HC Deb 27 May 1954 vol 528 cc725-56
Mr. Gammans

I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, to leave out "by the Authority," and to insert: under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section two of this Act.

Mr. Hobson

On a point of order. I rise to ask for your guidance, Sir Charles. A lot of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are receiving green cards from "J. Fred Muggs." Is not this a breach of the Sessional Orders?

Mr. Gammans

The Amendment is the result of a promise given by my right hon. and learned Friend on Second Reading. The objection was then raised that if the Clause as at present drafted remained in the Bill, it would enable the Authority to accept advertisements for those items for which it was paying out of its own money in order to secure a proper balance. I think it was the general feeling of the House that that was undesirable, and my right hon. Friend gave an assurance that steps would be taken to amend the Bill.

Mr. Ness Edwards

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not made the matter clear. As I understand what he said, it amounted to this. When the Authority paid for the inclusion of certain items in a programme, it could not itself receive any fees for advertising associated with it. Do I understand that to be the position? Is it the case that the only people who will obtain advertising revenue are the programme companies and not the I.T.A., despite the fact that they will pay for the items, and that the associated advertising will be paid for by the programme company?

Mr. Gammans

That is right, and that is why we gave the Authority an income of its own of £750,000 a year.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Is it really the case that public money is to be used in order that people can make private profit? Clause 2 (2, b) deals with the programme companies, and it now appears that public money will be used to enable them to do things which other- wise they could not do. They will collect revenue from advertising for doing something which they could not do if public money had not been provided.

Mr. Gammans

The Committee cannot have it both ways. I thought we agreed on certain items which the Authority could do in order to get a proper balance. I thought that was agreed on both sides when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary brought it forward. It was felt that such items should not be associated with advertising, and that was one of the reasons which justified the granting to the Authority of an independent source of income.

Mr. Ness Edwards

Surely, what the hon. Gentleman has said is that advertising will be associated with these items and that the programme companies will get the fees for the advertisements associated with items for which the Authority itself pays? This really is a bit of racketeering.

Mr. Shackleton

Will the Assistant Postmaster-General make some of these points a little clearer, though I appreciate he is doing his best? Is it, in fact, correct that, if the Authority pays for a programme, the programme contractor can derive money from advertising which may be associated with that programme? I think the answer is that they can. That is the first point.

Mr. Gammans

If there are certain programmes for which the Authority itself wants to pay in order to secure a balance, then the Authority may commission such programmes from any source whatsoever, and it is not intended that the Authority itself should have the power to take advertisements for these programmes.

Mr. Shackleton

It is clear, then, that any programme commissioned by the Authority is free from advertising? [HON. MEMBERS: "Is it?"] I think that must be implicit in the explanation which we have been given, but, in that case—

Mr. Gammans

In any programme which the Authority itself commissions, we want to exclude the possibility of the Authority itself being able to charge for advertisements. The whole idea is that the Authority itself is paying for these programmes, and that advertising will not be associated with them.

Mr. Shackleton

It is quite clear that any programme commissioned by the Authority will be unaccompanied by advertising? Then, I should like to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General, who has said we cannot have it both ways, whether he has seen the full consequences of this? It means that the Authority, with its extremely limited funds, is debarred by financial stringency from developing a balanced programme beyond a certain point. It is, in fact, limited entirely by the money provided by Parliament. It seems to me that, where there are obviously certain items which could not be associated with advertising in certain forms, the purpose of this provision is not simply to put on a religious programme or news, because, in any case, we still do not know what is going to happen about providing balanced programmes.

9.15 p.m.

There may be certain programmes which the programme contractors are not willing to put on and which have a particular type of local appeal. There may be not enough advertising revenue to pay the cost of those programmes, which might apply for example to a particular part of Northern Ireland or to Scotland. The I.T.A. may, in fulfilment of their obligations to provide a balanced programme, decide to commission it, and if they can get advertising revenue for it they should be allowed to do so. How otherwise can they make these paltry amounts of money cover the obligations which are laid on them?

The Government have repeatedly said that the I.T.A. will see that there is a balance, but in order to make certain that the I.T.A. does not get away with any of the profits which their friends the programme contractors are to make, they handicap the I.T.A. in providing a balanced programme. This only serves to indicate once again the attitude of the Government in this particular sell-out.

Mr. Gordon Walker

It seems that payments will be made to the Authority for advertisements under the Clause which states: The programmes broadcast by the Authority may … include advertisements inserted therein in consideration of payments to the relevant programme contractor or … to the Authority. If payments are to be made to the Authority, what will they be for?

Mr. Gammans

Those words provide for the contingency that the Authority has to do programmes itself because of a temporary lack of a programme contractor. For a limited period, and until it gets a contractor, the Authority can do this.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hirst

I beg to move, in page 6, line 17, to leave out "advertising or other agents" and to insert: "such advertising or other agents as may be accredited by the Authority." I do not want to exaggerate the case, but there is some small danger that completely inexperienced agents will be permitted to purchase space—

Hon. Members

Time.

Sir Frederick Messer (Tottenham)

One can "get time" but one cannot get space.

Mr. Hirst

Well, time. It is the same thing, in effect. I am not proposing anything revolutionary. It has been the practice for many years for experienced advertising agents to be accredited to various media, like newspapers, periodicals and magazines, and there is some merit in that procedure. The idea here is that the same understanding should apply to the I.T.A.

One thing is occasionally overlooked by some of us. The expression used is "advertising or other agents," but they are principals. If there was anything in the way of an overdue account or anything of that sort and action had to be taken, the I.T.A. or the contractors under the I.T.A., would have no redress. To have advertising agents accredited by the I.T.A. would be some guarantee that advertisers were getting experienced handling of their work and problems and assure them that the account was safe.

Sir L. Plummer

For a variety of reasons I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment. Perhaps the most important reason is that it completely violates the principle of the Bill. We have been told repeatedly that the purpose of the Bill is to destroy the monopoly of the B.B.C., and the Assistant Postmaster-General, in urging the Bill upon us, has described the evils of that monopoly.

The hon. Gentleman now wants a monopoly of advertising agents to be maintained. That would not be good for the Bill, but that after all is a minor consideration to those of us on this side of the Committee. It certainly would not be good for advertising, and I submit that it would not be very good for the advertising agents. There is already too much concentration in the hands of the advertising agent. Practically no one can start an advertising agency today unless he gets the recognition of the advertisement managers' committee of both the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the Newspaper Society.

Indeed, the other day I read that a joint committee of those two bodies is to conduct an annual inspection of advertising agencies to see that they are run in the way that joint committee wishes. This is a most intolerable interference with the free will of people conducting a private enterprise. To suggest now that this new Authority should act in this way is to deny to private enterprise the right to conduct its business in the way that it wishes.

Mr. Hirst

The hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstands my point. I merely say that the I.T.A. should have the right to accredit agents—not that they should belong to any advertising agency.

Sir L. Plummer

Yes, I see the hon. Member's point. My reply is that the I.T.A. should allow anyone with the money to be an advertising agent, just as it will now presumably allow anyone with the money to advertise anything.

We want to get back to the competitive spirit that used to prevail amongst advertising agents. As a boy, I used to sell advertising to old gentlemen in saloon bars in the City—and a jolly race of men they were. This was long before the advertising business was degraded to something near to a profession. It was then a splendid and lively business. No advertising agent in those days was so inconsiderate of his clients' business that he would waste time sitting on the benches of this House.

Those men went out to get the business in a two-fisted way. They built up this great profession, made advertising the handmaiden of commerce and made the newspapers and magazines of this country the splendid and independent organs that today they claim they are. It is to these old pioneers that this country owes so much. I want to see the time come again when the pioneers in advertising can raise their heads—not lower them because they have not a series of letters after their names—as proper representatives of free enterprise in this country. This Amendment will destroy that chance, and I beg the Government, if they have any consideration for the pledges which they have given to this House—and I am sure that the Assistant Postmaster-General has that consideration—to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Gammans

I cannot guarantee to resurrect the old pioneers for the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). All the same, I must resist this Amendment. I think that if I were to accept it, it would in effect mean that the Authority would be asked to accept a responsibility which would be quite wrong to lay upon them by statute.

I am convinced that the advertising agents wish to ensure the highest possible standard of ethics in their profession. [Laughter. ] Hon. Members may laugh, but I think in fairness to the advertising agents, who are on the Right and the Left in this House, that they should study the very rigid code of conduct which has been laid down for the members of their institute.

Sir L. Plummer

I was not laughing.

Mr. Gammans

The effect of this Amendment would be that we should be using the specialised vehicle of the Television Bill to give legal sanction to what is already an accepted code. I think that to do so would go far beyond what is the right province of this Bill.

This should be a private matter to be arranged between the Authority and the agents themselves. It may well be, and I hope that it will be, that the programme contractors will adopt some practice such as is envisaged here, but I think that it would be going quite beyond the original purpose of this Bill if we were to lay upon the Authority a statutory obligation.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Elliot

I beg to move, in page 6, line 38, to leave out from "Authority," to second "the," in line 39, and to insert: from time to time to determine and publish. This and the next Amendment go together—in page 6, line 42, leave out from "employed," to end of line 43.

I think we are greatly heartened in moving this Amendment by the paean of praise just delivered for private enterprise and the advertising agents by the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). No one could give a more robust and vigorous description of these persons than he did. But the idea of long evenings spent in the four-ale bar and by implication—the more they spend together the happier they would be—is not exactly the business of the Postmaster-General.

We suggest that this should be in fact, as in all other bodies of the kind, the responsibility of the Authority. I would suggest that it would be quite wrong to bring in the Postmaster-General and to have all these arrangements made simply by the direction of the Postmaster-General. I think that it would be far more appropriate that they should be made by the Authority, which is the body handling and dealing with these things, and that it should from time to time determine and publish descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised, and the methods of advertising which must not be employed. The final position of the Postmaster-General is completely safeguarded in the subsequent Clause—Clause 6 (2)—where at any time the Postmaster-General may require the Authority to refrain from broadcasting any matter or classes of matter specified in the notice and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply with the notice. 9.30 p.m.

The final authority lies with the Postmaster-General, but it seems to me that the day-to-day working should be left with the Authority whose business it is. If I may take an analogy, it would be wrong for "The Listener," which is a publication containing some very good advertisements and which derives considerable revenue from these advertisements, to be under the day-to-day control of the Postmaster-General of the day. It is under the B.B.C. It is subject to the general direction of these bodies, and that is a much more businesslike way of going about it than the proposal in the Bill.

Mr. Chapman

The right hon. Gentleman said it would be undesirable for it to be under the day-to-day supervision of the Postmaster-General, but is he not aware that the subsection refers only to consultation "from time to time"? It would not be day-to-day supervision by the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Elliot

If that is so, then Clause 6 (2) covers the point completely. If it is only to be at long intervals, the point is covered, for I agree that at intervals the Postmaster-General would have to exert his authority.

I think the hon. Member probably agrees with me that this should not be brought in from day-to-day, but I fear that under the words in the subsection it might be held that a day-to-day responsibility fell upon the Postmaster-General. That might lead to endless arguments, discussions and recriminations as to whether some detergent had been advertised more than another detergent, for example. I think these commercial matters would be better left to the general supervision of the Authority, with the overriding power of the Postmaster-General—which means, of course, this House—in the background. I do not intend to take up long in moving the Amendment, which is a fairly simple and businesslike Amendment.

Mr. Shackleton

Before we proceed further with the Amendment, I wonder whether the Assistant Postmaster-General, who we now recognise as an expert on definition, would interpret this temporal phrase "from time to time." The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) said it meant "from day to day." When he was corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and told that it would happen only very occasionally, he said that would be all right. It would be helpful if the Assistant Postmaster-General could give his version.

Mr. Chapman

I will gladly give way to the Assistant Postmaster-General if he wishes to answer.

The Amendment is very much more dangerous than is realised by the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot).

Mr. Darling

Hon. Members opposite realise it.

Mr. Chapman

I think it is a very dangerous Amendment because it means that in the ultimate analysis it will be very difficult and almost impossible for there to be Parliamentary check on the kind of advertisements which are to be allowed or are not to be allowed. If the Postmaster-General is not to be responsible, even in terms of consultation, it will be almost impossible for hon. Members to put down Questions and to raise the propriety or otherwise of the inclusion of particular kinds of advertisements.

Mr. Elliot

I do not wish it to be a dangerous Amendment. How does the hon. Member interpret Clause 6 (2)?

Mr. Chapman

The point about Clause 6 (2) is that this directly results from the B.B.C. licence. There is an exactly similar Clause in the B.B.C. licence. In fact, the whole of Clause 6 is based on that. This subsection is entirely and completely intended to deal with an emergency situation. It is an emergency Clause which exists already in the B.B.C. licence. Indeed I put a question to the Postmaster-General some time ago and received the information that this Clause is practically never used, so it would be wrong to use it, because it is not intended in that way.

I also say it would be wrong for this reason, that Clause 6 would be one that would only come into operation in the way used in the case of the B.B.C. after something objectionable had appeared, the attention of the Postmaster-General had been drawn to it, he was told that it must not appear again, and he gave a direction to the I.T.A. The point being that if we leave this Clause as it is there will be discussions from time to time on the kind, the quality and the types of advertisements, and we shall not be left to use Clause 6 when the dangerous thing had happened and the wrong kind of advertising has appeared.

Mr. Elliot

May I direct the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the words: to refrain from broadcasting any matter or classes of matter… That applies to the future as well as to something that has happened, and the fact that it has not been necessary to invoke it in the case of the B.B.C. might well mean that it need not be invoked here. but it is invokable.

Mr. Ness Edwards

We have had some experience of this matter and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this refers to times of emergency. Let me give the most recent example of which I am aware. There was an unofficial stoppage in the docks at Bristol. The B.B.C. were going to put on a programme featuring the unofficial leaders of that strike. Information came to the Ministry of Labour about this, and the B.B.C. were given an instruction that they were not to put on that feature because it would justify an unofficial stoppage. The same thing happened in the dock strike in London after a state of emergency had been declared. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the meaning of that Clause, which is in the B.B.C. Charter, is the meaning which I have given to it.

Mr. Chapman

Having dealt with that point, perhaps I may come to my main point, but not necessarily answering the right hon. Gentleman. I wonder if it is realised that if we pass this Amendment we shall have the I.T.A. standing entirely by itself, responsible for judging advertisements, without the consultation and without the advice from Government Departments of what is known about certain kinds of advertisers.

I want to draw attention to what happens in the newspaper world to prevent the inclusion of advertisements which are unreliable and which are advertising fraudulent products and to prevent newspapers from being used in this way. There is in the newspaper world a Copy Committee of the Advertising Managers Committee of the Newspaper Proprietors Association. This committee keeps continual watch on the kind of advertisements that ought not to appear because they are advertising products which are strongly suspected to be fraudulent and which are exacting money from people for products which are worthless. In other words, the newspaper world has its own way of keeping a check on undesirable advertisements.

If we pass this Amendment, the net effect will be that there would be for the I.T.A. no such kind of equivalent consultation as that could come via the Postmaster-General and the information he has from the Board of Trade. None of that would be advisable, and the Postmaster-General would have no responsibility. The result might be that a lot of worthless, fraudulent advertisements were put over in good faith by the I.T.A. simply because there was no means of knowing how reliable were the advertisers. I should like to direct the right hon. Gentleman to that point. It would be much better to retain the stipulation that the Postmaster-General must be consulted from time to time.

One of the best reasons for doing so is the infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act which we know to be going on. Questions about some of these fraudulent advertisements have been asked in the House of Commons. The President of the Board of Trade, via the Postmaster-General, could make these facts known quite happily and easily to the I.T.A. and so prevent acceptance of advertisements from these people.

Mr. Elliot

Would the hon. Gentleman agree to its being the duty of the Authority to consult from time to time with trade associations? Obviously the Postmaster-General has no knowledge of these things. It might well be that the Authority should consult somebody, but I do not think that the Postmaster-General is the appropriate person.

Mr. Chapman

I could show why even a trade association would not be very helpful in these cases. Not very long ago, for example, a smoking cure called "Apal" was marketed and was widely advertised in very good faith, just as it might have been advertised through the I.T.A. It was a thing which was given to people to suck. It was rather like a cigarette holder and was sold for 25s. A public analyst came along and said that the thing was an absolute fraud, that it consisted merely of sawdust and menthol crystals worth about 2d. and by sucking it people might be put off smoking. This thing was made in thousands. What trade association would have had the responsibility for checking an advertisement of that kind? The I.T.A. could not consult a trade association as to whether advertisements of a product like that should be accepted.

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

Does the hon. Member think that the Postmaster-General would be in a better position to know?

Mr. Chapman

We know that the Board of Trade is constantly investigating this kind of racket. Questions are addressed to the President of the Board of Trade every week about infringements of merchandise marks and fraudulent selling of this kind. It would be quite easy and proper for the Postmaster-General to collect information from other members of the Government and say to the I.T.A. behind the scenes—acting in rather the same capacity as the newspaper committee to which I referred—that that kind of advertisement should not be accepted.

Mr. Hall

Would it not be equally easy for the Board of Trade to pass the same information on to the I.T.A.?

Mr. Chapman

The hon. Member does not appear to appreciate that we want the duty lard upon the Postmaster-General to do this so that the Assistant Postmaster-General can be questioned in the House of Commons. If the Postmaster-General can take his chance as to whether he passes information on or not we shall have no opportunity to check the matter in the House. I hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment, for the reason that we must have a better check on advertisements of this kind which might be accepted in good faith but which might be advertisements of fraudulent products that should be kept from the television screen.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)

This matter is getting very complicated by reason of far too much advocacy. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman looks at this matter again, he will see that the effect of his Amendment would be diametrically opposite to what he wants it to be. The phrase "from time to time," which appears in subsection (5), means at any time that there is a fundamental change in policy. It means that if the Postmaster-General has agreed on a certain class of programme in relation to an advertisement and it is proposed to make a fundamental change in the programme, then the Authority must go to the Postmaster-General.

The right hon. Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Elliot) mentioned in Clause 6 (2). That states quite explicity: The Postmaster-General may at any time by notice in writing require the Authority to refrain from broadcasting any matter or classes of matter specified in the notice and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply with the notice. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing completely to neutralise that, because his Amendment states: from time to time to determine and publish, which completely cuts out the overriding authority which the Minister would have in regard to such programmes.

Therefore, as a matter of construction, the position, summarised, is this. As the Clause stands, it merely means that the Authority must consult the Postmaster-General from time to time. The object of the consultation is that the Authority shall get the approval of the Postmaster-General concerning the type of programme and the advertisement which is going to be used.

Clause 6 (2), on the other hand, gives the Postmaster-General the authority to intervene if necessary if the I.T.A. does something in regard to advertisements which it ought not to do, or which is contrary to the policy which the Postmaster-General thinks ought to be pursued. That gives the Postmaster-General the power, of his own volition, and without consulting the Authority, to intervene. Therefore, the two things work in one with the other. If this Amendment were carried, it would undermine and probably destroy that position, and, therefore, I advise the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Elliot

How does the hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile what he is saying with the words: Without prejudice to any of the duties incumbent on the Authority otherwise than under this subsection…"?

Mr. Turner-Samuels

That is quite separate from this specific matter regarding consultation. That merely strengthens my argument.

Mr. Simon

I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept this Amendment. There have really been only two arguments against it. The first was that of the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), which really amounted to the fact that we want to preserve the right of Parliamentary Questions regarding advertisements which are put out over the air and on the screen.

The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has many times laid down in this House valuable constitutional doctrine as to the limits of Parliamentary Questions over any public authority which is set up, and the I.T.A. falls completely within that doctrine. Everything he said about the nationalised industries, the B.B.C., and so on, applies equally to the I.T.A.

The second argument was the legal one of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) to the effect that if this Amendment were accepted it would nullify Clause 6 (2). With respect, that is quite incorrect. Clause 4 (5) reads: Without prejudice to any of the duties incumbent on the Authority otherwise than under this subsection.… The words otherwise than under this subsection mean Clause 6 (2), which requires the Authority, in effect, to accept the directions of the Postmaster-General not to broadcast certain classes of advertisement.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if this Amendment were accepted the subsection would read: …it shall be the duty of the Authority from time to time to determine and publish the classes and descriptions…"? It is imperative and leaves no scope for the Postmaster-General to do anything about the matter at all, to approve or disapprove.

Mr. Simon

With respect, I entirely disagree with that interpretation, which disregards the opening words of the subsection. The subsection would read: …it shall be the duty of the Authority from time to time to determine and publish the classes and descriptions of goods which cannot be advertised, and there is an overriding authority in Clause 6 (2) to the Postmaster-General to require the Authority to refrain from broadcasting any matter or classes of matter specified in the notice. It is clear that that is an overriding authority, and is intended as such. As those are the only two arguments which have been put forward against the Amendment, I ask my hon. Friend to accept it.

Mr. Blackburn

I am not surprised that this Amendment has been moved from the other side of the Committee, because there are some who look longingly on the idea of untrammelled sponsored televi- sion, and the more they can do away with any sort of control the more they will be pleased. They want to do away with the necessity to consult with the Postmaster-General.

I can understand their point of view if they believe in sponsored television, but I cannot understand the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) bringing in Clause 6 (2) in support of their argument. They are in favour of doing away with consultation and relying upon direction or dictation. But Clause 6 (2) is expected to be used very rarely indeed. In Clause 6 (2) we have direction from the Postmaster-General, and that is what hon. Members opposite want to put in place of consultation in Clause 4. I sincerely hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will refuse to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Gammans

The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) asked me how I interpreted the words "from time to time." I do not know whether that question was meant as seriously as it was put forward, but I will do my best to answer it. I would regard "from time to time" as meaning when the Authority thinks it necessary to do so, or when the Postmaster-General thinks it necessary to do so. The point is that the situation may change from time to time; new products may come along, and it is then that the consultation which is envisaged in this Bill would take place.

I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment, and I will give the reasons in a moment. The Government feel that this is not a matter which should be left to the Authority alone, which I gather would be the effect if this Amendment were accepted. I think also that there is a point which hon. Members may have overlooked. That is that a pledge has been given with respect to this matter. I will read the pledge: As regards advertisements, the Corporation would be required to agree with the Postmaster-General the general conditions it would impose, such as the types of advertising and classes of advertisement to be excluded. That is a pledge by which we must stand. We do not feel that we could accept the Amendment which would vitiate that pledge and which would in effect exclude the Postmaster-General and, by excluding him, exclude Parliament from all control over these matters. I think my right hon. and hon. Friends felt that Clause 6 (2) might cover any defect in that arrangement. I would agree, I think, in that matter with the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who said that this was an emergency subsection and was not meant to be made to cover the sort of contingency we have here.

Captain Orr

Does the subsection as it stands mean that the types and classes of advertisements could be the subject periodically, say, week by week, of Parliamentary Questions?

Mr. Gammans

I think that is a different question altogether. Any matter into which the Postmaster-General comes can be the subject of Parliamentary Questions.

Captain Orr

He comes in here.

Mr. Gammans

Wherever he comes in.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Or refuses to come in.

Mr. Gammans

Or refuses to come in, yes. Wherever the Postmaster-General comes in, then that is a matter which can be the subject of the Parliamentary processes.

Mr. Simon

If that is right, he comes in whenever there is a duty to be consulted. In other words, he can be questioned in the House as to the …classes and descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised.…

Mr. Gammans

That is inevitable, if we bring in the Postmaster-General. I realise what is at the back of the minds of my hon. Friends. They would like the powers of the Minister to be reduced to the minimum. We agree on general principles, therefore. The Bill is drafted with that in mind. However, in this particular case a pledge has been given in the House, and it is not a pledge on which we are prepared to go back.

We come to the question of publication. It is unnecessary to provide for that in the Bill. The people who will be mostly concerned will be the programme contractors and the advertising agents, and they, of course, will be informed by the Authority what the prohibitions are. Indeed, some of the prohibitions may be incorporated in the contracts between the Authority and the programme companies.

We envisage that the Authority will have an advisory committee on advertising matters. I sincerely hope it will. I think it will be very difficult for it to do its business without such an advisory committee, and I have no doubt that advertising agents will be only too happy to serve on an advisory committee. I think, therefore, that if there is to be an advisory committee, and if information is to be given to the programme contractors and to the advertising agents, there is no reason for wider publication. Indeed, I can see certain strong reasons against it. I think it would be rather undesirable that a certain product or even the names of certain firms should be singled out, as it were. I think this is largely a commercial transaction, and should be regarded as such, and that to go further than this would be very undesirable.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards

I welcome the reply of the hon. Gentleman on this matter. I think it would be a tragedy if the accountability of the Postmaster-General to this House were taken away. The effect of these two Amendments would be to take away from this House the right to question the Minister when. in conjunction with the Authority, he has decided that certain goods shall not be advertised.

The Clause says: it shall be the duty of the Authority to consult from time to time with the Postmaster-General as to the classes and descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised and the methods of advertising which must not be employed… I should have thought, apart from the general pledge that has been given, that here was a matter which could only be safe in the hands of the House of Commons. In the last analysis the House ought to maintain a continuous control of the type of things we are to see on commercial television. I think the Government are absolutely right on this point.

The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) made a point in regard to Clause 6 (2) about which I hope he is now satisfied. That provides for intervention in any matter by the Postmaster-General, but it relates to emergencies rather than normal operations of the Television Authority. In these circumstances, if the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove presses this Amendment, he can be sure that we shall vote against it.

Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North)

Is it really seriously suggested by my hon. Friend that in this House of Commons where we cannot question Ministers on the detailed running of nationalised industries we are to have hon. Members putting Questions on individual products advertised in commercial television, and that they might be briefed by competitors of those making those products? Will the Assistant Postmaster-General be answering Questions about whether a product such as a particular detergent should be advertised or not? That would be making an absolute and utter farce of the House of Commons.

Mr. Gammans

Such Questions may or may not be desirable, but the fact is that I am not responsible for the nationalisation Measures which went through this House. Those Measures laid down a certain idea of the relationship of the State to nationalised industries, and the House accepted it. This is a different matter altogether. We are laying down the relation of the Authority under a specific Act of Parliament. The fact is that whenever the Postmaster-General comes into the matter he can be questioned in this House.

Mr. Hirst

He should not come into it.

Mr. Gammans

That may be the view of my hon. Friend, but the fact is that when the name of the Postmaster-General appears he can be questioned in this House.

Mr. Ness Edwards

Do I take it that it is the view of hon. Members opposite that if certain people are excluded from advertising on television we are not entitled to ask Questions about those who are excluded? Are not the rights of the individual now to have some protection in this House in the view of Members on the opposite side of the Committee. If there is a list of goods which cannot be advertised, hon. Members may think that there are certain goods in that list which ought to be advertised and will claim the right to raise the rights of their constituents in this matter in the House.

There is also the problem of a type of goods being advertised which offends general good sense, taste and the sense of decency of the people of this country. Is it suggested that hon. Members are not to be entitled to raise that matter on the Floor of the House of Commons?

Mr. F. Harris

If our constituents suffer from the running of nationalised industries we cannot protect them by asking Questions in this House at present.

Mr. Ness Edwards

The hon. Member forgets that a pledge was given to see that there should be fair play on television. The pledge was that there should be full accountability to this House for what went on on television. I am not talking of the normal run of advertisements, but of the special action of excluding something from the list of what can be advertised. In my view, such special action is a matter which we should be entitled to raise in this House.

Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman now adopts the view that an Authority existing outside this House, financed by this House, can take action against a citizen, and that citizen will have no right to seek redress on the Floor of this House? That is the case the hon. Gentleman is making, and apart from the pledge altogether, I should have thought that these two Amendments first defeat the pledge and secondly rob the citizen of the protection to which he is entitled.

Captain Orr

This is really terribly unsatisfactory—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, it is. I suggest that it will be impossible in this country to get complete agreement as to matters or classes of matters which should be advertised on television. Consequently, if I interpret what my hon. Friend has said aright, we are liable every Wednesday in this House or on the days on which the Assistant Postmaster-General answers Questions, to have Questions from people who dislike a particular type of product. I can visualise the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) being in his place every Wednesday with his quota of three Questions.

Is that what my hon. Friend envisages? Why should that be? We are setting up an Authority which my hon. Friend has already said that we must trust in great matters, and we have supported him faithly in that. It is an Authority composed of responsible people. Yet we say that their actions and the type and class of goods allowed to be advertised shall be subject to day-to-day questioning in this House in a way that no nationalised industry can be subject to Questions. It is as if an advertisement is regarded as a dangerous and improper thing in this country. It has never been thought necessary that we should exercise statutory control of the methods of advertising and the classes of advertisement appearing in the Press.

Mr. Chapman

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that so far as the Assistant Postmaster-General is concerned at this moment we can question him about absolutely everything, including the way a letter was delivered from here to there at any time? Over a period of time Parliament has settled down to the proper use and non-abuse of that kind of thing. In fact, with the Post Office we have a very happy system and there is no reason why it should not apply in this case.

Captain Orr

It is not true that we can question the Assistant Postmaster-General about everything. We cannot do that completely. The Postmaster-General has an overriding responsibility for the B.B.C., but we cannot question the Assistant Postmaster-General about the day-to-day programmes or workings of the B.B.C. The other day there was a very unsatisfactory broadcast by the Bishop of Leeds which offended some people in Northern Ireland, and I could not question the Assistant Postmaster-General about it. Yet Questions are to be allowed to be asked every day about every single possible form of programme—

Mr. Chapman

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise—I will take a bet with him—that if the Assistant Post-master-General accepts an advertisement to be included in a book of stamps I can ask Questions about it. If that is so, why cannot I ask the hon. Gentleman similar Questions about another medium of advertising for which he is responsible?

Mr. Elliot

I do not know if my hon. and gallant Friend has finished his remarks. I do not wish to interrupt him.

Captain Orr

I have not quite finished. I thought that my right hon. Friend was making another intervention.

Mr. F. Harris

May I remind my hon. and gallant Friend that we cannot question the Minister of Transport about advertisements which appear on the Underground.

Captain Orr

I suggest that is very relevant. If the Minister of Transport is responsible, and if there appears an offensive advertisement on public transport, we cannot question him. Why should we necessarily be able to question the Assistant Postmaster-General.

We want the Postmaster-General to have over-riding authority. If the I.T.A. was so unwise as suddenly to permit some class of advertisement which was offensive to the British people, under Clause 6 (2) the Postmaster-General has absolute authority to stop it. If any representations are made to him, he can require the Authority to refrain from broadcasting. There is no difficulty about the matter at all.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

Let us get this clear. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman want to cut out the Postmaster-General's authority completely. That is what the Amendment seeks to do?

Captain Orr

That is not what the Amendment seeks to do.

It has already been pointed out that the subsection begins with the phrase: Without prejudice to any of the duties incumbent on the Authority… I should like the Postmaster-General to have overriding authority in this matter, which he has already got in relation to the broad policy relating to advertising, but judgment in respect of the classes and the day-to-day insertion of advertisements in programmes put on by contractors should be left to the Authority, a responsible body which we are setting up.

While I would not necessarily urge my hon. Friends to press the matter to a Division now, I must reserve my position for a future stage of the Bill, because I should like my hon. Friend to look at the matter again.

Mr. H. Morrison

This is a most illuminating discussion. I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they have any convictions about their philosophy relating to answerability to Parliament, it is time they challenged a Division. Let them divide if they have any—I do not know what word to use which comes within the degrees of order…real courage. They make an attack upon the Government, to which I have no objection—I am all in favour of their attacking the Government—but the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with typical cowardice on his part—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—Parliamentary cowardice on his part, though he is willing to get up and attack, when it comes to going into the Lobby against the Government, he runs away. It is typical Parliamentary cowardice.

What is the argument behind the Amendment? The essential point is that hon. Gentlemen opposite want to cut the Postmaster-General out of authority in this sphere which concerns the use of advertisements in commercial television. Why do they want to cut out the Postmaster-General? The answer is clear. They wish there to be no Parliamentary accountability whatever.

Captain Orr

No.

Mr. Morrison

I will come to the hon. and gallant Gentleman in a moment. That is the argument. The hon. and gallant Gentleman really ought to be careful. The whole purpose is to cut out the Postmaster-General, not because hon. Gentlemen opposite dislike the Postmaster-General and not even because they dislike the Assistant Postmaster-General, which, heaven knows, I could understand. The motive is to cut out the right of the House of Commons to challenge these things.

Captain Orr

rose—

Mr. Morrison

Let the hon. and gallant Gentleman wait a moment. Let us get the Parliamentary doctrine right.

10.15 p.m.

They are after cutting out the House of Commons and its rights. That is what they want to do, and, if they want it, let them divide the Committee and let the nation know that, in this matter of commercial advertising on commercial television, the Tory Party is advocating that our television should become commercialised, instead of being a public service, and that they are determined that there shall be no Parliamentary control over it at all. That is what they are about.

Let us compare that with the attitude towards the nationalised industries, and this is not a Bill for the nationalisation— [Interruption. ] Why should I give way? We are working under a Guillotine, and, if the Government will take off the Guillotine, I will give way with pleasure. [Interruption. ] If ever I want to learn manners, I will not learn them from the Tory Party. I would sooner learn them from the working classes, who know more about manners than the Tory Party. They are making a comparison here—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset. South)

rose—

Mr. Morrison

I hope the noble Lord will not provoke me, because if I start on him, I shall really get out of order. I know the noble Lord; I know his class superiority very well, and I understand it.

The comparison has been drawn in the course of the argument between this Measure and the nationalised industries. This Bill has nothing to do with the nationalised industries; it certainly is not a nationalised industries Bill. It is a Bill for the purpose of bringing commercial capitalist considerations and control into television; that is what it is for, that is the soul of the Tory Party in this matter, and the Home Secretary and the Assistant Postmaster-General are behind it all.

What happened about the nationalised industries? When I brought in the London Passenger Transport Bill in 1930 or 1931, the complaint was that there was too much Ministerial responsibility, and it was denounced. When the Labour Government in 1949 brought in their nationalisation Bills, there was a similar criticism, and, afterwards, when those Bills were on the Statute Book, there was a complaint from the Conservative Party that they could not put meticulous Questions on the day-to-day management of those industries. That was their complaint, and they constantly denounced it.

Tonight, having argued that there should be meticulous accountability to the House of Commons on the day-to-day management of publicly-owned industry, they now demand that there should be no Parliamentary accountability for a service which is not publicly owned, which is not under public control, but which is commercial, capitalist and advertising, in acordance with the wishes of hon. Members opposite all the way along the line. I say that there is an utter and contemptible hypocrisy about the whole thing, and I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that, if they believe it, they should have the courage of their convictions, if they have any, which I doubt. The test will be that if they have the courage of their convictions they will divide. If they do not divide, it will merely mean that hon. Gentlemen who support the Government are typical Lobby fodder.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and I could not help being reminded of an expression of his. He used to conclude the debates about two Parliaments ago with words which became familiar to everyone—"A good time has been had by all." It was a favourite phrase of the right hon. Gentleman, and it aptly describes his speech. No one is a greater master than he, not only at choosing his own arguments but choosing the arguments which he imputes to his opponents, in order to find those which can be most easily demolished.

He and I know, and we all know, that the question of accountability to Parliament of a public corporation is one of the most difficult points in modern Parliamentary and industrial legislative history. We have all tried to tackle it and we have all been brought up by this difficulty. I believe there is a perfectly genuine difficulty of appreciation on both sides of the Committee.

I start with the point which was made by one of my hon. Friends. I want to remind the Committee about it again. We said in the White Paper: As regards advertisements, the Corporation would be required to agree with the Postmaster-General"— I ask the Committee to note the next words— the general conditions it would impose, such as the types of advertising and classes of advertisement to be excluded. We have translated that statement into the words in the Bill. There will be two duties on the Authority. One duty is: …it shall be the duty of the Authority to consult from time to time with the Postmaster-General. I shall come to the subject of consultation in a moment. The second duty is: …to carry out any directions which he may give them in those respects. I would point out to everyone that I am standing by the Bill as carrying out the policy which the Government have adopted.

The first duty on the Authority is to consult the Postmaster-General. I believe that on due consideration everyone would think that was a reasonable thing for the Authority to do. Of course, it leaves it to the Authority to consult the Postmaster-General when it thinks that that is right. That surely exemplifies one of the points which we have tried to hammer out. Whether we agree on it or not, it is our intention, after the first disagreement on any Bill setting up a public corporation, to try to improve it.

Mr. H. Morrison

It is not a public corporation.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

The right hon. Gentleman says that, and of course his ipse dixit carries a lot of weight in this House. But if he tried so to dogmatise in any place where there was an objective criterion of his decision, it would not have the same happy result. The point that I was making was that that was a fair duty to put on the Authority—to consult the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Can the Postmaster-General require them to consult him if he feels that there is undue delay?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

It is difficult to know when the time would arrive. I should not like to dogmatise. I go thus far with the right hon. Gentleman, that if there was a failure to consult for a time that would show that the duty was being disregarded. There are methods, which I need not elaborate in the short time available, of seeing that the duty is performed.

Mr. Gordon Walker

We could ask Questions about it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

That is another point.

The stage at which Questions will come is a matter dependent, as the right hon. Gentleman has implied, on whether or not the Authority is in default of its duty to consult as to the classes or descriptions of goods or services and to the methods of advertising. I think that at an earlier stage in the debate there was some confusion between what are termed general conditions and individual goods and services. I think that is a point which my right hon. and hon. Friends should consider, because I think it meats some of the difficulties which have been expressed.

Then one comes to the second duty—if a position arises in which the Authority has consulted the Postmaster-General in respect to these matters which I have mentioned, and the Postmaster-General has to give it directions. That clearly applies in a wide field of legislation. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, during the war, it first came into considerable use in connection with the War Damage Commission, with which he was very familiar. I think no one can complain about Parliamentary inquiry and control as to whether directions that have been given have been carried out clearly. That is a Ministerial function and something over which Parliament must have control.

If I may quote the right hon. Gentleman again "a good time has been had by all." I would add that I think the warmth of the good time engendered a few moments ago has been caused by the two sides to some extent exaggerating the difference between us. On consideration I think that both sides will find that we have struck a happy medium. I shall again—as I always promise and always perform—consider very carefully the arguments that have been advanced; but, with great respect, I think that hon. Members have got this matter out of proportion.

Mr. Elliot

We shall bring this matter up again, but in consideration of the undertaking Which has been given—and, of course, refusing to fall into the very obvious trap which has been laid for us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who is just back from his Continental holiday and a little exuberant with the wine and food of Strasbourg—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment—

Hon. Members

No.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman

Mr. Shackleton.

Mr. Shackleton

In the 30 seconds left there is not much time to move my Amendment, but I would point out that since the last Guillotine we have been wholly occupied with Amendments moved by the other side—

It being Half-past Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to Clause 4, and the further Question necessary to complete the proceedings on that Clause.

Amendment made: In page 7, line 9, at end, add: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting the inclusion, in any part of a programme broadcast by the Authority which is not an advertisement, of any of the following matters, that is to say:— (a)items designed to give publicity to the needs of any association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes; (b)reviews of literary, artistic or other publications or productions, including current entertainments; (c)items consisting of factual portrayals of doings, happenings, places or things, being items which in the opinion of the Authority are proper for inclusion by reason of their intrinsic interest or instructiveness and do not comprise an undue element of advertisement; (d)announcements of the place of any performance included in the programme, or of the name and description of the persons concerned as performers or otherwise in any such performance, announcements of the number and description of any record so included, and acknowledgments of any permission granted in respect of any such performance, persons or record; (e)such other matters (if any) as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Postmaster General by statutory instrument after consultation with the Authority, or as prohibiting the inclusion of an advertisement in any programme broadcast by the Authority by reason only of the fact that it is related in subject-matter to any part of that programme which is not an advertisement. (7) Before making any regulations under paragraph (e) of the proviso to the last preceding subsection the Postmaster General shall lay a draft thereof before each House of Parliament, and shall not make the regulations until a resolution has been passed by each House of Parliament approving the draft.—[Mr. Gammans.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Benn (seated and covered)

May I ask your guidance, Sir Charles? My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) had moved his Amendment before the Guillotine fell and, if I am correct, you proceeded to put the following Amendment and did not put the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.

The Chairman

When the Guillotine falls I have to put from the Chair the Question already proposed.

Mr. Benn (seated and covered)

But you had called my hon. Friend to move his Amendment, Sir Charles.

The Chairman

Yes, but the Question had not been put from the Chair.

Mr. Benn (seated and covered)

Following that point of order, Sir Charles, and for guidance, when the Guillotine fell was it not the obligation of the Chair to put the Question that had then been moved?

The Chairman

No, certainly not.

Mr. Shackleton (seated and covered)

If in the course of moving my Amendment, Sir Charles, could I have been speaking for five or 10 minutes, would you not then have been obliged to put the Question?

The Chairman

No. I thought, when the hon. Gentleman said that there were 30 seconds to go, there was plenty of time for him to finish moving his Amendment, but he did not do so; he went on talking. I have to put any Question proposed from the Chair when the Guillotine falls, and it could have been put if the hon. Gentleman had moved his Amendment at once.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 162.

Division No. 125.] AYES [10.30 p.m.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Glover, D. Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Alport, C. J. M. Godber, J. B. Markham, Major Sir Frank
Amery, Julian, (Preston, N.) Graham, Sir Fergus Marlowe, A. A. H.
Arbuthnot, John Grimond, J. Marples, A. E.
Baldwin, A. E. Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Maude, Angus
Barlow, Sir John Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Maudling, R.
Beach, Maj. Hicks Hall, John (Wycombe) Medlicott, Brig. F.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) Mellor, Sir John
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Molson, A. H. E.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Moore, Sir Thomas
Bishop, F. P. Harvie-Watt, Sir George Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Black, C. W. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Nabarro, G. D. N.
Boothby, Sir R. J. G. Heath, Edward Neave, Airey
Bossom, Sir A. C. Higgs, J. M. C. Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Bowen, E. R. Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Nicolson Nigel (Bournemouth E.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Nield Basil (Chester)
Boyle, Sir Edward Hirst, Geoffrey Noble Comdr. A. H. P.
Braine, B. R. Holland-Martin, C. J. Nugent, G. R. H.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney Horobin, I, M. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.) Page, R. G.
Bullard, D. G. Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. Perkins, Sir Robert
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Iremonger, T. L. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Burden, F. F. A. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Carr, Robert Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Pitman, I. J.
Cary, Sir Robert Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Pitt, Miss E. M.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Jones, A. (Hall Green) Powell, J. Enoch
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Kaberry, D. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Colegate, W. A. Kerby, Capt. H. B. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Kerr, H. W. Raikes, Sir Victor
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Lambton, Viscount Redmayne, M.
Cooper-Key, E. M. Langford-Holt, J. A. Remnant, Hon. P.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Leather, E. H. C. Renton, D. L. M.
Crookshank, Capt. RT. Hon. H. F. C. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Ridsdale, J. E.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Roberts Peter (Heeley)
Crouch, R. F. Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Lindsay, Martin Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Linstead, Sir H. N. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Deedes, W. F. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Russell, R. S.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm Longden, Gilbert Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Drewe, Sir C. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Schofield Lt—Col. W.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. McAdden, S. J. Shepherd, William
Finlay, Graeme Macdonald, Sir Peter Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Fisher, Nigel McKibbin, A. J. Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Snadden, W. MON.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell Maclean, Fitroy Speir, R. M.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.) Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Gammans, L. D. Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Tilney, John Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Storey, S. Touche, Sir Gordon Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Summers, G. S. Turner, H. F. L. Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold Turton, R. H. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Vane, W. M. F. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. Wills, G.
Teeling, W. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone) Wood, Hon. R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Walker-Smith, D. C.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) Wall, Major Patrick TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.) Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) Mr. Studholme and Mr. Vosper
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard Hale, Leslie Parker, J
Adams, Richard Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Parkin, B. T
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Pearson, A.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hamilton, W. W. Plummer, Sir Leslie
Bacon, Miss Alice Hannan, W. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Baird, J. Hargreaves, A. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Hastings, S. Proctor, W. T.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood Hayman, F. H. Pryde, D. J.
Benson, G. Healey, Danis (Leeds, S.E.) Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Bing, G. H. C. Herbison, Miss M. Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Blackburn, F. Hobson, C. R. Roberts Albert (Normanton)
Blenkinsop, A. Holman, P. Ross, William
Blyton, W. R. Houghton, Douglas Royle, C
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Shackleton, E. A. A
Brockway, A. F. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Short, E. W.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Shurmer, P. L. E.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Janner, B. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Skeffington, A. M.
Burke, W. A. Jeger, Mrs. Lena Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Johnson, James (Rugby) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Jones, David (Hartlepool) Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Champion, A. J. Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Snow, J. W.
Chapman, W. D. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Sorensen, R. W.
Collick, P. H. Keenan, W. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Kenyon, C. Sparks, J. A.
Cove, W. G. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) King, Dr. H. M. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E
Crosland, C. A. R. Lawson, G. M. Sylvester, G. O.
Crossman, R. H. S. Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) MacColl, J. E. Tomney, F.
Davies, Harold (Leek) McKay, John (Wallsend) Turner-Samuels, M.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) McLeavy, F. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Deer, G. Mann, Mrs. Jean Usborne, H. C.
Dodds, N. N. Manuel, A. C. Viant, S. P.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Marquand, Rt. Hon H A Wallace, H. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mason, Roy Warbey, W. N.
Edelman, M. Mayhew, C. P. Weitzman, D.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) Messer, Sir F. Wells, William (Walsall)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Mitchison, G. R Wheeldon, W. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Moody, A. S. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Morley, R. Wilkins, W. A.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) Willey, F. T.
Fernyhough, E. Moyle, A. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) Mulley, F. W. Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Foot, M. M. Nally, W. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Forman, J. C. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Freeman, John (Watford) O'Brien, T. Willis, E. G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Orbach, M. Wyatt, W. L.
Gibson, C. W. Oswald, T. Yates, V. F.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Palmer, A. M. F.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) Pannell, Charles TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grey, C. F. Pargiter, G. A. Mr. Holmes and
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

Then the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.