Clause 5.—(CONTRACTS FOR PROGRAMMES.)

HC Deb 01 June 1954 vol 528 cc1093-148

3.52 p.m.

Sir Robert Grimston (Westbury)

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.

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 (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

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. 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 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 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, 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 (Deptford)

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 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 (Preston, South)

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 (Caerphilly)

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. 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 (Hendon, North)

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 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 (Smethwick)

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 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 (Down, South)

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 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 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 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, 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 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 (Enfield, East)

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 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 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 (Kettering)

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 (Islington, East)

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 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 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 (Brixton)

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: 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 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 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 (Islington. North)

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 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 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 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' 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 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 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? 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 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 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 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 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 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 (Barry)

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 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 … 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 (Middlesbrough, West)

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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 (Torquay)

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 (Esher)

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 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.