to enable the Independent Television Authority to put over one hour's television a day. All those who have attended the debates during the Committee stage will agree that it is quite clear from the attitude of the Government that there is no intention that the Authority shall put out even an hour's television a day. The programme contractors are going to do the job, and it is very unlikely that the Authority will require this money for that purpose. I suggest that now that the Authority itself will be putting out fewer programmes, it would be quite reasonable that the charges made by the Authority to the programme contractors, or the charges made by the programme contractors to the advertisers, should be sufficient to cover all the programmes which are transmitted.
    This money is being taken out of the pockets of the viewers and the listeners. It is being taken out of their licence fees, whether they want commercial television or not. It is being diverted from the B.B.C. through the manœuvre of limiting the contribution to it, but additional programmes to those of the B.B.C. will reach less than two-thirds of the population. Every television set owner is, in effect, being robbed of what amounts to 5s. of the £3 fee, which he pays in order to enable commercial television to start, which he does not necessarily want and which he may not even be able to see.
    Captain Orr: The arguments about whether or not the I.T.A. should have this £750,000 a year are almost threadbare, and there is very little more that can be said upon the subject. My views upon it are quite well known. I have never held that this money should be provided at all. I believe that programme contractors would have been perfectly happy and willing to provide such programmes as the Authority thought reasonable, and would have borne them as non-cost items as a condition of their contract to provide the type of programmes the Authority thought right.
    I do not think that private enterprise has ever asked for this subvention. I should like to know whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secre-
    1212
    tary envisages this Clause becoming obsolescent. I do not share the pessimism of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). I think that once advertising on television commences, every advertiser will begin to see that he had better get on to it very soon or else find himself in a very bad way.
    I believe that the programme contractors will do well, and that the revenue that the I.T.A. will get from them for contracts and for the leasing of their transmitters will be sufficient to build up a reserve for the I.T.A. to such an extent that it will not need any subvention from the licence revenue at all. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend envisages that this Clause may not be necessary for very long.
    Mr. Shackleton: I do not know why the Home Secretary does not accept the pleas of his hon. and gallant Friend. Throughout the debate he has consistently listened to the voices behind and to the right of him, and I think that this is yet another occasion on which he might well do so. I think that the arguments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman are a great deal sounder than the arguments of the Government. On the previous Clause the Home Secretary said that he was satisfied that the Authority would pay its way and that the finances were adequate for it. The truth of the matter is that he has not the faintest idea what the money is to be spent upon. He did not know when we debated the Money Resolution. Certain vague suggestions were put forward by the Assistant Postmaster-General, but he was wise enough not to commit himself upon them, and he has wriggled out of them fairly satisfactorily.
    We should still like to know for what this money is to be used. We have been told that the Authority will be in a position to do certain things, but its powers have been consistently whittled down. Now £750,000 a year is being given as an unwanted subvention to private enterprise. I share the view of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that it is unnecessary to subsidise private enterprise in this field. We do not want the Authority to be left without the power to do what I am sure the Home Secretary hopes it will be able to do.
    We regard this provision as being as objectionable now as when we voted

    1213
    against it on the Money Resolution. Even now I ask the Home Secretary to give us a concrete example, rather than the vague mathematics we have had about one hour's programme a day, presumably based on the 2,000-hour programme calculation. If he regards that as sound finance, I hope that the Chancellor will look at these calculations privately.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that it was our general view that this matter had been rather fully debated on the Financial Resolution and that we should cut short the debate on the Committee stage. That was the tacit agreement between us. Therefore I want to make only two points. What was said about the Amendments which we did not accept merely goes to two aspects of the matter, one being that it is for the Authority to decide how it will work out the machinery for commercial television and the other that it does not in any way derogate from the Authority's powers.
    There are two objectives. First, to keep a proper balance in the programmes and, second, to secure that items are put on to the television screen which none of us would desire to be associated with advertising. These are the purposes we have in mind. We stand by them and we see no reason to alter our view.
    Sir L. Plummer: The Government having accepted that it is right to finance private enterprise to the extent of £750,000 a year, I should like to put one
    point to the Home Secretary. If, as is adduced by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), commercial television is going to be a success, the I.T.A. will not need anything like £750,000 a year. If it is going to be a success it will draw its revenues from rival advertising media—newspapers, magazines and the like—and it is almost certain that they will come mainly from the weakest of those media, the provincial newspapers.
    These newspapers have had to struggle against considerable odds and have never had a proper share of the profitable advertising. If the hon. and gallant Member and I are correct, the success of commercial television will be at the expense of the small provincial newspapers. In those circumstances, having accepted the principle that it is perfectly right to subsidise private enterprise are the Government prepared to take that part of the £750,000 a year which is necessary to make those provincial newspapers solvent and give it to them?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am afraid that the hon. Member's argument, attractive and humorous, as his argument always is, cannot lead me as far as that. I am grateful to him for one point. I did not make clear, as I should have done, that this is permissive and that if the money is not required it will not be paid.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 218.

    Division No. 132.]

    AYES

    [10.0 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Erroll, F. J.

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Campbell, Sir David

    Finlay, Graeme

    Alpert, C. J. M.

    Carr, Robert

    Fisher, Nigel

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

    Arbuthnot, John

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Fort, R.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Cole, Norman

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Banks, Col. C.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Galbraith, T. G. D.(Hillhead)

    Baxter, A. B.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Gammans, L. D.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Garner-Evans, E. H

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C

    Glover, D.

    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, O. E.

    Godber, J. B

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Crouch, R. F.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Birch, Nigel

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Gower, H. R.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Black, C. W.

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Grimond, J.

    Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Bowen, E. R.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Braine, B. R.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Bullard, D. G.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Heath, Edward

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Scott, R. Donald

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Shepherd, William

    Holland-Martin, C J

    Maude, Angus

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Maudling, R.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Holt, A. F.

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Hope, Lord John

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Mellor, Sir John

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Speir, R. M.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P.(Kensington, S.)

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Neave, Airey

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Hurd, A. R.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James(Moray)

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Summers, G. S.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    O'Neill, Hon. Phefim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Teeling, W.

    Jennings, Sir Roland

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L.(Hereford)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Osborne, C.

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

    Page, R. G.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Turton, R. H.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Lambton, Viscount

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Wakefield, Edward(Derbyshire, W.)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Patersfield)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Rameden, J. E.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Redmayne, M.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    McCorquedale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Wellwood, W.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Robertson, Sir David

    Williams, Gerald(Tonbridge)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Williams, Sir Herbert(Croydon, E.)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Wills, Gerald

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Russell, R. S.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F.W. (Horncastle)

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Kaberry

    NOES

    Adams, Richard

    Champion, A. J.

    Finch, H. J.

    Albu, A. H.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington E.)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Follick, M.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Clunie, J.

    Foot, M. M.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Coldrick, W.

    Forman, J. C.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Collick, P. H.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Cove, W. G.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Glanville, James

    Baird, J.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Bartley, P.

    Daines, P.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Bence, C. R.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Benson, G.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Grey, C. F

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Blackburn, F.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James(Llanelly)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Davies. Stephen (Merthyr)

    Hale, Leslie

    Boardman, H.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Deer, G.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead W.)

    Bowden, H. W.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hamilton, W. W

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hannan, W.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    Hargreaves, A

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hastings, S.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Edelman, M.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

    Burke, W. A.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Holman, P.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Holmes, Horace

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Carmishael, J.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Mort, D. L.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Moyle, A.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Stress, Dr. Barnett

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Oswald, T.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Paget, R. T.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Pannell, Charles

    Thornton, E.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Parker, J.

    Timmons, J.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Popplewell, E.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Keenan, W.

    Porter, G.

    Osborne, H. C.

    Kenyon, C.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Viant, S. P.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Wade, D. W.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Weitzman, D.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Rankin, John

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Reeves, J.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    West, D. G.

    Logan, D. G

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    McInnes, J.

    Rhodes, H.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Roberts, Goromvy (Caernarvon)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Mallalieu, E L. (Brigg)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Willey, F. T.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Ross, William

    Williams, David (Heath)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Short, E. W.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

    Mason, Roy

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Simmons, G. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Willis, E. G.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Yates, V. F.

    Moody, A. S.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Morley, R.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

    Steele, T.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 9.—(ADVANCES BY POSTMASTER-GENERAL TO AUTHORITY.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Ness Edwards: We are now dealing with the other part of the financial arrangements whereby the £2 million will be made available to the I.T.A. During the Committee stage we have heard repeatedly that the requirements of the I.T.A. for capital expenditure are getting less and less. Its responsibility for providing studios and masts appears to have gone, and now there seems hardly anything left upon which the I.T.A. can spend capital.
    At the commencement of the Bill the I.T.A. had wide capital responsibilities, and now that these have been whittled down during the Committee stage we should like to know from the Home Secretary why this capital is still needed. We are entitled to information upon this before we part from the Clause.
    Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite right in suggesting that there is agreement that the masts will be used by both bodies. We hope that they will be, but I cannot be definite about it at this stage. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the demands upon the Authority have lessened as the Bill has proceeded. I cannot agree. It was never the idea from the beginning that it was essential for the new Authority to equip itself with studios. I would say that the amount of money which is required by the Authority is what we envisaged when the Bill was first presented.
    I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with £2 million, of which £1 million may be advanced in the first year, and that the second £1 million will only be advanced if the money is required.
    Mr. Shackleton: Once again, will the Government produce another White Paper? We still do not know why the Authority wants the money or how the scheme will work, and I very much doubt whether the Government know

    1219
    themselves. Could we have some detailed explanation as to how this money is to be laid out?
    Mr. Ernest Davies: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. It is ridiculous that this money is to be voted for the use of the Independent Television Authority when we have had no indication from the Government of how it is to be used. As the debates have proceeded, it has emerged that the powers of the Authority are to be even less than they were in the original Bill.
    We are now told that the Authority will not equip studios and will share the masts with the B.B.C. and that it is very unlikely to require this money, but even if this money is made available to the Authority and it could build its own studios, erect its own masts, establish its own transmitters, and so on, it is very doubtful whether it could use this money.
    There is a shortage of equipment and of technicians, trained staff and the like. It would be very difficult for the Authority to spend this money on capital equipment and to obtain the necessary staff which it is required to do within two years of the passing of the Bill. Even if that were possible, it could only be done by encroaching on the B.B.C. and drawing away equipment which the B.B.C. requires for the completion and extension of its existing network and of the five stations which it is building, and for the establishment ultimately of its alternative programme.
    The alternative programme we would far rather see would be that established by the B.B.C. I would suggest that every £1,000 spent by the B.B.C. is worth £10,000 spent by the Authority. The B.B.C. with its experience, technical skill and present facilities could make a far more valuable use of this money than could the I.T.A. It is unfair to the B.B.C. to divert public money in this way to the I.T.A. Unless the Home Secretary replies to the debate and tells us exactly how this money is going to be spent and what it is required for, it will be very difficult for us to agree to this Clause.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. H. Morrison: It is clear that the Guillotine under which we are working makes it impossible for us adequately to discuss this Bill in Committee. We are
    1220
    now at Clause 9, and even to reach it we had voluntarily to limit ourselves to conform to the Guillotine. The Committee will notice that there are altogether 17 Clauses in the Bill and that the others have not been discussed at all. True there are no Amendments down, but they ought to be discussed and it is a sign of the inadequacy of the time allowed and of the weakness of the Guillotine. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite are as usual giggling and laughing about this, but they will giggle in some other way before we have finished with them in another Parliament.
    This Clause is a confession of failure. What it does is to indicate that there is no reliance whatever to be placed upon commercial television, and yet that has been the argument behind the Bill. The argument has been that commercial television can give the public something for nothing. It beats Mr. Lloyd George's 9d. for 4d. This is much more than 9d. for 4d. There is no 4d. It is 9d. for nothing, and that is the argument in favour of the policy behind the Bill.
    Quite apart from the £750,000 a year provided for under Clause 8, it is clear that the Government propose to finance these undertakings by a grant of capital money up to £2 million. It is an advance which is to be repaid, but if it is not repaid, and these undertakings go bankrupt—quite frankly, I shall not be sorry if they do—presumably the £2 million of taxpayers' money is gone.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Like the groundnuts.
    Mr. Morrison: It seems to be a habit of the party opposite that, whatever difficulty it is in and it finds it cannot answer the argument put forward, it always refers to the groundnut scheme. I thought the hon. Gentleman had more ingenuity than to fall back upon this universal remedy for intellectual bankruptcy. I have enjoyed many open air meetings in my time, and I have been interrupted at many of them. I have promoted interruptions at open air meetings against myself in order to get an audience or to get some Tory or another to say "Groundnuts." But it is a little below the level of a Committee of the House of Commons to continue to use that argument, and especially is that so with the hon. Gentleman for whom, politics apart, I have a certain amount of regard.

    1221
    It is clear from the Clause that the Government do not believe in the commercial success of commercial television. They do not accept their own argument that it is bound to be a commercial success. In fact, they know that commercially it cannot stand on its own feet. Therefore, first they dip their fingers into the taxpayers' or licence fee payers' pockets and take out £750,000 a year for these privateers, and now under this Clause they are taking out a£2 million of Treasury money for the purpose of financing and helping to float as a capital undertaking these concerns which it is supposed will be so successful. It is a confession of failure and an admission that this undertaking cannot stand on its own feet. It is an admission that the boast that this is something for nothing is not true. It is not something for nothing. First of all, there is an out-right subsidy and then there is the capital advance, although it is true that that is supposed to be repaid.
    It is an admission that the argument that commercial television can go ahead without any public subsidy, without public guarantee, without public support out of public funds is a false and nonsensical argument. It is not true in any case, because the commercialists will receive a large amount of their subsidy out of the consumers' pockets, out of the pockets of the people who buy the things that will be advertised on the commercial television screen. Consequently, it is not something for nothing. Even so, we come to the Clause where we find that this substantial
    sum of money is approved. I hope that the Home Secretary, who presumably will have the last word on this matter, will be able to clear up the points which have been raised from this side of the Committee.
    Finally, this Guillotine has been a scandalous business. It has treated us very roughly and very badly. I am sure that we ought not to be subjected to this kind of thing. In my last words on the Bill at this stage I protest with the greatest sincerity against the misuse of the Guillotine and the harshness of the terms which have been imposed upon us, consequently creating an inadequate consideration on the Committee stage of an important Bill.
    Mr. Nicholson: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has made that speech and that he has said that he would gladly see public money lost. I am sorry that he has protested against the Guillotine when more than anybody else his party has been very largely responsible for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I wish to mollify the right hon. Gentleman and apologise for saying "Groundnuts." After all, it was perhaps not kind to call attention to things like that.
    Mr. Morrison: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how we are responsible for the Guillotine?
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 224.

    Division No. 133.]

    AYES

    [10.24 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Bullard, D. G.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Drewe, Sir C.

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Campbell, Sir David

    Duthie, W. S.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Carr, Robert

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W E.

    Banks, Cot. C.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Baxter, A. B.

    Cole, Norman

    Fisher, Nigel

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Colegate, W. A.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Fort, R.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Foster, John

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lansdale)

    Birch, Nigel

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Bishop, F. P.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollock)

    Black, G. W.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hilthead)

    Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Bowen, E. R.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Garner-Evans, E H

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Glover, D.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Godber, J. B.

    Brains, B. R.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Gower, H. R.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Grimond, J.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    McKibben, A. J.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Russell, R. S.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Harvey, Air Cdr. A. V. (Macclesfield)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Scott, R. Donald

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Shepherd, William

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Heath, Edward

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Maude, Angus

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Maudling, R.

    Speir, R. M.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C

    Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

    Holland-Martin, C J.

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Hollis, M. C.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich., W.)

    Holt, A. F.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Hope, Lord John

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Horobin, I. M.

    Neave, Airey

    Summers, G. S.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Nicholls, Harmer

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Teeling, W.

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hurd, A. R.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Turton, R. H.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles lain (Hendon, N.)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Jennings, Sir Roland

    Osborne, C.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Johnson, Erie (Bleckley)

    Page, R. G.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

    Johnson, Howard (Kempton)

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Paton, J.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Kaberry, D.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Wall, Major P. H. B.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Kerr, H. W.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Rakes, Sir Victor

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Wellwood, W.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Redmayne, M.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Lindsay, Martin

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Renton, D. L M

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Wills, G.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Robertson, Sir David

    Wood, Hon. R.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Robson-Brown, W

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Studholme and Mr. Legh.

    NOES

    Adams, Richard

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Edelman, M.

    Albu, A. H.

    Callaghan, L J

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Carmichael, J.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Champion, A. J.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Clunie, J.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Coldrick, W.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Bartley, P.

    Collick, P. H.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Bence, C. R.

    Cove, W. G.

    Finch, H. J.

    Benson, G.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Bing, G. H. C

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Follick, M.

    Blackburn, F.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Foot, M. M.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Daines, P.

    Forman, J. C.

    Blylon, W. R.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Boardman, H.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Mongomery)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Glanville, James

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Deer, G.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Grey, C. F.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)

    Burke, W. A.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Hale, Leslie

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mason, Roy

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Hannan, W.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Hargreaves, A.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Sparks, J. A.

    Hastings, S.

    Monslow, W.

    Steele, T.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Moody, A. S.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

    Morley, R.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Stress, Dr. Barnett

    Hobson, C. R.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Holman, P.

    Mort. D. L.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Holmes, Horace

    Moyle, A

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Mulley, F. W.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oswald, T.

    Thornton, E.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Paget, R. T.

    Timmons, J.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Paling Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Usborne, H. C.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Pannell, Charles

    Viant, S. P.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Parker, J.

    Wade, D. W.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Pearson, A.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Watkins, T. E.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Popplewell, E.

    Weitzman, D.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Porter, G.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    West, D. G.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Keenan, W.

    Proctor, W. T.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E.Flint)

    Kenyon, C.

    Pryde, D. J.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Rankin, John

    Wigg, George

    Lawson, G. M.

    Reeves, J.

    Willey, F. T.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Williams,, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Rhodes, H.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Logan, D. G.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Willis E. G.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    McInnes, J.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Ross, William

    Wyatt, W. L.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Yates, V. F.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Short, E. W.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Mr. Wilkins and

    Manuel, A. C.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    It being after half-past Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring the Proceedings in Committee to a conclusion, including the Question on an Amendment moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to Clause 12.
    Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 12.—(ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT.)
    Amendment made: In page 12, line 23, at end, insert:
    Any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one hundred and sixty-one of the Companies Act, 1948, by the Board of Trade.—[Mr. Gammans.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 13 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, Pursuant to Order.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

  AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS)
  10.38 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
  That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.
  This is the fourth scheme for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Order is broadly the same as it has been during the last few years since we started paying grants; it is exactly the same as last year in every detail. It provides grants of £5 an acre for leys of three years and over and £10 for grassland that has been down since pre-war, and is subject to the same conditions as last year's scheme.
  I expect that the House would like to know some details of the operation of the scheme during the year 1952–53, which ended on 31st May last—it being the last full year for which we have details. In that 12 months grants under the £5 an acre scheme were made for 868,000 acres and under the £10 an acre scheme for 39,000 acres. The net increase in tillage in that period was about 50,000 acres, raising it from 10,517,000 acres to 10,567,000 acres. In assessing the value of that increase, the House will have in mind that we probably lost about 60,000 acres because of the East Coast floods. The total cost in that full year was £4,730,000. I have not complete figures, for the scheme which ended yesterday, and we can only make a rather rough estimate based on the forecast of tillage crops and cereal and root crops in the March returns.
  That is no more than a broad indication of what the final outcome is likely to be over the 12 months. Those figures give us a broad indication that the tillage acreage is likely to be somewhat down this year compared with last year, and we shall have the final figures of the June returns by the end of July. Nevertheless, although it appears probable that there has been some decrease in the tillage acreage during the past 12 months, I still commend the scheme to the House as being good value to the national economy and as an incentive to good husbandry.
  We continue to make a high tillage acreage the basis of our agricultural pro-
  1228
  ductivity programme. We believe that a high tillage acreage is, in fact, the basis of good farming which it is our policy to encourage, and the £5 an acre ploughing grant is the most direct incentive to maintain that high tillage acreage. Therefore, despite the fact that there has probably been some decrease in the tillage acreage over the past 12 months, we feel that it will continue to be good value. Therefore, I commend the scheme to the House.
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. A. J. Champion: In view of the announcement that was made by the Leader of the House that we are to have a full agricultural debate on Thursday, obviously I am not going to take up as much of the time of the House on this matter as I otherwise would. I think the Minister will find on Thursday that he has been chased from Crichel Down to Walsingham and back again, and indeed from Land's End to the Border. But I am not going to chase him through these ploughed fields which have resulted from the ploughing grant which was introduced two years ago and which was continued by this House last year.
  However, I think we are bound to ask the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government how they can justify further expenditure on these ploughing grants in the light of what seems to be staring out of both the Price Review and the Chancellor's Budget speech this year. It seems to us on this side that the Government, while talking in terms of trying to secure a considerable increase in the productivity from our soil, are taking steps which will make it inevitable that the targets which they have set will not be reached. What they have got to do, in the light of their decision, is to justify to the House this expenditure which I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say amounts to over £4 million a year on these ploughing grants alone, in the form of subsidy. That will not be easy for the Parliamentary Secretary to do, and it is a subject to which obviously and inevitably we shall have to return on Thursday as it is a matter of importance.
  I think, too, that we have to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in justification of these ploughing grants, to tell us how these grants are working out in the light of what he talked about last year as being

  1229
  the freer market. We have moved from the position that we had under the Labour Government to a condition which he calls a freer market. When these points were put to him last year, his reply was to this effect: "We have no actual experience yet of how this is going to work out, but we think it will work out in this way, that way and the other way."
  Last year, quite obviously, my questions were bound to be somewhat academic, and the reply by the Parliamentary Secretary was equally bound to be academic. But can he now say how these grants are working out? If I understood him aright, I think he was suggesting that the stimulus from these grants is losing the impetus it once had. In this year's Price Review—the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, 1954—it is stated in paragraph 15:
  "It is important to continue to encourage lay farming as the best and most economical form of food production in this country. This requires the maintenance of a large tillage acreage. The Government have, therefore, decided that the two ploughing grants should be continued at the existing levels of £10 and £5 an acre. It should, however, be possible to reach the objective of 60 per cent. without such a big increase in tillage as the 1,000,000 acres mentioned in the 1952 White Paper but to do this the steady improvement in crop yields and in the management and use of grass must continue, and increasing skill and economy must be exercised in the use of concentrated feedingstuffs."
  I cannot help but wonder if that is intended to cover something of a failure; and that failure seems to be implicit in paragraph 5 of the same Review, where it is stated:
  "Although the expansion of tillage has been slower than expected, the tillage area increased by 43,000 acres in 1953–4, with a special emphasis on wheat."
  I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say just now that it was thought that the Government had secured by their effort in 1952–53 an additional 50,000 acres. I understood him to say that, but that he was not in a position to tell us the increase for 1953–54 because the returns have not come in. But we have a figure less than this 50,000 of 1952–53. It has dropped to 43,000, and my hon. Friend sitting beside me pointed out while the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking that what, in fact, had happened, was a decrease in the tillage area over the period 1953–54, and not merely
  1230
  a decrease in the amount of expansion. I am not quite sure what he meant, but I thought that perhaps he meant that there had been a slowing up in the increase rather than a net decrease. But, if we see a net decrease, then it would be difficult to justify continuance of these payments which, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, amount to more than £4 million a year to the farmers; that is, of course, if we are not getting a return.
  I think that we are bound to come back to a point which was asked last year, which is still occasioning some doubt, and that is how much are these additional acres ploughed up costing the country. It may be that they are costing the country nothing, but someone is paying a lot of money for a few additional acres. For example, if we get 43,000 additional acres in 1953–54, would not that work out at some £100 per additional acre over 1952–53, or is not that a fair way to put it? Quite obviously there would be a large number of acres ploughed whether or not there were ploughing grants, and it is right that the Government and the Opposition should consider whether the amount being spent in this way is securing the return required by way of an increased yield in agriculture.
  The question whether there is actually an increased amount of land under the plough at the present time as a result of the ploughing grants is one which deserves an answer, as do some of the other points I have mentioned. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, with his usual courtesy, will at least attempt to answer them, for they are matters about which the House should know before it decides to pass this scheme, which will obviously cost the country, or someone, quite a lot of money.
  10.51 p.m.
  Major H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) has said that whether or not there had been ploughing grants a good deal of ploughing would still have gone on, and I do not suppose that anyone in the House would dispute that statement. But it is only right to bear in mind that even supposing there had been a decrease—and my hon. Friend said tonight that the final figures

  1231
  are not yet known—it is arguable that that decrease would have been bigger without the grant than with it.
  There is another factor which the hon. Member has overlooked. A certain number of farmers who have been turning to ley farming since the war have in mind that if they leave their leys a little longer than they originally planned they may get ploughing grants when they plough them up in the end. Not many years have passed since special emphasis was laid on ley farming in many of the arable areas, and we should bear in mind the possibility that some farmers who have been on a three-year ley have left them a little longer in the hope of getting grants when they do plough up.
  So far as the total tillage acreage is concerned, we should be quite clear whether or not it includes all the acreage down to short-term leys. As I understand it, it does, but perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm or deny it. It is now the generally accepted fact that ley farming is part of the arable programme, and that a grass crop is just as important as a cereal crop.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East and many people outside the House have made the mistake of assuming that what sacrifices the farming industry has had to make this year in the Price Review will take effect this year. The hon. Member must remember that many of the prices mentioned in this year's Price Review do not take effect until 1955, and by that time there may be a considerable further reduction in some of the overhead costs which the farming industry has to bear.
  Mr. E. G. Gooch: There may be a change of Government.
  Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member says that there may be a change of Government. Perhaps he had better deal with that question on Thursday, rather than now, as I imagine that it is a matter more suitable for that occasion.
  I feel that the Government are quite light in reintroducing this scheme, because I am quite certain that it is a stimulus, and the important thing is to ensure that we get the best value for what is spent; I agree with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East on that point. But there are many other factors besides that
  1232
  which the hon. Member cited, and I have mentioned a few of them. It is important that the Scheme should continue in operation, and I congratulate the Government on their action.
  Mr. Tudor Watkins: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give the House further information as to the decrease in the tillage acreage? I am anticipating that the figures may be given separately for Scotland. I should like to know where the areas are where there has been a decrease in tillage acreage on the 1953–54 figures. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us where Wales stands in this matter? Has there been an increase or a decrease, or do we carry the decrease belonging to England?
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. Nugent: By leave, I have not the precise figures with which to answer the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) on how the tillage acreage stands for Wales. My impression is that the decrease has taken place mainly in the west, and to some extent in the Midlands, and that the eastern counties have, broadly speaking, maintained their tillage acreage. I would expect there to have been some decrease in Wales. I would emphasise that the figures I have for 1953–54 are only the farmers' forecasts on their March returns. They are only a broad indication of the final result. When I get the final result on the June returns, I will make a point of sending the hon. Member the figures for the Welsh counties.
  Regarding the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) in his helpful speech, tillage includes cereal crops, root crops, and fallow. Arable includes grass crops. The figures with which we have been dealing are tillage, not arable. In answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), our justification for the ploughing subsidy—I am speaking of the £5 an acre subsidy; there has been no dispute about the £10 an acre subsidy for ploughing land into tillage which has been grassland since pre-war days—is that it is obviously a clear gain. I recognise that the £5 an acre subsidy is being given to some grassland which would be ploughed anyhow in the course of rotation; but, in deciding where the balance of advantage lies, we

  1233
  have to consider not only that, but many other factors.
  The amount of money involved, about £5 million, is taken into account in the Price Review as one of the receipts which the farmers will receive which are necessary to bring them a certain return in the global figure of the net income of the industry. As I explained last year, we are concerned not only with returns of tillage crops, such as wheat and potatoes, but to some extent with live-stock products, because a lot of the tillage crops, for instance, barley and oats, will be fed to the livestock, and the farmer will finally realise his cash return by the sale of these livestock products.
  These amounts are taken into account when we estimate the net income of the industry, and what we think is necessary to ensure that the industry has a sufficient net income to maintain stability. If the ploughing subsidy were ended, we would consider that if we were to maintain the same net income, we would have to add to it in other ways; for instance, by increasing the net return on the different tillage crops involved, and the net return on the livestock products affected.
  Again, if the amount which it is considered necessary to pay to the farmer is to be paid by way of an increase per ton on the cereals or potatoes grown, one has to recognise that many farmers will grow these crops, irrespective of whether the return is adequate. Also, it must be recognised that those with the best land yielding the highest crops will get the biggest share, and those with the worst land will get the smallest share.
  From that point of view it has always seemed to me that these production grants—we call them that to make them respectable, but nevertheless they are a subsidy—are a most useful specific aid to the small farmer. They give him some cash in hand at the beginning of the process of growing the crop and they give him a specific incentive to maintain under tillage land which otherwise he might hesitate to keep in rotation.
  We want to maintain a high tillage acreage in order to maintain our drive towards greater efficiency and lower costs in farming, and while it is true that in the freer economy into which we are gradually moving still further there are certain factors which will militate against
  1234
  the maintenance of a high tillage acreage—I am thinking principally of the ending of feedingstuffs rationing, and on balance I am certain that the ending of feeding-stuffs rationing is a great strengthening of the agricultural economy, because it enables the individual farmer to build up his livestock units to the most efficient economic level—although I admit that there may be some reduction in the incentive to maintain the highest possible tillage acreage, I have no doubt that there is an overall advantage in doing so.
  The individual farmer, instead of thinking simply in terms of producing the greatest volume of cereals, concentrated feedingstuffs and so on from his farm in order to feed his livestock, looks at the position more critically in considering what is the best economic yield in terms of the yield capacity of his fields and the climate in which he lives. I see no harm in that, because it is encouraging the more realistic atmosphere in which our farmers are producing. The desirability of maintaining a high tillage acreage is nevertheless the high road to more intensive farming, and therefore lower costs and the ability of the farmer to make a living out of lower prices continues to be the basis of our policy.
  As the hon. Member has recognised, we shall be dealing with these subjects at greater length on Thursday, and I therefore feel that I should not delay the House longer in dealing with this very important and interesting point of policy, but I hope I have said enough to show that there are very sound reasons, both economic and technical, for maintaining this ploughing subsidy. It gives a specific aid exactly at the point where it is wanted and it helps the small farmer, in particular.
  In reply to the hon. Member's question—how much per acre is this extra tillage costing?—I would say that it is not a fair question; indeed, he asked me whether I thought it was a fair question. This is part of the net income of the industry, and if it were not granted in this way it would be granted in another. In our view, we get the greatest advantage by doing it in this way.
  The hon. Member asked whether there was a net decrease in tillage, and I confirm that that is the indication. We cannot be sure of the exact position until we have the June returns, but the broad

  1235
  indication seems to be that there was some decrease in tillage acreage in the 12 months ending yesterday, 31st May. Despite that, and for the reasons which I have adumbrated, I feel that the subsidy continues to give good value. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely rightly said that without this aid the decrease would probably be greater, to the disadvantage of the individual farmer and the national economy.
  Mr. Champion: Do I understand that paragraph 5 of the Price Review White Paper is wrong and that the hon. Gentleman does not expect the tillage area to be increased by 43,000 acres in the year 1953–54? In fact, he expects not an increase but a net decrease.
  Mr. Nugent: I think that would be correct. I think the 12 months used in the White Paper is a different 12 months from that to which I have been referring, but certainly over the 12 months ending 31st May and beginning 1st June of last year we do expect the net decrease in tillage. I cannot give precise figures because it is not possible on the basis of the March returns forecast. Nevertheless, I do commend this Scheme to the House. It is serving a most useful purpose, both in helping production and in helping to get the food we need grown, and is generally of value to the national economy. I ask the House to approve it.
  11.6 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: I propose to make a few remarks on the Scottish scheme later, but before we dispose of this scheme I wish to make one reference to what the Parliamentary Secretary described as the helpful speech from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke).
  The hon. and gallant Member, in the course of his remarks, let slip some words which were very acceptable support for a contention I offered to the House when the Bill was going through two years ago. He said there were some farmers who put down a three-year ley, but, in the expectation of a ploughing grant, allowed the ley to lie a bit longer in order to get the grant. So that instead of putting down his ley, keeping it for three years and ploughing it up, the
  1236
  farmer will look to this scheme and keep his land in grass for another year, and by doing that will get a £5 ploughing grant when he ploughs it up. Therefore, for that particular farmer, this grant has the consequence of reducing the tillage acreage, or delaying the ploughing up of his grassland.
  Mr. Nugent: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong on a point of fact. If he will refer to paragraph 5 (c) he will see that the ploughing grant applies to leys which were in grass before the first day of June, 1951; in other words, it does apply to three-year leys, which was an alteration we made in the later schemes to meet the very point the hon. Member is making.
  Resolved,
  That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.
  11.9 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): I beg to move,
  That the Draft Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) (Scotland) Scheme, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.
  This scheme, which applies to Scotland, is, with the exception of the concession which we make to the crofting areas, identical to the one just approved by the House, and in view of the information which my hon. Friend has already given on the various points of the scheme, I do not think the House will expect me to repeat what he has said. I would, however, for the information of the House and for the record, like to indicate what is the position in Scotland, to give a few relevant Scottish figures, and to say why we feel this scheme is necessary in Scotland.
  Prior to 1951 there had been a steady decline in Scotland in the tillage acreage, and the agricultural returns for 1951 indicated that the decline was accelerating. The first Scottish scheme not only had the effect of arresting the falling acreage, but resulted in an increase of 13,000 acres in 1952 over the previous year. The grants paid in respect of that year were approximately for 283,000 acres. The second scheme did much to help the position, although we have to admit that the

  1237
  difference in tillage acreage over 1951 was now only some 6,000 acres. Over 336,000 acres qualified for grant, including 8,500 at the higher level of £10 per acre. That is a very good figure for Scotland.
  Final figures for the third scheme will not be available until the 4th June returns are received, but, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said, just as is apparent south of the Border, we in Scotland think that certain factors will result in a slight decline in the tillage acreage. These factors include the fall in world prices, resulting in cheaper feedingstuffs, and the uncertainty which is natural at a time when we are changing over from fixed prices into a system of freer market conditions. Also, we must not forget the increased labour costs with which farmers have to cope this year. We estimate that the acreage attracting grant this year will be of the order of 330,000 to 340,000 acres, including 9,000 to 10,000 acres at the higher rate of grant of £10 per acre.
  We believe that the ploughing up grant this season has been a safeguard against what in its absence might well have turned out to be a serious fall in tillage because of the factors to which I have just referred. Looking to the year ahead, with which this Order is concerned, we feel that the highest level of arable cultivation possible consistent with a balanced farming system is still required by the nation. We also must remember that we have not yet reached our target of 60 per cent. in excess of the pre-war level of production.
  In the new conditions into which we are moving, while we have to seek expansion in crop production from improved fertility of our land and higher yield rather than from sheer expansion of acreage, nevertheless we feel that we have to endeavour to hold the tillage acreage at the highest possible level consistent with a proper rotational farming system. We must not forget the need to develop our grassland. This year, when we are passing from fixed prices into a system of free marketing, we want to make sure that we do not have any serious setback in arable cultivation. For that reason, I commend the fourth Scottish scheme to the House.
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. T. Fraser: I feel very sorry that the Government have seen fit to bring forward this scheme for approval. It is beyond me to understand how the Government can boast about agriculture moving into a freer economy and then come to Parliament for a subsidy of £5 per acre for ploughing up land which I think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said would be ploughed up anyway.
  When the Bill authorising this procedure was before the House I said that I did not believe that the Government would repeat the £5 per acre subsidy. I felt that it could run for only one year. I have been proved wrong in my forecast. I have been proved wrong in the faith I had in Her Majesty's Ministers. The Government have indulged in extravagances in the expenditure of public money which, to me and I think to many people, are inexcusable.
  This subsidy, on the figures given by the Joint Under-Secretary, represents more than £1,600,000 of public money given away quite needlessly in Scotland alone. The figure given by the Parliamentary Secretary was of £4,730,000 of public money given away quite needlessly in England and Wales every year. Last year the scheme was justified on the ground that it was bringing about a much needed recovery of tillage acreage, but as the Joint Under-Secretary was making his speech a year ago—was he was making his case—Scottish farmers were allowing the tillage acreage to slip back.
  In his speech just now the hon. Gentleman said that in 1952 there was a gain of 13,000 acres over 1951. The Joint Under-Secretary went on to say that last year we were only 6,000 acres up on 1951, but what he did not make clear was that last year we actually slipped back 7,000 acres. I am sure that it was inadvertence on his part. He said that we went up by 13,000 acres. Last year we were up by only 6,000 acres.
  The facts are given on page 17 of the Report of the Department of Agriculture. It shows that the total tillage acreage for Scotland went down by 7,000 last year at the time when the case was made out for the subsidy on the ground that it was boosting the tillage acreage. The Report shows that in 1952 the total tillage acreage in Scotland was 1,743,000, and

  1239
  in 1953 it was 1,736,000, a drop of 7,000 acres. Last year I made a calculation that I cannot repeat. I took 13,000 acres and spread them over the £1,400,000, and said that the money represented some £111 per additional acre. This year we have spent rather more than £1,600,000 and have lost 7,000 acres.
  It is high time that this subsidy was discontinued. In any case, how can the Government boast that agriculture is moving into a freer economy, presumably a more competitive economy, and reduce the guaranteed minimum prices for cereals, as they have done in this year's Price Review, and then ask for this liberal subvention from public funds? Make no mistake about it; this is taxpayers' money. It is nobody else's money.
  In moving into the freer economy, the farmers are allowed to sell their commodities in the open market and get the best prices. When we were giving them fixed prices for their farm products we could say: "We take the global sum, and in as much as we take part of that global sum and give it in the ploughing grant, a smaller amount is loft to be given in the fixed prices." When we depart from the fixed prices and move into this freer economy it is clear enough that we then dip our hands into the taxpayers' pockets and make a gift of public money to this private industry.
  Mr. John MacLeod: Why does the hon. Gentleman not vote against it?
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman is being a bit hasty. We must complete our speeches before we vote. We quite understand how some hon. Members will vote, without their making speeches.
  The White Paper on the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, Cmd. 9104, published in March, said:
  "The present cost to the taxpayer of the support given to British agriculture is very high—of the order of £200 million. Further consideration will be given to means of limiting the dependence of the industry on Exchequer assistance."
  This is the subsidy on which the Government could have begun to limit the dependence of the industry on the Exchequer. I asked the Government in July last year not to repeat the scheme
  1240
  this year. I very much regret that they did not take my advice. I honestly think that in the interests of agriculture they were wrong not to take it. Let me repeat it. Let this be the last year. There is no case for continuing this subsidy, and I submit to the House that neither Minister who has spoken here tonight has made out a case for the subsidy.
  It the Government will not take heed of my advice, I ask the National Farmers' Union to recognise the growing opposition to such subsidies from people in other walks of life. Let me mention people who were much criticised at times in this House, the railwaymen and the miners, whose industries are much more depressed than this one, and who receive no subsidy, in spite of the propaganda we have heard from the Tory Party and have seen on the hoardings. This industry is receiving a subsidy of £200 million, and although none of us will deny a decent return to the farmers and farm workers for their labours, we consider that it should cease.
  This subsidy was promised in the annual Price Review, and the Parliamentary Secretary in winding up the debate on the previous scheme said that if this money had not been given in this way it would have been given in some other way. He could have meant that the cereals price minimum would have been higher, and I submit that the better way to deal with this would have been to have raised the minimum prices for cereals. It is because the Parliamentary Secretary says a thing like that that it is difficult to vote against the scheme. But the Government have seen fit to reduce the guaranteed minimum price for cereals, by ls. a cwt. for most of them, and by 2s. a cwt. for rye, which they expect to be grown on the grassland that is ploughed.
  We all know that the periods for which the annual Review determines the prices, but the Parliamentary Secretary in justifying the scheme says that if the Government did not give the money in this way they would require to give it some other way. If that is so, the Under-Secretary will not deny that the only way the Government could have done it would have been to have raised the guaranteed minimum price on some of the commodities governed by the annual Price Review, and that would have given higher prices for cereals. But they reduced it, and if

  1241
  one reads the Review it is said it was done because the world market prices were going down. Now they come along for the subsidy to be continued for another year. If they would not take heed of what I said last year, I hope the National Farmers' Union will do so.
  I do beg the Government, and the leaders of the farmers in Scotland, and, if my words can reach them, in England and Wales as well, to realise that there is nothing more calculated to lose for agriculture the sympathy and support of the masses of the people of this country who are not actively connected with it than to have subsidies for which no good case can be made. We are all most anxious to give a decent return to the farmers. I am always most anxious to give subsidies where subsidies are needed.
  I have never criticised the £10 per acre subsidy for grassland. I have never criticised subsidies for the reclamation of land which is not yielding food at the present time, but where there is a subsidy given to farmers who would, in the normal course of events, plough up their grassland after three or four years, they are given it without doing anything extra for it. It is just given to them for carrying out their routine duties. When they are given a subsidy costing many millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money, it seems to me that we are risking sacrificing the co-operation and good will of masses of people in this country who are otherwise well disposed to agriculture.
  Resolved,
  That the Draft Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) (Scotland) Scheme, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.

  SCHOOL TRANSPORT, COLCOT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Conant.]
  11.26 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: The subject which I wish to raise tonight is a constituency problem, though not a problem by its nature peculiar to any one part of the country—the problem of transporting children to and from school.
  This particular problem is one which deeply concerns parents and children in the Colcot area of my constituency. So
  1242
  deeply concerned are many of these parents that there are, indeed, a group of them in the Gallery tonight listening to this debate, following a house-to-house collection to assist some of them to come here.
  The problem arises, as so many similar ones have, from the growth of a new part of the town of Barry, the Colcot area, and consequently in recent years a new school has been built there. But the growth has been so rapid that already that new school is somewhat inadequate for the needs of the area. Quite reasonably, the education authority had to avail themselves of the accommodation available in some of the older schools in other parts of the town. Indeed, the parents are quite aware of the need for that arrangement.
  In due course, the South-East Glamorgan Divisional Executive of the education authority through their secretary, circulated to the parents a form of letter which I know my hon. Friend has seen, which gave them notice that some of the children would have to attend the High Street school in Barry and some of them would have to go to the Jenner Park school. As it happens, the High Street school is far enough away for the county council under their regulations to provide transport. The Jenner Park school is not so far away, and the qualification as to distance does not apply. Indeed, if it were just a question of distance, my constituents in this area who are parents would not be so deeply concerned. But rather is it a question of the nature of the route which these children have to take.
  The concern of my constituents may be imagined by the response of the parents to this letter. In a short time they were organised into a parents' association. They called a series of meetings and made reasonable representations to the local representatives and councillors and ultimately to the South-East Glamorgan Executive. After very careful consideration, the South-East Glamorgan Executive, with its membership including all the local members, decided that school transport should be provided. I want to stress to my hon. Friend that that was an important decision, based as it was upon the factual knowledge of the local representatives.
  Subsequently, the chairman of the education authority, Alderman Llewellyn

  1243
  Heycock, together with the director of education, and the executive officer, paid a visit to the spot, and I make no complaint about that; they had an awkward job to do. They were faced with the necessity of making an interim decision, but what is felt by parents and others concerned with this matter is that, fortunately or unfortunately, these officials saw the site in peculiarly favourable circumstances. They saw it at a time of day when there was not so much traffic, when the weather was dry, and when there was broad daylight.
  These children have to go along this route in the dusk and gloom of winter time, and when it is raining, and they have to go at times when heavy vehicles are crossing the tracks—they cannot be termed roads—for purposes concerned with the building operations on the adjacent estates. This heavy traffic has to cross the ways which the children follow.
  In due course, the education authority considered and upheld the interim decision of Alderman Heycock. He decided against the provision of transport and, subsequently, the education authority upheld his decision. That was at a very full meeting of the county authority, but the decision was carried by a very slight majority, and the views of those people having factual knowledge were really defeated by people from other parts of the county who had less real knowledge of the circumstances of this case. I do say, with respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister that, in cases of this kind, she should pay more attention to the views of those who are local representatives for, otherwise, we may sacrifice too much in seeking to achieve efficiency with the larger authorities.
  I should now like to say something about this particular route. It is a dangerous route, and I know that the Minister is already aware of the views put forward by the parents' association; but some of these are so vital that I would like to emphasise them tonight. The shortest route is some 1⅓ miles, but many of the children have to go 1½ miles. The walking time would vary from twenty minutes to half-an-hour, but the parents are not really concerned with distances or times.
  The real submission is that the route is unsuitable by reason of its very nature;
  1244
  it is nothing better than an unmade track, and that is especially so at its first part. At Merthyr Dyfan lane it is narrow and dangerous, and there is no footpath. At one point there has recently been erected a reservoir which, I understand, contains 4 million gallons, and which is unprotected. The route continues along Merthyr Dyfan village, where it is a track with a rough surface and nothing better, as I know from bitter experience, than a sea of mud in wet weather. It then proceeds across two fields surrounded by trees and where, I believe, animals wander. It is an unprotected route, and one can well imagine the dangers of such a spot.
  Then it continues through the Witchell Estate to the main Barry road near the school; and this at a particularly dangerous spot, being the junction of four roads. It is an unpleasant place during the hours of darkness and grownup women in the neighbourhood have said that they are not likely to travel this way in the dark. There was, in this connection, some particularly perturbing news a few months ago when a man named Carter was actually convicted and sent to prison for assaulting a child aged five years, and next week, I believe, another man is to be tried for a similar offence. You, Mr. Speaker, can well imagine the apprehensions of parents under such circumstances.
  There is an alternative route through a lane called Cemetery Lane, which, again from my own local knowledge, is even worse. It is nothing better than a track. These routes are not roads; they are more properly described as rough tracks. The problem will get progressively worse. Next school year I understand that at least 80 more children will be required to travel from the Colcot area to the Jenner Park school. Progressively more children will need to go that way, with the development of the building estate in the Colcot area. Furthermore, the authority will be faced with the problem of lowering the age at which children will be transferred from the Colcot school to the Jenner Park school, and all in all the problem must be aggravated with the passing of time.
  I want to stress that my submissions tonight are certainly not based upon distance; they are based upon the nature of the route. By an irony, the children who have to go to the High Street school

  1245
  are provided with transport. If the Children now going to the Jenner Park school went on the road route they, too, would be provided with transport, but they are not, because they are expected to take what I regard—as do most of my parent constituents in the area—as a route which is quite unsuitable for young and even not-so-young children.
  I can well understand that my hon. Friend and the Minister do not like interfering with the decisions of county or other education authorities, but I submit that there are special circumstances in this case. I have already referred to the fact that the decision of the South-East Glamorgan Executive to provide transport was unanimous. It was a decision of those people with the greatest amount of local knowledge. That decision was reversed as a result of a visit by the chairman of the education authority, made under very favourable circumstances which, I imagine, could not easily be repeated. His decision was, perhaps naturally, upheld by the whole county authority, but only narrowly, and by a majority of members who did not possess local knowledge.
  I can quite understand that the county education authority might feel that the granting of transport in this case would open the flood-gates to similar requests from other parts of the county, but my argument is that the circumstances of this case are somewhat special. I know that in the constituencies represented by certain hon. Members opposite there may be routes which are not dissimilar to this one, but in those cases the communities are rather more homogeneous. In the area of Barry there is a varied and expanding community. My constituents point out that strange sea-faring men come to the town, and this causes many of my constituents to feel apprehensive about their children going along this lonely and undeveloped route, especially in the hours of darkness and gloom in the winter months.
  I am not asking my hon. Friend to say definitely that he will reverse any decision, but I earnestly beseech him to ask his right hon. Friend to approach the county education authority with the submission that it ought to reconsider this case in the light of the circumstances to which I have referred. I quite realise the difficulty involved. I know that the Glamorgan standard is particularly high,
  1246
  and that transport is provided for shorter distances than the national average, but we are not concerned about the distance; we are concerned with the danger and unpleasantness of this route. We do not think that children of this age ought to be asked to follow such a route, and we hope that this decision, which was a reversal of what we think was a better-informed decision, will be reconsidered.
  11.40 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Finch: I intervene in this debate because I know the spot to which the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has referred. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, will probably refer to the restrictions placed upon the provision of free transport for children travelling less than a certain distance to and from school. I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that this frequently places the local education authorities in difficulties. As has been stated, this question of transport is not always a matter of distance. Although the Parliamentary Secretary may feel that he has to keep to the decision made by the Government regarding the provision of transport, I would ask him to realise that there are places where there may be no adequate roadway, where there is a mere path through the countryside which may be lonely, even if there is no danger from animals, for instance. Such places can be particularly lonely in the winter.
  I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether it would not be possible to empower local education authorities to consider the merits of cases apart from the matter of the mileage between the school and the children's homes; I would ask that the authorities should not be strictly limited to the two miles. Education authorities are composed of competent people who know the areas with which they are concerned. If, in the opinion of an authority, the distance the children have to travel is affected by the restriction, I suggest that the authority ought then to consider whether the way is fit and proper for children.
  11.44 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): Perhaps I may be permitted to intervene in this private war. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and the hon. Member

  1247
  for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) are on opposing sides. The hon. Member for Barry said the decision was made by the local education authority, while the hon. Member for Bedwellty seemed to think that the local education authority was bound by the limit on distance. That is a mistaken view.
  The history of this matter was, I think, fairly put by the hon. Member for Barry. A large number of houses was built at Colcot before the war and, though the number was not so large, a considerable number was built there after the war. A school, designed for 280 junior and infant children, was built in the 1950–51 programme. Because of the unexpectedly large number of children now reaching school age on the Colcot Estate the school is already inadequate; that is the beginning of the trouble. It may be said that a larger school ought to have been built originally. I do not think we need spend time on that point now: it is clearly difficult to calculate the accommodation so as to keep in step all the time with the number of children. Sometimes it is not physically possible to get things synchronised in that way.
  Incidentally, reference was made in the debate to two assaults—or one assault and one alleged assault, for I believe one is still sub judice. This was new to me, and I will inquire into it. I cannot deal with it tonight, because I have only just heard of it. I say that not by way of complaint but to explain why I cannot deal with it tonight.
  Now I come to the history of the parents'—I will not say "complaints"—difficulties in this connection. In the view of my right hon. Friend, the local authority's arrangements for transporting schoolchildren are adequate; or, to use a word used in the debate, one might even say they are generous, although I always hesitate to use the word "generous" in connection with public money. The South-East Glamorgan Divisional Executive recommended that transport should be provided for the children who are being transferred to the Jenner Park School, although the journey—along the shortest route, which runs along the Merthyr Dyfan lane—is less than the minimum distance.
  The local education authority investigated this recommendation that the route, although only 1⅓ miles long, was
  1248
  nevertheless objectionable in other respects and dangerous to small children. That was investigated by the local education authority; the chairman. Alderman Heycock, inspected the route himself and eventually decided—and the authority agreed with the decision—that transport should not be provided upon that ground, although the divisional executive pressed for it. It is always possible to say of any committee or sub-committee that, the nearer it gets to the ground, the more direct is its factual knowledge. Nevertheless there must be, and there is here under statutory provisions, an authority which is the competent authority for the purpose, and for once in the educational vocabulary that authority is the authority—and that is that. In the House we are accustomed to see those with factual knowledge defeated and those with a logically inexpugnable case voted down, and so we should not use the hon. Member's argument in this case.
  What are the arguments put up by the parents? They say that the route is wet and muddy after rain, and I think it very likely is; that it is particularly unsuitable when it is dark, and I have no doubt at all that, however suitable it is when light, when it is dark it is less suitable; that there is a considerable volume of heavy traffic, and that Alderman Heycock saw the road under exceptionally, and my hon. Friend said peculiarly. favourable conditions.
  I think we must take it that Alderman Heycock is aware of the climate and the weather in South Wales, is aware that in the winter it rains more and that at night it is darker. I am not treating this in a derisory way, but I am trying to make it quite plain: there is an authority whose business it is to make these decisions, and that authority has made a decision, has made it conscious that to make it this way might not be agreeable to its own immediate convenience, and has made it after personal investigation by people who, if not as locally expert as the persons living in Merthyr Dyfan lane or near it, are much more locally expert than we, as a House, can be.
  It was not only the chairman of the education committee, Alderman Heycock, but the divisional executive officer and the deputy director of education who inspected the route, and all expressed

  1249
  themselves as satisfied that, in all the circumstances, and knowing all that they did, the route was reasonable and practicable, and the element of danger was not abnormal or out-of-the-way. Actually there has been some slight physical improvement: I have not seen it, but I am informed that Merthyr Dyfan lane has now got a hard surface, which it had not before, so that it will not be as bad as it was. The authority have also given my right hon. Friend assurances that any discomfort suffered by the children in wet weather, in the way of drying clothes and that sort of thing, is in hand and will be properly looked after. I am also informed that the children leave school not later than 3.30 p.m. in winter, and we are told that the journey takes twenty minutes to half and hour, so that really I do not think it can be said that there are large numbers of small children out for any considerable time in the dark here.
  Mr. George Thomas: Is there any lighting at all?
  Mr. Pickthorn: I cannot say without further information, but I do not really think that the amount of darkness can be considerable.
  Now I come to the actual standing of my right hon. Friend in the matter. Plainly this is primarily a matter for the Glamorgan County Council; they are the local education authority, and it is their business. We are all used to the temptation of spending half our time saying that we want local government to be local, and the other half, the moment anything is about to be done which we dislike, wanting it to be dealt with from Whitehall or Curzon Street, or some other remote and salubrious quarter.
  Mr. Finch: I understand there is a restriction that where it is within a certain mileage—under two miles in certain circumstances—the education authority is not empowered to allow such free travel.
  Mr. Pickthorn: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. However short the distance—and in this particular case it is only 1⅓ miles—the local authority is perfectly entitled, in an exceptional case, to ask, and would undoubtedly get from my right hon. Friend, permission to treat it as an exceptional case. That is so, and always has been so. That is
  1250
  why I began by saying that this was a civil war in which I hesitated to intervene. Here it is not the local authority, but the divisional executive which wanted transport.
  My right hon. Friend must plainly deal with the local authority, and not go straight to the divisional executive. It has been argued that divisional executives have more and closer local knowledge than county councils, but of course that argument does not really provide a firm basis for overriding a local authority from London. My right hon. Friend has made it clear in Circular 242, and before that, and repeatedly after that, that she was and is prepared to consider the conveyance of children for distances, however small, where there is something like exceptional danger or a particular kind of unpleasantness.
  Mr. David Llewellyn: In cases of moral danger?
  Mr. Pickthorn: That might be included sometimes. That is not in dispute at all, but in view of the assurances that the authority, which is not only nominally the authority but which is in every sense the authority, has made every reasonable inquiry, and as it has made its decision within the exercise of what it is under the statute competent to consider, I do not think that it can reasonably be suggested to my right hon. Friend that she ought to interfere. She ought not to be expected to interfere with a competent authority making a decision, reasonable apparently in the sense that care is being taken, and representations and facts have been looked at and taken into account.
  It would be less than reasonable to suppose that in those circumstances a Minister ought to intervene. I hope that the local authority, which knows its own divisional executive, its own geography and its own parents, and has every opportunity of consulting all of them, may see that there is no ill-feeling in this matter.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Four Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.