TELEVISION BILL

HC Deb 31 May 1954 vol 528 cc902-1037

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress 27th May].

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Second Schedule.—(RULES AS TO ADVERTISEMENTS.)

3.35 p.m.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I beg to move, in page 17, line 13, at the end, to insert:

1. There shall be no advertisements on any Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday.

It is regrettable that not only have we been refused a free vote on this matter, in order, I am perfectly sure, to safeguard the consciences of many hon. Members opposite, but we are also discussing this matter, which is very important, under the shadow of the Guillotine. That means that we shall have to dispense with this important subject probably in half or three quarters of an hour. If we consider that a question of Sunday golf, when debated in a local council will probably run into a discussion lasting some weeks, and then probably require a full council meeting after that, it shows us exactly how far this Government have lost all sense of proportion in matters vitally affecting millions of people in this country.

I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) is in his place, in view of the fact that he considered Sunday so important that no extra work should be done on that day, and that he put down an Amendment to ensure not only that the fun fair at the Festival Gardens should be closed on Sundays, but the gardens as well. The hon. Gentleman should be voting for this Amendment.

Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, East)

rose—

Mr. Ross

I am sorry I cannot give way; I must be very short, and, after all, the hon. Gentleman voted for the Guillotine.

In our opinion, commercial television in application to Sunday is wrong in principle. It will, in practice, be destructive of a distinctive and cherished feature of our way of life—the traditional British Sunday. Even today, Sunday is a day of rest and of worship. Millions of people throughout these islands look upon Sunday as providing an opportunity for quiet study and recreation.

I would remind hon. Members opposite of what was said on an earlier occasion, and, in particular, I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) is in his place, because I wish to remind him of what he said in his speech on 28th November, 1950: … I should have thought that the case for maintaining as far as possible the observance of the Christian Sunday as a day of rest and worship and a time when men and women could take a detached, dispassionate and calm view of life and its deeper issues was probably stronger than it had ever been before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 1029.] I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will hold to those sentiments when he considers and contemplates what will be the outcome of this Bill if this Amendment is not carried.

Let us look first at the power of television. This is not something confined to one corner of London. This is a means of communication with the family circle. This is an aspect which should be of concern to all those who wish to preserve the British Sunday. It is not good enough for the Home Secretary to say that this kind of entertainment does not really matter at all. The whole tone of Sunday as we know it now will be affected by this development. I wonder how the Scottish grandfather of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have reacted to the statement which he has made at that Box today?

The whole purpose of commercial television, whether it be from the point of view from the programme contractors, the advertising agents or those who are themselves advertising, is to further their commercial interests, to extend their business, to sell more goods and make more money; in short, to profit. What we are being asked to say by the denial of this Amendment is that these people shall be free to do this kind of thing on Sunday— to commercialise Sunday just because it is Sunday. Sunday is very often the one day in the week when the whole family is at home together, and it is a day of rest— the only time in the whole week when such rest is possible. It is a day, quite apart from worship and devotions. devoted to the family. It is because Sunday is a family day that the Home Secretary and others are insisting that a monopoly for the commercialising of Sunday shall be given to the advertisers.

When we asked the Assistant Postmaster-General for at least two religious services on Sunday, he told us unblushingly that it would cost too much, but it will not cost too much for the detergent companies to advertise on Sunday. I see, according to the "Economist" this week, that one of the detergent firms last year spent on Press advertising alone more than £1,100,000. To provide a balanced programme under the proposed set-up, we are to vote £750,000 to the Independent Television Authority in respect of traditional forms of British television and of the British way of life, not only for Sunday but for the whole 365 days. Another firm proposes to spend £1 million launching a new detergent. We are told that cleanliness is next to godliness, but under commercial television cleanliness will exclude godliness. Religion will not be able to buy its way into Sunday. That day will be a commercialised day such as we hear from Luxembourg and other places.

The Home Secretary has the cheek to tell us that this does not matter and that we do not require a free vote on this issue. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson) will vote on this issue? He could not possibly see any part of the Festival Gardens opened on Sundays, not even the museums. He said that it was contrary to the will of God Almighty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 558.] Yet he is willing to open up the homes of millions of people who will have television in the next year or so to the insidious effect of commercial television. We say that it is wrong in principle to have commercial television on Sunday simply because of the money that the advertisers get out of it.

It is inevitable that to catch a mass audience there will be popular programmes of the worst sort. Nothing that the Assistant Postmaster-General has said has convinced me that the safeguards are strong enough to protect the quality of those programmes. I can only remind him that the Church of Scotland said, in the "Church and Nation" Committee's Report issued last year: Competition, dominated by the profit motive, would almost inevitably lead to a pandering to 'popular' taste, a general lowering of standards, and a different attitude towards the responsibilities implied in the use of a great new medium of communication. 3.45 p.m.

I hope that hon. Members who still value the British Sunday will support our Amendment. It is not good enough to say that this is just a slight extension of the secularising of Sunday. I wonder just what Billy Graham said to the Prime Minister on this question when he saw him. He came over here to save us from secularism. Did he talk about this Bill? It would be interesting to know his feelings about it. We are not making a small step. But what did the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) say when we were discussing the opening of the Festival Gardens? It was: … while each step, taken by itself, along the road to secularising Sunday might … be regarded as reasonable and tolerable, the cumulative effect … will, if we are not careful, result in such a change in the public approach to Sunday as will make us regret the approval which each of us gave for each of the individual steps."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1950; Vol. 481. c. 550.] We fear that the whole attitude towards Sunday will be changed and that the worst features of popular entertainment will come from commercial television. It is not enough to say that we can switch it off. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say on this very point when he spoke about the Festival Gardens? He said: It is not enough to say that those who do not like these things can stop away. In matters such as these, the need to maintain a certain distinctive, social and ethical climate depends upon the community acting as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 625.] In this House we have a corporate responsibility for the maintenance of the British Sunday. We shall betray the generations who have built it up and defended it if we do not pass this Amendment.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I support the Amendment for much the same reasons as were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in moving it. I was amazed a few minutes ago that the Home Secretary, when opposing my right hon. Friend's appeal for a free vote, should give as one of his reasons a reference to advertisements in the Sunday newspapers. Is the Home Secretary proud of our Sunday Press and of the depths to which some parts of the Sunday Press have degraded themselves recently? Is that the standard which the Home Secretary, with his great responsibility, sets up as an ideal for this nation?

The Home Secretary has no responsibility for the Sunday Press, but he will be responsible for what appears on commercial television. Is it his idea that the standard of taste for commercial television should be the standard of the Sunday Press that we have in this country? He knows the instincts and tastes to which the popular Sunday Press is descending. Are they his criterion of commercial enterprise on Sunday? If so, he ought to be ashamed of himself.

I do not know what the Home Secretary means. He did himself far less than justice. I think that his real instincts in the matter were indicated on 20th May, when he said during a Committee debate on this Bill: … it will be a sad day for this country if the occasion should arise when any Opposition ask any Government to consult them on a matter touching religion and that request is refused."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 2385-6.] This is a matter touching religion. It is more than that; it is a matter touching some of the deepest instincts of the people. The Opposition is asking the Government to take that point into consideration. The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that the Amendment would be carried on a free vote, because hon. Gentlemen on the benches behind him would be delighted to support it if it were not for their fear of the Government. I appeal to the best instincts of the Home Secretary in this matter. I do not think that I am wasting my time, but I will risk that.

Let us concede that on the Bill the Government are to carry the day. I know that they say that it will not lead to what has happened in America. We think that it may. Sunday is something different. It is the day of the week which, for good or bad reason, for many generations—indeed for centuries—has been regarded in this country as a day for the family to keep apart and cherish. I do not want to overstate the argument, but it is thought of as a day when they can think of something different from the commercial, secular day-by-day things that may absorb them on other days of the week. Their thoughts may or may not be religious.

I am not putting forward this argument on merely Sabbatarian grounds, although I would, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, appeal in all logic to all those hon. Members opposite who were horrified at the idea of the Festival Gardens being opened on Sunday. The Home Secretary must realise that this is a matter of vital interest to those things deepest and most sacred in the thoughts of the nation.

We are confronted with the prospect of having on commercial television, on Sunday, programmes which will be dependent for their appeal on the advertising value which makes them popular. I know that the Assistant Postmaster-General has said that there will not be any advertisement in juxtaposition to or interposed in the middle of religious services. That is not the issue here. There is a deeper issue, and the Government have a profound responsibility in this matter.

My hon. Friend referred to the campaign conducted by Dr. Billy Graham. It has been referred to in other discussions on this Bill. Whatever may be the significance of the Greater London crusade associated with Dr. Billy Graham and his team, it demonstrated that not only in the Greater London area but in the country outside the metropolis—because coachloads came from outside London—there is a hunger in the people for something different from the kind of orthodox, commercial entertainment and amusement provided by commercially—interested bodies.

The Government therefore have a responsibility to see that these Sunday programmes are completely free from the taint of commercialism and are devoted to religious subjects, artistic, literary and cultural subjects. For these there is a great demand which can only be satisfied if the whole Sunday programme is kept free from that taint of commercialism.

Let the Authority collect its advertising revenue during the week, but let it be responsible on Sunday for programmes which will preserve our national way of life. Let there be no suggestion in anyone's mind that the Sunday programmes will be affected by advertising revenue from commercial bodies. I hope the Home Secretary, who is sometimes responsive to an appeal to his better nature, will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Cyril W. Black (Wimbledon)

I appeal to the Government to give careful and sympathetic consideration to the very strong case made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). I agree with their case, though my general approach to this problem is a little different from theirs. Unlike hon. Members opposite, I am in favour of the main scheme of this Bill—the breaking of the B.B.C. monopoly. I am in favour of the competitive element and of the advertising element, but not on Sunday. I am, for that reason, compelled to add what weight I can to the appeal which has just been made to the Home Secretary.

The general arguments for the observance of Sunday are well known. The view is widely, deeply and sincerely held that Sunday should be observed as a day of rest and worship. That practice has long been enshrined both in our traditions and in our law. It is in a very special sense the day of the family and of the home. In many families it is the one day of the week when all members, turning aside from the ordinary pursuits of the week which may have led them to different places, can be reunited to spend Sunday as a day of rest and worship.

Look at it how we may, the fact remains that television penetrates into the home as nothing else does or can do. I hold what I know to be the deeply-held view of many people that it is important that television should be directed to helping and not to hindering the proper observance of Sunday. The need for that proper observance is reinforced by the intensity of modern living conditions. The case for one day in the week being set aside in this manner is today even stronger than it was 50 or 100 years ago. The intensity of modern life has so increased that, on physical as well as moral and spiritual grounds, it is essential that men, women and young people from time to time should turn aside from secular pursuits and spend the day in rest, meditation and worship.

The House and the nation recently expressed themselves overwhelmingly against any further commercialisation of the first day of the week. On 30th January, 1953, the House debated a proposal which would have legalised a large number of entertainments and professional sports on Sundays. The widespread expression of public opinion against the Bill will be remembered. That Bill was decisively rejected. I have no reason to suppose that public opinion would express itself differently today on this question of television advertising on Sundays.

I hope that the Home Secretary will not tell us that this is a matter which, in the view of the Government, ought to be left to the Authority itself. To me that argument is quite unconvincing. Clause 6 (2) specifically lays down that: The Postmaster-General may at any time … require the Authority to refrain from broadcasting any matter or class of matter specified in the notice. … It is quite clear, therefore, that the Government consider it necessary for the Postmaster-General to take that power, and they consider that there are some things which might be televised but which the Postmaster-General ought to have the right to prohibit.

If there is one class of matter which I submit should be prohibited it is advertising on Sundays, and the prohibition should not be left to the decision of the Postmaster-General for the time being, acting under this Clause, but should be written into the Bill as this Amendment seeks to do. I very much hope that the most careful thought will be given by the Government to this matter before a step is taken which I am convinced, personally, would be greatly inimical to the highest and the best interests of the nation.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

I have been asked to be brief and I will be brief, but I venture to put one point which I think will have weight with the Home Secretary. It is in addition to those so eloquently expressed by my hon. Friends and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black).

I have no authority to speak for the Church of Scotland, but I remind the Home Secretary that the Church of Scotland has expressed itself forcibly and reasonably upon this matter. The Church of Scotland, and indeed the Church of England, are against television advertisements on a Sunday. I do not want to overstate the case, but I am sure that the Home Secretary, as a churchman, will realise the importance of the carefully-considered and well-expressed views of the Churches in this country.

I put it to him, first, that this is a matter of conscience; it is a matter of the relations of human beings with God and their neighbour. Those relations should not, on a Sunday, be diluted by advertisements. It would be wrong for this old-established British and Scottish institution to be treated with disrespect in this way.

The main arguments against the proposal and in favour of the Amendment have been put so well by my hon. Friends that I shall not traverse the ground again, but I beg the Home Secretary to have regard to the fact that this is a matter which vitally touches the conscience of the people of this country. I beg of him not to be intransigent but, as a churchman, to take all these arguments into account and even at this last moment to change his mind and to accept the Amendment.

Sir Robert Grimston (Westbury)

I have had my attention drawn on this question of free voting to page 163 of a book, "Government and Parliament," which was recently issued. Everybody knows the book to which I refer. The sentence reads: I hope I have shown that I am not an inveterate enemy of free voting. I must add, however, that many Ministers and Parliamentarians of long experience are doubtful about its virtues and are of opinion that it should be resorted to only on Private Members' business and otherwise on very rare occasions. I gather that some hon. Members opposite say that this should be one of those rare occasions, and I thought that might be the answer. Let me take up that point. I do not want to belittle the feeling which lies behind the Amendment, but I am slightly surprised that it comes from a political party which uses Sundays for its political party activities more than any other party. Coming from such a party, I sense a grain of humbug. Of course all this fits in very well with their campaign against the Bill.

I hope my hon. Friends will not fall into the emotional trap which is being set for them, bearing in mind that, whereas we on this side of the Committee do not on the whole use Sundays for our political activities, the party opposite use Sundays a great deal for those activities and often seek to gain political advantage in so doing. That should go on the record when we are considering an Amendment for preventing advertising on television on Sundays.

It is obvious that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) feels strongly on this issue, and I certainly respect his feelings, but the Committee should consider where it would take us if we accepted the Amendment. Are we to prohibit advertising in cinemas on Sundays? Nobody has ever suggested that.

Mr. Black

I do not think my hon. Friend should make that point, because a large number of us are not in favour of the Sunday opening of cinemas at all.

Sir R. Grimston

A great many people are in favour of it. A great many people who are as good Christians as anybody else may be in favour of the opening of cinemas on Sundays during certain hours. I think it is equally true that advertising in cinemas on Sunday has not offended the public conscience. If we walk down any streets in great cities we see the neon signs, and nobody has ever suggested that they should be turned out on Sundays or that newspapers should not carry advertisements on Sundays.

There may be a case for stopping all that. I am reminded by one hon. Member of advertisements on British Railways. But I do not think the question of television advertising should be considered in isolation. If we think steps should be taken on moral and religious grounds to stop advertising on Sundays we should apply it to a very much larger field and not seize only on this medium.

The arguments fit in very well with the propaganda which has been going on against the Bill, but they come particularly ill from a political party which uses Sunday more than any other party in advertising its political opinion.

Mrs. Jean Mann (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

I shall make a very short speech. For many years I have noticed that time after time, and almost every weekend, we have been told that members of the Conservative Party would never indulge in political meetings on a Sunday nor stoop as low as those on this side of the Committee in resorting to political meetings on a Sunday. Many people on this side of the Committee feel strongly that to take an interest in the economic conditions of the people is just as important as was the great gathering when the little boy came along with the loaves and fishes. All were used and all were important at that great Sunday gathering.

How can hon. Members opposite who have adopted this self-righteous attitude of eschewing political meetings on a Sunday now vote for any kind of entertainment which will go right into every home on a Sunday?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)

I shall at least follow the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) in being brief.

Are we not losing sight of the realities which we all have at heart? We all wish Sunday to be a different day from other days of the week, and many of us wish the religious aspect of Sunday to be stressed. Surely what is important, however, is the nature of the entertainment provided on a Sunday. I cannot see that if an entertainment is followed by an advertisement for toothpaste on a Sunday it either degrades that entertainment or links it to a higher plane. We should not concentrate upon party politics, or gibes at each other; we should concentrate, instead, on seeing that the highest level of entertainment is provided for people on Sundays.

One can criticise the level of entertainment provided on Sundays by the B.B.C. and the cinemas, and one does criticise the level of entertainment provided by the Sunday newspapers, but I cannot see that the fact that the entertainment provided by Sunday newspapers is accompanied by advertisements has the slightest effect upon the nature of the taste displayed. The most respectable newspapers have advertise- ments, as well as the most unworthy ones. It is not the advertisements but the revolting nature of the news and commentary columns which are of greatest concern. The Committee would be showing a greater sense of reality, and doing a greater service to the cause we all have at heart, if it concentrated on seeing that the very highest class of entertainment is provided on Sundays.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) has hit the nail right on the head, because the idea of commercial television on Sunday, and the reason why the Government want it on Sunday, is precisely because there is a bigger mass market on that day. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Sunday newspaper which has the biggest circulation is not the "Observer" but the "News of the World." What we should get on commercial television on Sunday is the equivalent of the "News of the World."

Mr. Nicholson

Has not the hon. Member proved a little too much by saying that? He is not attacking the advertisements in the "News of the World " but the contents of the other columns. We are discussing the question of advertisements.

Mr. Hamilton

The hon. Member was talking about the quality of the entertainment, and on Sundays the commercial television interests will seek to provide a quality of entertainment which will pander to the taste of the greatest number of people who are likely to look at their programmes. To the extent that they pander to that taste the standard will be lowered, as it is in the "News of the World" and other organs of the Press.

The hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) said that hon. Members on this side of the Committee raised no objection to advertisements in Sunday newspapers. If we had the power to take them out we should do so. We have no such power in that connection, but here we have the power. If we wish we can exclude advertisements from Sunday television programmes.

I have no hard and fast ideas upon this matter; I am concerned with the fact that most religious organisations are against this Bill in general, and more against this part of it than any other. I have listened to the religious broadcasts from Radio Luxembourg on Sundays, and in my opinion they are quite deplorable. What they provide has been described in another context as popular evangelism.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing (Hendon, North)

Are those programmes provided by the religious advisory committee which is to be set up for the new Authority under the Bill?

Mr. Hamilton

When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in the debate on the Sunday opening of the fun fair at Battersea Park, he said: … religion is a personal matter and … popular evangelism, however important it may be … should not depend on the bait and lure of commercial activity. That is precisely our argument. If we are to have advertisements intermixed with religion we shall get precisely the kind of popular evangelism to which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer objected on that occasion. He also said something else which is very relevant, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will bear it in mind. He said: … if the choice has to be made … between making a profit on the one hand and making further inroads into the Sabbath on the other, the profit motive should be sacrificed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 546-548.] That is all we are asking the Government to do on this occasion. They have six days of the week in which to get across all their advertisements and other rubbish. For heaven's sake let them leave the Sabbath alone. The people North of the Border will be watching anxiously how the Government behave in this matter.

4.15 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans)

We are dealing here with an Amendment which affects the religious feelings of many hon. Members.

Mr. Ross

And millions of people throughout the country, I hope.

Mr. Gammans

We are now talking about the House of Commons. I do not question in any way the sincerity of the views which have been expressed this afternoon. As I understand the argument, it is that in a Christian country Sunday should be accepted as a day of rest and, we hope, of worship, and that no advertisements of any sort should be allowed on such an occasion.

Mr. Gordon Walker (Smethwick)

On television.

Mr. Gammans

On television. That seemed to me to be the substance of the argument which has been used in connection with the Amendment. I suggest that it is not easy to lay down hard and fast rules as to the way in which people should spend Sunday; it changes from time to time. I think I can remember the time when the underground railway in London did not run during the hours of church services. I can certainly remember the time when the only literature which was read in many homes was religious literature, and the time when many people objected to going to the theatre on any day of the week. It has only been in recent years that cinemas have opened on Sundays. I mention these facts only as illustrations of the way in which public opinion has changed.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)

Would the hon. Member give us an illustration of the way he voted on the question whether the fun fair at Battersea Park should open on Sundays?

Mr. Gammans

I have met people in this country—

Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)

Sunk without trace.

Mr. Gammans

I have met people who object to looking at or listening to B.B.C. programmes on Sundays. I respect their views, and I am certainly not proposing to interfere with their habits and fundamental principles, but in this matter we start with one basic point. Anyone who does not believe in looking at advertisements on television on Sundays need not look at them. He can switch off, or, if his conscience allows him to do so, switch over to the B.B.C., which has no advertisements at all.

Mr. Ross

A Pontius Pilate argument

Mr. Gammans

That is the real answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black). We have to consider whether Sunday advertisements are likely to be repugnant to the large majority of our people. If they are, there would be something to be said for the Amendment, but if it is bad to have Sunday advertisements on television, the principle ought to be extended to the other media of entertainment which provide advertisements on Sundays. I am sure that the proposers of the Amendment, however strongly they may feel about it and however sincere may be their views, would not wish to impose those views on people who do not share them, especially when, as I have said—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Battersea Park?"] Just a moment; may I finish?

Mr. Herbert Morrison (Lewisham, South)

You had better.

Mr. Gammans

As I have said, there is no need whatever for anyone who objects to Sunday advertisements to look at them.

Mr. Morrison

How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile all these arguments that people can do this, that and the other and other people can do something else, with his vote on the Festival of Britain and Battersea Park?

Mr. Gammans

In the case of Battersea Park, we were dealing with something relatively new to this country. [Laughter.] Here we are dealing with a long accepted principle of Sunday advertisements in many other media as well.

There is another point which is relevant to this argument. There was a time when it was felt that any light entertainment on a Sunday was undesirable. In the early days of the B.B.C., Sunday programmes were far more restrained than they are now. People who thought those programmes too restrained simply switched over to Radio Normandie and to Radio Luxembourg.

But the whole policy of the B.B.C. and its Sunday programmes has changed. On Sunday we get almost every form of light entertainment.

Mr. Morrison

No advertisements.

Mr. Gammans

We get plays and variety programmes. In fact, apart from the religious services, there is very little difference between the type of programme put out by the B.B.C. on a Sunday and that which is put out on a weekday. Even on television there is "What's My Line? "which no one could take very seriously or regard as very serious entertainment, and now the B.B.C.—

Mr. Morrison

What's your line?

Mr. Gammans

—broadcasts its programmes at the same time as church services.

Mr. Morrison

You should appear on "What's My Line?"

Mr. Gammans

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was serious about this. I thought this was being put forward as a serious Amendment. If it is desired to turn the whole business into comedy—

Mr. Ness Edwards (Caerphilly)

Are you not making a Light Programme speech?

Mr. Gammans

—I shall be quite prepared to fall in with that; but I thought there was deep religious feeling about this. There is very little deep religious feeling in these interruptions and in the laughter on the other side of the Committee.

I do not believe there is any general aversion in this country to advertisements on Sundays. I believe that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) is something to do with the cinema industry. I am not sure whether advertisements are banned in the A.B.C. cinemas. If they are, I shall be very pleased to hear it.

Mr. E. Fletcher

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Sunday opening of cinemas is banned altogether unless there is a local vote in favour of it?

Mr. Gammans

I am not asking that. I am asking whether the cinemas of the chain of which the hon. Member is a vice-chairman do or do not show advertisements.

Mr. Fletcher

Twelve months ago there were no advertisements in these cinemas. Today, the advertisements have nothing whatever to do with the programmes.

Mr. Gammans

Nor will they in the case of television. I am not objecting to these advertisements, but I think it is slightly hypocritical of the hon. Member to make that speech to us about television when he did not even declare his interest in cinemas.

Mr. Ross

How many cinemas were open in Scotland yesterday?

Mr. Gammans

I have not the faintest idea.

Mr. Ness Edwards

Or in Wales?

Mr. Gammans

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us. The point is that we find there are advertisements in cinemas.

So far as concerns those places where cinemas are open, Sunday is one of the most popular days for going to the cinema. We also find advertisements on the hoardings, in the Underground and in the buses. But what about Sunday newspapers? We have been told that the medium of television will go into every home in the country, but will is go into every home more than the Sunday newspapers do? I have discovered that the number of Sunday newspapers now sold is in the order of 33 million, which is an average of nearly three Sunday newspapers per family.

How can we say in the light of that that there is any general objection to advertisements on Sundays? This is the day of the week, as one hon. Member said, when a man and his wife are at home. I believe that the Sunday newspapers are more thoroughly read than any other newspapers; the man has time to read them. From the advertisement point of view, the man and his wife look up the advertisements on Sunday of something they propose to buy on Monday. If that is wrong, if it is wrong to have advertisements on a Sunday, then we should be quite logical in going for the Sunday newspapers and the cinemas as well.

I had a look at yesterday's newspapers as I knew that this Amendment was on the Order Paper. It was illuminating to see the type of advertisements and the sort of thing that was advertised. One hon. Member said just now that he would like to stop advertisements on Sundays in the newspapers. He was at least logical, but he would have to be prepared to see the price of the newspapers go up very much.

Take, for example, the newspapers in which the party opposite has some control and which favour that party's point of view—they take advertisements. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which ones?"] I am talking about "Reynolds News," the "People," the "Sunday Pictorial"—all those papers which favour the point of view of the party opposite. They certainly do not favour ours.

Mr. Ross

What is yours?

Mr. Gammans

My whole contention is that the principle of Sunday advertising has been accepted. It has been accepted for the cinema, the hoardings, and, above all, for the Sunday newspapers.

We have given a pledge that religious services shall not be associated with advertising. I think we are all agreed that that would be most undesirable. My feeling is that the different attitude— whether it is a better one is for hon. Members to decide for themselves—[An HON. MEMBER: "Free vote."]—of people towards Sunday nowadays does not

indicate in any way a weakening of religious feeling, nor has it caused any great deterioration in our moral character. It simply is that in every age people have looked at their religious beliefs with changing eyes. These prohibitions about Sunday, from which many of us suffered when we were young, have changed, not because we as a nation are less moral now because we are a less religious nation, but because of a different conception of our religious duties.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Fun fairs.

Mr. Gammans

I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 226.

Division No. 126.]	AYES	[4.29 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard	Gibson, C. W.	Manuel, A. C.
Adams, Richard	Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Albu, A. H.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Mason, Roy
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.	Mellish, R. J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Grey, C. F.	Messer, Sir F.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mikardo, Ian
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Mitchison, G. R.
Bartley, P.	Grimond, J.	Moody, A. S.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Hale, Leslie	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Morley, R.
Beswick, F.	Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Hamilton, W. W.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Bing, G. H. C.	Hannan, W.	Mort, D. L.
Black, C. W.	Hargreaves, A.	Moyle, A.
Blackburn, F.	Hastings, S.	Mulley, F. W.
Blenkinsop, A.	Hayman, F. H.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Blyton, W. R.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Boardman, H.	Herbison, Miss M.	Oliver, G. H.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Hobson, C. R.	Orbach, M.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Holman, P.	Oswald, T.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Holmes, Horace	Paget, R. T.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Hoy, J. H.	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Burke, W. A.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Palmer, A. M. F.
Callaghan, L J.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Pannell, Charles
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Parker, J.
Champion, A. J.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Parkin, B. T.
Chapman, W. D.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Pearson, A.
Chetwynd, G. R.	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Clunie, J.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Porter, G.
Collick, P. H.	Janner, B.	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Grossman, R. H. S.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Proctor, W. T.
Daines, P.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Rankin, John
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Keenan, W.	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Deer, G.	Kenyon, C.	Rhodes, H.
Delargy, H. J.	Key, Rt. Hon. C W	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dodds, N. N.	King, Dr. H. M.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Lawson, G. M.	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Ross, William
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Royle, C.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Lewis, Arthur	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Lindgren, G. S.	Short, E. W.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Fienburgh, W.	Logan, D. G.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Finch, H. J.	MacColl, J. E.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	McLeavy, F.	Skeffington, A. M.
Follick, M.	Mainwaring, W. H.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Foot, M. M.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	Turner-Samuels, M.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Snow, J. W.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn	Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Sorensen, R. W	Viant, S. P.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Sparks, J. A.	Wallace, H. W.	Willis, E. G.
Steele, T.	Warbey, W. N.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.	Watkins, T. E.	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett	Weitzman, D.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E	Wells, Percy (Faversham)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Sylvester, G. O.	Wheeldon, W. E.	Wyatt, W. L.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)	Yates, V. F.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Thornton, E.	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B	Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.
Tomney, F.	Williams, David (Neath)
NOES
Aitken, W. T.	Glover, D.	Moore, Sir Thomas
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Godber, J. B.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Alport, C. J. M.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Gough, C. F. H.	Nabarro, G. D. N.
Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)	Gower, H. R.	Neave, Airey
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Graham, Sir Fergus	Nicholls, Harmar
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Baldwin, A. E.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Banks, Col. C.	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Nield, Basil (Chester)
Barlow, Sir John	Hare, Hon. J. H.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Baxter, A. B.	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Nugent, G. R. H.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Nutting, Anthony
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Harvey, Air Cdr. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Hay, John	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Birch, Nigel	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Bishop, F. P.	Heath, Edward	Osborne, C.
Bossom, Sir A. C.	Higgs, J. M. C.	Page, R. G.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon J. A	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Perkins, Sir Robert
Braine, B. R.	Hirst, Geoffrey	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Peyton, J. W. W.
Brooman-White, R. C.	Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Pilkington Capt. R. A
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Horobin, I. M.	Pitman, I. J.
Bullard, D. G.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Pitt, Miss E. M.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Powell, J. Enoch
Burden, F. F. A.	Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Profumo, J. D.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)	Iremonger, T. L.	Raikes, Sir Victor
Carr, Robert	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Ramsden, J. E.
Cary, Sir Robert	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Rayner, Brig. R.
Channon, H.	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Redmayne, M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston	Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Remnant, Hon. P.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W	Renton, D. L. M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Ridsdale, J. E.
Cole, Norman	Kerr H. W.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Colegate, W. A.	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Robson-Brown, W.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Leather, E. H. C.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Roper, Sir Harold
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Russell, R. S.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Linstead, Sir H. N.	Ryder, Copt, R. E. D.
Crouch, R. F.	Llewellyn, D. T.	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Scott, R. Ronald
Davidson, Viscountess	Longden, Gilbert	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Deedes, W. F.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Digby, S. Wingfield	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Macdonald, Sir Peter	Soames, Capt. C.
Drayson, G. B.	Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry	Spearman, A. C. M.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	McKibbin, A. J.	Speir, R. M.
Duthie, W. S.	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.	Maclean, Fitzroy	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)	Stevens, Geoffrey
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Erroll, F. J.	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Finlay, Graeme	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Fisher, Nigel	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Studholme, H. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Marples, A. E.	Summers, G. S.
Fort, R.	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Maude, Angus	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Maudling, R.	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C	Teeling, W.
Gammans, L. D.	Mellor, Sir John	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Molson, A. H. E.	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
		Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)	Vosper, D. F.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Tilney, John	Walker-Smith, D. G.	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Touche, Sir Gordon	Wall, Major Patrick	Wills, G.
Turner, H. F. L.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Turton, R. H.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)	Wood, Hon. R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Vane, W. M. F.	Watkinson, H. A.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.	Wellwood, W.	Sir Cedric Drewe and
		Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.

Dr. Edith Summerskill (Fulham, West)

I beg to move, in page 17, line 13, at the end, to insert:

1. No advertisement shall be permitted of any article consisting of or comprising a substance recommended as a medicine.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Austin Hudson)

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discussed the next two Amendments, as they all deal with the same subject.

Dr. Summerskill

The purpose of these three Amendments is to protect a small section of the community from the glib patter of the salesman who represents the drug firms. The Assistant Postmaster-General will recall that last week, when I sought to protect the children, he said that if an offensive item appeared on television the right thing to do was to switch off. Indeed, a number of hon. Gentlemen behind him spoke on that subject, and it was then assumed by them that it was possible for some offensive item to appear.

However, the Assistant Postmaster-General could not advise me that the right thing in this case would be to switch off, because I seek to protect the hard core of viewers who are not selective. All of us in this House hope that the time will come when viewers become more selective, but these Amendments concern a hard core who will not be selective. They are the chronic sick and disabled who are tied to the house. Television represents to them a means of whiling away tedious hours. The Assistant Postmaster-General suggested in a previous debate that it was easy to switch off. Presumably those who switch off will resume interesting and attractive occupations, but what interesting or attractive occupation can the chronic sick and disabled resume?

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South)

rose—

Dr. Summerskill

I suppose that the hon. and gallant Member assumes that they have not only the television but sound radio as well, but that is something of a quibble. Television for the people to whom I am referring is a blessing.

Squadron Leader Cooper

rose—

Dr. Summerskill

The hon. and gallant Member will have plenty of opportunities to intervene later on. To these viewers television is a blessing.

Mr. John Rodgers (Sevenoaks)

On a point of order. Is it in order for the right hon. Lady to mislead the Committee by saying that the only alternative to commercial television will be B.B.C. sound radio, when, of course, the alternative will be B.B.C. television and not sound radio?

The Temporary Chairman

That is no point of order.

Dr. Summerskill

If hon. Members develop frivolous arguments I would say that I can envisage the chronically sick and bedridden leaving the television switched on. Indeed, it happens in many houses that an individual who is looking after the chronically sick will go out and leave the entertainment switched on for the sick person. As I was saying, this form of entertainment is a blessing to these people. Many of them wait anxiously for the time when the television programme starts, after having had a boring day sitting or lying in a room alone with no visitors. I ask that these people be protected. I also ask for protection for the housewife who often turns the television on because she is anxious to while away the hours.

Having that picture in mind, let us envisage what will happen if an unscrupulous advertiser plays on the fears and anxieties of the chronic sick and disabled with some worthless preparation guaranteed to cure certain complaints. I have particularly in mind those who suffer from certain nervous conditions which have no organic basis. These people are particularly susceptible to this kind of propaganda.

4.45 p.m.

I recall hon. Members saying last week that we must expect the viewer to exercise his or her intelligence and have the set switched off. Recently the Minister of Health was compelled to compile a list of drugs which he circulated to doctors. Since I am mentioning this point, I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry present in this Committee. It was discovered that doctors were prescribing drugs which had no therapeutic value whatsoever. In order to instruct and educate the doctors it was necessary for the Ministry to compile a list indicating that certain drugs had no therapeutic value. If the doctors are being deceived by the glib patter of commercial travellers sent out by drug firms and they have to be warned and educated by the Ministry, should we not protect the sick and susceptible viewers from the same kind of high powered salesmanship?

The chronic sick are desperately anxious to find a cure, and it would be cruel of the Committee not to protect their interests. People representing themselves as experts in their field will say to the televiewer that if he or she spends so much on this pill, powder, medicine or whatever the nostrum may be, he is guaranteed a cure. I ask hon. Members to consider this matter carefully. It is the cruellest kind of confidence trick that can be played on viewers. One of our Amendments seeks to protect them against the individual who purports to be a doctor or a nurse or some qualified person. I am not quite sure how the Assistant Postmaster-General views that, because outside action of that kind would be illegal. I take it, therefore, that it would be also illegal if it took place on television.

It is surprising how gullible and health conscious are middle-aged people who are, in fact, in excellent health. Indeed, I have reason to know that Members of Parliament are not exempt from this. It has been known for them to succumb to a quack remedy. I remind the House of the gullibility of the simple person who is desperately anxious to find a cure for his disease. Can the Assistant Postmaster-General find it in his conscious to allow these people to be subjected to this kind of propaganda? If, in response to some of our other Amendments, he thinks that children do not need some protection and some other sections of the community need none, I ask him to consider very carefully whether he should not afford some protection to these people who are quite helpless and who are susceptible to this kind of approach.

Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport (Knutsford)

I did not intend to intervene until I heard the eloquent words of the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summer-skill), who was talking about undesirable prescriptions. She would not give way to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) but followed the usual habit of many hon. Members opposite— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is a fact. An hon. Friend of mine did rise to a point of order, which in fact turned out not to be a point of order.

Mr. M. Follick (Loughborough)

On a point of order. Is it right for an hon. Member to cast aspersions on hon. Members who have been voted to this Parliament?

The Temporary Chairman

I do not believe the hon. and gallant Member is out of order any more than the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) was in order.

Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport

Something should be done about hon. Members who get up on bogus points of order which waste the time of the Committee. I would make an exception in the case of my hon. Friend, who made a good political point.

The right hon. Lady made a great point about the chronic sick, who are not well enough to get up and switch off a television set. If they are too sick to do that, they are too sick to apply for the medicine advertised—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite talk with their glib chatter about confidence tricks, but we have only to listen to any Labour Party political broadcast and we get that sort of thing there.

I wish to make a point about the so-called quack medicines referred to by hon. Members opposite. In the debate on Thursday, an hon. Member perfectly sincerely criticised a quack medicine known as "Apal" sold as a cure for the [LIEUT.-COLONEL BROMLEY-DAVENPORT.] smoking habit. I bought one for 25s. and, although probably it did not cost the manufacturers more than 2s. or 3s., whether it is a quack medicine or not, it cured me of smoking. Hon. Members opposite have asked me for this so-called smoking cure, as also have some of my hon. Friends.

If a firm risks capital it might easily lose all its money, but, if it can sell a product for a good price and it cures an unfortunate addict, "My snakes and ladders!" that is worth £25 to the person it cures of smoking. It is worth anything. These medicines may be called quack medicines, but some of them do cure patients just as this so-called quack medicine cured me and will cure other hon. Members.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon- Tyne, East)

The Committee has been treated to a speech which has very little relevance to the Amendments on the Order Paper. Now that the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) has got his particular anxiety off his chest, I leave other hon. Members to deal with the matters he raised.

These three Amendments are an endeavour from this side of the Committee to save the Minister of Health and the National Health Service from the problems which are being raised for them by the Postmaster-General. As we know very well, one of our great anxieties in the Health Service is the fact that doctors are from time to time urged by patients to prescribe for them all kinds of medicines and drugs which the doctor himself may feel are undesirable. Nevertheless, the doctor, being pressed and busy, is often driven, in order to save time, to issue prescriptions for a great variety of drugs and medicines which, we understand from the doctors themselves, they do not wish to prescribe. In order to meet this problem, which has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, the Minister of Health has prepared a list of medicines which have no special curative value, and he is trying to secure the co-operation of the medical profession to avoid prescribing those drugs and medicines.

I am sorry that I do not see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health here, although the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food is present, and is very interested in the matter. In a recent speech, the Minister of Health announced a further very important development of his policy. He told us that he was securing the co-operation of doctors not to prescribe medicines which are unreasonably costly where he had, in fact, been able to secure agreement with manufacturers about a reasonable price for a similar product. All parts of the House welcomed that announcement very much. We understood that the right hon. Gentleman was saying that these types of prescription should not be prescribed and that he was securing the co-operation of the doctors.

Yet here in the commercial television service it will apparently be quite proper for advertisers to promote the sale of a whole range of drugs and medicines which the Minister of Health is urging doctors not to prescribed. That is a really fantastic position. I should have thought that in a matter of so much importance to the Health Service and to the Minister of Health, at least the Parliamentary Secretary would have been here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I will willingly give way if any excuse is to be offered for the absence of the Minister of Health or any representative of that Ministry. This is a matter of some concern. I particularly want to get certain undertakings from the Minister of Health about this matter and his attitude to it.

Mr. Gammans

I hope that the hon. Member will hear what I propose to say, and then he will see why the Minister of Health is not here.

Mr. Blenkinsop

If the Amendment is to be accepted, then we shall be very grateful that there has been that much concern shown about the matter. But, as the Bill stands, it is quite fantastic if advertisers are to be allowed to advertise a whole range of products about which the Minister of Health is spending a great deal of time to get doctors to avoid prescribing. I do not think it would be against the law as it stands for an imitation doctor, or someone dressed as a nurse, to advertise and hand up before the television screen products of one kind or another—whether inhalants on which the Minister is trying to reduce the price, or proprietary brands of aspirin, and so on—and to say, "Ask your doctor to prescribe this."

What would be the result? This would be to put a check on what the Minister of Health is attempting to do with the support of hon. Members. It would destroy half the effort of the Minister of Health. We are all concerned about the expense of the drug bill, but here is a friend of the Minister of Health—I presume that is the technical title—doing his best to destroy the work which the Minister is doing. That seems a quite fantastic situation.

I see no mention in the Bill about setting up an advisory committee to deal with this point. Although I do not think that would be sufficiently satisfactory in this case, there is provision for setting up an advisory committee in regard to religious and other matters. There is no provision for such a committee to deal with medical matters. I hope that the Minister will tell us what action he will take in order to ensure that the policy which the Minister of Health is following and which is approved by the whole House shall not be destroyed by the action which the Assistant Postmaster-General is supporting today.

I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to say what representations he has received from the main official bodies representing doctors in this country, and particularly what representations he has received from the general medical services committee of the B.M.A., which, I imagine, will have taken this matter up with him. We are entitled to know what representations have been made. There can be no satisfaction unless there is a clear answer by the Minister that a complete prohibition will be imposed on advertisements of drugs and medicines.

5.0 p.m.

Squadron Leader Cooper

I think that the right hon. Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) intended to be serious in moving the Amendment, and, no doubt, the Amendment was also supposed to be serious. She talked about the "glib patter" of master salesmen, but what she subjected the Committee to was the glib patter of a past mistress in the art of glib patter. What the right hon. Lady must bear in mind is that every television set will be able to pick up alternative programmes, and that therefore people will not be forced to receive commercial television programmes which they do not like. They can easily switch back to the B.B.C. programme.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Will they not be paying for commercial television? Why should they have to switch off?

Squadron Leader Cooper

They may have to pay a little extra, but they do not have to have their television sets modified to receive the new programmes if they do not wish to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the licence fee?"] If drug advertisements, and so on, are as bad as the right hon. Lady endeavours to tell the Committee that they are, why does the "Daily Herald" accept them day after day? Why does the "Radio Times" publish advertisements for these same drugs week by week, and even on the pages devoted to the programmes for such days as Good Friday and Christmas Day?

Sir Leslie Plummer (Deptford)

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at this week's "Radio Times" he will find that there are no patent medicines advertised in all the 16 pages of advertisements in the paper.

Mr. Follick

There are no newspapers on Good Fridays anyway.

Squadron Leader Cooper

The hon. Gentleman misses the point entirely. The "Radio Times" is a weekly publication, and it publishes the B.B.C. programmes for Good Fridays. I am asserting that advertisements of one sort or another appear on the pages setting out the programmes for such days as Good Friday and Christmas Day. It so happens that this year the advertisement was for Shredded Wheat to the effect that "The little man cannot do without it," or something of that sort. Presumably, according to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that is bad.

What the last three days of debate of this Bill have proved is that the Government made a serious mistake in allotting five days for its Committee stage. Two days would have been adequate. The Opposition are having a very rough time in finding subjects to talk about. If all the Opposition's proposed Amendments had been accepted, all that the I.T.A. would be able to do would be to authorise weather programmes in Gaelic and Welsh, and the broadcasting of the National Eisteddfod, and nothing else.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

I was fascinated by the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) and his oblique accusation of those of us interested in medicine that we did not know what we were talking about when we asked for the prohibition on the commercial screen of advertisements of certain drugs, instruments, appliances and forms of treatment. I am sure that if I disagree with him he will forgive me for that, at least. I turn to what so many of us think is the most serious series of Amendments.

Let us consider for a moment what the Assistant Postmaster-General has in his brief, the answer he will give us. One does not have to be clairvoyant to see across such a small space as separates us from him to read what he has there. The answer will fall into two parts. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the page he has he will see that he is going to tell us first that he has already powers to prevent any unethical advertising of this type of thing, and second that, if he were to accept any form of words such as these which we propose, dishonest people, clever people, sophisticated advertisers would get around them or find a loophole in them, so that the words would be a weakness in the Measure. That is the sort of thing he is going to tell us.

He is going to ask us to believe and to trust him. He is going to say, "I have powers to keep this advertising within reasonable bounds and the worst excesses of commercial advertising which will embarrass the profession and become a danger to public health I shall not allow." We shall believe him. It is true. What Assistant Postmaster-General, whether the hon. Gentleman or some other hon. Gentleman in his place, would ever go purposely out of his way to endanger the public health or to embarrass the profession?

However, the hon. Gentleman must consider what will happen among the general practitioners sitting in their surgeries. He must, as I think he will, accept as a fact that if these substances, these treatments and appliances, are advertised, somebody will look at the advertisements or hear them. It is the whole purpose of the advertisements that some people shall. The advertisements will be presented persuasively. They would be foolish people who did not do the job properly. If the advertisements of a medicine are persuasive a number of people will say, "That is the very thing for me. That will do me good." They will go to the doctor and ask him to prescribe it.

We have had some discussion of the fact that the Press does publish advertisements for proprietary brands of medicines and treatments now, but does not the Assistant Postmaster-General realise that that has been and is a tremendous embarrassment to the general practitioners because people go to their doctors and bring pressure to bear on them? What does the doctor have to do? He has to waste his most precious asset—his time—in explaining that such and such a thing is not as good as people think it is, or that he cannot prescribe it. The wasting of the time of the profession is something we all have very strong feelings about. We think the profession should be protected against it. The profession feels about it very strongly.

I am sure that the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Home Secretary have made careful inquiries how the profession feels about this matter. Whether the answers they have had are entirely satisfactory, or whether they have been able to give full assurances, I do not know, but I believe that the medical practitioners' union thinks that it is quite wrong to advertise in this way, and would support these Amendments. As for the British Medical Association, I do not know. I have to assume that if it finds that, as a result of commercial advertising on television of proprietary medicines and similar things, the profession is grossly embarrassed and unable to do its work properly, there will be the most unholy row. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that.

Has the hon. Gentleman noted recent instances of what is happening? I would quote him some. Has he noted recently that we have had very extensive testing of the kind of drug that could well be advertised by commercial television—Cortisone—which a committee has been investigating? The Cohen sub-committee has reported that after the most careful test it was found that, in the early stages of rheumatism and arthritis, aspirin was just as good. We know that today, but we did not know it before.

There has been tremendous pressure brought to bear on the Minister of Health—who ought to be in his place— and his Parliamentary Secretary to get this very expensive drug over here in bigger quantities. He has had to limit it to the hospitals, and recently he has had to say that people may buy it separately from the United States. Now we hear that in the early and remedial cases, aspirin is just as good. We hear that from the sub-committee set up by the Minister himself. What is the Assistant Postmaster-General to do about that?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is doing this country a very great dis-service. I am not adverse to the political implications of the service which he does for his party, but I have to consider, as a medical man, his service to the public, which, by and large, I think is inexcusable.

Mr. Gammans

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has just advertised himself as a clairvoyant, but I do not think that he is a very good clairvoyant, because he claims to know the two answers which I am supposed to give to this question. As a matter of fact, I am not going to give either of them. What I am going to say is quite different from what he has suggested.

We have three Amendments before the Committee. With regard to the spirit behind these Amendments—to prevent the natural hopes and fears connected with illness and with health being exploited in a bad sense for commercial gain—that is one thing about which we all agree. The Government expect the Authority to take steps under their powers in the Bill. That, however, is not the argument which I am going to use, so hon. Members opposite need not make confirmatory noises too quickly. It is well to remember, however, that they have these powers, and these powers can, in fact, be used.

The second of these Amendments is, if I may say so, undesirably wide. I think that the words … as beneficial to health or protective, or remedial against any disease, infirmity or accidental injury of human beings, if we were to accept them in their present form, would certainly prevent things being advertised like Glaxo, Ovaltine, Horlicks, Sanatogen or even milk. I think that they could not be advertised if we accepted the Amendment. Health salts, vitamin tablets, aspirin, Aspro, Elastoplast, toothpaste and sunray lamps —none of those things could be regarded as harmful, and there is no doubt that within their limits they serve a useful and beneficial purpose.

An hon. Friend behind me told me that he had been cured of smoking, and I imagine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes that not too many people will be cured of smoking, because everyone knows the large amount of revenue which smoking provides in balancing his Budget.

Dr. Stross

We have been told that sunray lamps would be considered beneficial, but does the hon. Gentleman know that to obtain good sunray lamps, such as mercury vapour lamps, one has to have a medical certificate before the shops are allowed to sell them.

Mr. Gammans

That may be so. I do not know whether sunray lamps are good or not, but surely it is not behind the spirit of this Amendment that it should be so widely drawn as to ban the type of thing which I have mentioned. No one wants to ban milk or health salts or anything of that kind.

5.15 p.m.

I come to the third Amendment. I think that we would all entirely agree with the spirit of it. I cannot imagine anything more undesirable than for a person to come to the television screen and to say that he was a doctor, or, having a stethoscope round his neck, pretending that he was one. I think that that also applies to a person pretending to be a dentist or a qualified nurse. If that undesirable practice were allowed to grow up, a tremendous amount of damage might be done to people who were ill or thought that they were ill. They may be persuaded to buy these things, or to accept the advice of such persons believing that it was the advice of a qualified person. Let me say whole-heartedly that I agree with the aim of this Amendment, but I doubt if we want to deal with this matter in this way as the Amendment is not drawn wide enough. I will explain.

There are, of course, misrepresentations that can take place other than the misrepresentation of a man who pretends to be a doctor, a dentist or a nurse. We may get a herbalist, who may be a good herbalist. He may come to the screen and make some quite fantastic claim for herbal medicine which may be very harmful and could do damage. He would not pretend to be a doctor, and he would in fact be a herbalist. Therefore, the Amendment is not drawn widely enough. I will give one other example which I think illustrates the position adequately—that is turkish baths. There is nothing wrong in a turkish bath. It does most of us a lot of good, but there are some people who ought not to take a turkish bath, and the indiscriminate advertising of turkish baths, without any sort of stipulation as to when they can or cannot be used, would do an enormous amount of damage, as I think the Members would agree.

I doubt if the Committee realises the extent to which the advertising of medicine is tied up already. We have a British code of standards. I have it here, but until I read that code I had no idea of the extent to which the advertising of patent medicines was tied up. It is a code run by the Advertising Association itself, and a code which is accepted by the Newspaper Proprietors Association and the Newspaper Society, which deals very largely with medicines and treatments. I do not want to read out the code because that would take rather too long, but I can assure the Committee that it is very comprehensive.

First, we have the things which are prohibited by statute—the Cancer Act, 1939, the Venereal Diseases Act, 1917, and the Pharmacy and Medicines Act, 1951, which deal with things like Bright's disease, apoplexy, fits and tuberculosis, and there is a long list of diseases which runs alphabetically from alopecia to whooping-cough in respect of which no advertisement may be accepted which suggests that what is advertised may cure any one of these diseases.

There are also provisions in this code for appeals to fear which can very easily be caused to a person in such a state of mind or which are misleading or exaggerated claims which are made for such medicines, or where it is suggested that the medicine, whatever it may be, could be used instead of going to a doctor.

Sir L. Plummer

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the newspapers permit the word "remedy" to be used in place of the word "cure." The sufferer may think that there is no great difference between cure and remedy. The Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the Newspaper Society do not control all the newspapers in this country, and fraudulent claims in advertising do appear.

Mr. Gammans

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, although I do not think there are many of them. If any people escape from this code, the way we propose to deal with this matter will, I think, satisfy him.

Mr. Donald Chapman (Birmingham, Northfield)

A case arose a few weeks ago of a smoking preparation known to be completely fraudulent and the President of the Board of Trade has been looking into it. He cannot take action under the law. We know that it is fraudulent and is advertised in newspapers. That is one example which gets through the code which the hon. Gentleman is announcing.

Mr. Gammans

If the hon. Gentleman will wait and listen to what I am about to propose, I think that we may deal with that sort of case together with others of a similar nature as well. The advertising bodies have as strict a code of conduct in these matters as one would wish. Hon. Members may ask, if there is such a code, why do we get a certain type of advertisement in the Press? I think the answer is that these advertisements fall within the spirit of the code, in the sense that they do not attempt to deal with a serious illness but deal only with the relatively minor aches and pains. There are occasions when a particular undesirable advertisement slips through, but where that happens no one is keener than the advertising bodies themselves to deal with the matter, and they do so.

I think that this country ought to congratulate itself on the way in which precautions have been taken—not by law, because the number of things which are forbidden by the law are comparatively few, but I refer to the way in which not merely the advertising agencies themselves but the newspapers have agreed on this strict voluntary code which is something that is not found in many other countries. What has been done up till now is pretty effective, and the sort of advertisements that we see in the Press deal primarily with what are generally regarded as the minor aches and pains of humanity. All newspapers deal with this type of advertisement.

We propose to deal with this question in an entirely different manner and, I hope hon. Members will agree, in a more effective manner than is proposed in these Amendments. As I have said, I think the second Amendment is far too narrowly drawn and the third Amendment is not drawn widely enough. As far as advertising generally is concerned, the interests of the Opposition in this matter and the advertising interests are identical. Advertisers are as keen as we are about the general standards of advertising in this country, and the standards that they have laid down for themselves are very rigorous.

The advertising interests have volunteered to set up a committee to advise the Independent Television Authority, and if necessary my noble Friend. My noble Friend has already consulted the British Medical Association about this very important matter, and as a result of these deliberations, he is satisfied that this matter can be dealt with in a far more effective and, in our opinion, a far more flexible way. In fact, the British Medical Association have volunteered to nominate representatives to sit on the committee on advertising that I have mentioned to advise about this vital field.

They will advise not only on the products which are to be advertised, but also on the misrepresentations which might take place by someone pretending to be a doctor or a nurse, or saying that he was a herbalist. This will give the medical profession in this country what we want them to have—that is, every opportunity to express their views on such things as the type of advertising which is mentioned in the Amendment and, what is more, on the far wider implications of the questions involved in that type of advertising.

Mr. Blenkinsop

Would this mean that the committee would have power to prevent the advertising of any medicines which the Minister of Health is advising doctors not to prescribe either because they are too costly or because they are of no therapeutic value?

Mr. Gammans

I am not going to do the job of the committee before it is set up. What was asked was that the medical profession should have an opportunity of expressing their views on what should or should not be advertised, and here we are providing machinery whereby they can do it.

Mr. Ness Edwards

Can we have this quite clear? The hon. Gentleman has taken a step in our direction, and I am sure he is entitled to our congratulations. We understand that this committee is to represent the B.M.A. and advertisers. What we want to know is who is going to be responsible for setting up the committee? Is it the Postmaster-General? To whom are they going to make their recommendations? Is it to the I.T.A. and the Postmaster-General? The I.T.A., I think, will become responsible, and what is recommended to the I.T.A. will presumably cover the programme companies. Thirdly, will a report of their work be contained in the annual report of the Postmaster-General on the work of the I.T.A. to this House?

Mr. Gammans

I cannot say what form the representation will take. The Independent Television Authority will be advised and, if necessary, so will the Postmaster-General. The Postmaster-General himself has a responsibility over what is advertised, and he is responsible for that to this House. Because of that, the matter can be brought before this House.

I suggest that instead of our trying to lay down now what can or cannot be advertised, what we are doing is to go right to the fountain-head of the matter, and that is the British Medical Association, and to ask them if they will be prepared to send representatives to sit on the committee. They have said they will. What is more, we start off with the code of advertising, and I recommend hon. Members who are interested in this matter to read this code. I do not mind confessing that it is far more comprehensive than anything that I ever expected. That, reinforced by the fact that the B.M.A. are going to send representatives to sit on this committee, provides the most effective safeguard that we can have against the abuse of this type of advertising.

Mr. Ness Edwards

Could the hon. Gentleman answer a question which I asked him and which has escaped his attention? Do I understand that the Postmaster-General is setting up a committee on which the advertisers and the B.M.A. are being represented, or do I understand that the I.T.A. are setting up the committee, or is it that the I.T.A. is accepting a committee set up by the Advertising Association? We ought to have that clear. We should like to see the Postmaster-General himself accept the responsibility for the committee.

Mr. Gammans

The committee will be set up primarily to advise the I.T.A. and, if necessary, to advise the Postmaster-General. The committee that we have been talking about is a committee of the I.T.A. Therefore, whether the I.T.A. set it up or whether it is done in collaboration with the Postmaster-General—

Mr. Ness Edwards

It will be with the approval of the Postmaster-General?

Mr. Gammans

Yes, it will be with the approval of the Postmaster-General. I think that in that way we have safeguarded the British public against what we all agree is a most undesirable form of advertising.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

I hope that an Amendment is going to be made so that this proposal to set up a committee is contained in the Bill in order that we may know how it is going to be appointed and what are its duties, and so that the responsibilities of the Postmaster-General in relation to this committee will be a statutory matter upon which we shall be able to ask Questions. I presume that the answer will be that an Amendment will be introduced in due course.

My second point is this. We have already one advisory committee—the religious one referred to in the Bill. Am I right in supposing that this will be, in the Government's view, a broadly similar committee with similar responsibilities and similar powers? I agree that there are no statutory powers, but will they be similar advisory powers?

Mr. Gammans

I will have another look at that point. I do not think it is necessary for it to go into the Bill. After all, we are dealing with two extremely responsible types of people. We are dealing with the advertising associations and with the British Medical Association, and hon. Members can be perfectly certain that none of these bodies will consent to sit on any committee if they think that the Committee is to be ineffectual.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison

May I once more ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider what he said just now. If he does not put this Committee into the Bill it is not a question of whether the advertisers and the B.M.A. are to be the responsible people but a question of whether the committee may not just disappear. After all, unless it is in the Bill, it has no right or power to exist, and any successor in office to the Postmaster-General may some day or another dissolve it or consent to its dissolution.

Mr. H. Morrison

I should like to deal with the point put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). It is really important that this should be in the Bill, and I agree that while the hon. Gentleman has not closed his mind to the matter, the fact still remains that this is not in the Bill and some future Postmaster-General can do exactly as he likes about it. Perhaps even the present Postmaster-General could alter his mind in 12 months' time. The inclusion of this matter would also provide for Parliamentary accountability far more clearly. The hon. Gentleman has specifically promised that there should be Parliamentary accountability and I hope, therefore, that he will take the opportunity of looking at this point and, before the Report stage, put down an Amendment to the Bill.

Mr. Gammans

I will have a look at it. I promised the right hon. Gentleman I would see if it were necessary, but I would remind him that Clause 4 (5) lays it down very clearly that the Postmaster-General has a very definite responsibility about what, in fact, is advertised. I do not want to be dogmatic about this matter, and I will have a look at the point and if it is necessary to put the committee in the Bill I will do so. This question of advertising is the responsibility of the Postmaster-General and because of that it can be raised in the House.

Mr. Hastings

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Ministry of Health will be represented on this committee? That is of very great importance. The British Medical Association is a very important body but the majority of doctors who are members of it deal with curative medicine. The preventive side is of very great importance and I feel that the Ministry of Health ought to be represented on such a committee.

Mr. Gammans

The hon. Gentleman has put forward a new point of view, but I must remind him what is the purpose of this committee. It is to prevent undesirable or dangerous types of medicine being advertised. I am not sure whether it is desirable to extend the scope of the committee which, after all, is an advisory committee, but I will look at it and see.

Mr. Edward Shackleton (Preston, South)

The hon. Member has gone a long way to meet us but we are still not absolutely clear, for instance, whether this committee will be in a position to advise on the form of advertising. That is very important, because it will include questions of health. My right hon. and hon. Friends are desirous in some way or another of clarifying the position, and in particular in regard to the point that unless given statutory sanction there is no guarantee that this committee will go on at all.

Mr. Gammans

I will look at that point. I am grateful to the committee for having put forward these various points, and I think we are agreed that the method we have evolved is the desirable one. If it requires tidying up we will have a look at it. The Postmaster-General is responsible for the form of advertising as well as for the type of advertising and, therefore, these matters can be raised in this House. I think the provision is pretty well watertight now, but if hon. Gentlemen wish to put forward further points, I will have a look at them.

Dr. Summerskill

I thank the Assistant Postmaster-General for being so sympathetic to our point of view, but may I emphasise what my hon. Friends have said about embodying this committee in the Bill. I wonder if this point has occurred to the hon. Gentleman. We are dealing here with drugs and cures which are discovered almost every day. There could be a very serious time lag between the discovery of a so-called cure and an investigation by the committee.

Recently we have seen the Ministry of Health having to wait for a long time— we can understand that because it is a highly technical subject—before circulating the doctors of the country and telling them that drugs prescribed hitherto are worthless and have no therapeutic value. Some of us who have known about that practice going on have been a little impatient. We have put down Questions to the Minister.

We wonder whether the Postmaster-General appreciates the point about delay. If he sets up this committee, embodies it in the Bill and thus gives it added importance so that it will not be overlooked, it will be to the general advantage. It will meet regularly and examine the different types of drugs that have been put on the market. If the hon. Gentleman does not seriously consider embodying the committee in the Bill there will be a tendency on the part of some people to delay calling the committee, and that would be dangerous. There would be a dangerous time-lag in which these drugs are advertised without the committee saying, "An investigation has been made and in our opinion it would be wrong to advertise this drug on television." For that reason, and for all the others which I shall think of later on and will tell the hon. Gentleman privately, I hope he will reconsider the matter and bring in an Amendment on the Report stage. In that case I should be only too happy to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Gammans

I think that the right hon. Lady, when she was talking about the invention of new drugs, forgot exactly what is laid down in the present code. The advertisements that we see in the daily Press are not designed, or allowed to be claimed, as a cure for some disease. They are for the more minor ailments. I appreciate the point she has made and I will give it careful consideration.

Dr. Summerskill

I am obliged to the hon. Member. I hope he will also examine some of the answers that the Minister of Health has given in this connection. He will then discover that 30 per cent. of the drugs prescribed by doctors today are prescribed for functional conditions and not for organic conditions. Indeed, they are for a number of trivial diseases. I hope he will bear that in mind.

Mr. Mitchison

Before my right hon. Friend withdraws her Amendment, I should like to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General if he would be good enough to let the Opposition know beforehand if he is going to put down an Amendment or not, in that they might do so if he does not, so that in one way or another we can have a discussion on the Report stage.

Mr. Gammons

I will do that.

Dr. Stross

I apologise to the Assistant Postmaster-General for intervening again. We have pressed him very hard and he has been very good about all this, but I should like to ask him this last question. We have impressed on him the purpose that we have in mind, namely safeguarding the public so that there should be no advertising of useless drugs. Will he remember that the medical representatives from the British Medical Association and the representatives from the Ministry of Health will have another point in mind? It is that they do not want the perfectly ethical and proprietary drugs to be advertised in such a way that there will be pressure put by people on the doctors to prescribe such drugs when they cannot do so, and when they are not allowed by the Service to prescribe them.

Mr. Gammons

I think that we had better leave that to the representatives of the B.M.A.

Dr. Summerskill

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)

I beg to move, in page 17, line 13, at the end, to insert:

1. No advertisement shall be permitted which is directed (whether or not in conjunction with any other purpose) towards promoting or calculated to promote the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor or any kind of intoxicating liquor; and in this rule "intoxicating liquor" has the same meaning as in the Customs and Excise Act, 1952.

The Chairman

I think that it would be convenient to discuss this Amendment with the two following Amendments.

Mr. Hudson

This Amendment is associated with the advertising of intoxicating beverages. I understand that we are to discuss it with the Amendments relating to gaming and gambling, but I shall refer in particular to the question of intoxicating beverages in the hope that some other hon. Member will deal with the general question of gambling.

Mr. Mitchison

On a point of order, Sir Charles. Did I understand you to say that the Amendment about drink and the two following Amendments about various forms of gambling are to be taken together? The logical connection is not very clear at first sight, although there may be a moral point involved.

The Chairman

I think that this course would meet the convenience of the Committee. If necessary, there could be a Division on this Amendment and the next one.

Mr. Mitchison

There are some people who object to drink and others to gambling. I do not know how far their reasons are overruled by this Bill, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) would prefer to discuss drink and gambling separately.

The Chairman

I am in the hands of the Committee on this Matter. It is a question of what the Committee would desire.

Dr. Stross

If I understood you aright, Sir Charles, it is not proposed that we should discuss as well the Amendment in the name of myself and my hon. Friends, in page 17, line 13, at the end to insert:

1. No advertisement shall be permitted of any tobacco, smoking mixture, cigars or cigarettes.

The Chairman

No, that is being taken separately.

Mr. Hudson

Like you, Sir Charles I am in the hands of the Committee. But I thought, in order to save time and to overcome the difficulties consequent upon the imposition of a Guillotine, that we should discuss the Amendment I have moved together with the next two Amendments. I am in support of both of them, although I wish to concentrate on the question of intoxicating beverages.

Mr. Ness Edwards

I think that there is some misunderstanding here. There are two separate principles involved, and I should have thought that gambling was something entirely different from drinking, although some people seem to think that there is something similar about them. I think it would be more convenient for clear debate if these two principles were discussed separately. Would you agree to that course, Sir Charles?

The Chairman

Certainly. I am in the hands of the Committee. We can discuss the Amendment on drink, which is being moved, and then the next two Amendments relating to gambling will be discussed together.

Mr. Hudson

This Amendment proposes to abolish the advertising of drink on television. The case against the display of intoxicants on television programmes can be justified on either of two broad grounds. It may be justified on the basis of what we know has happened in connection with the advertising of drink on television programmes in America, where a considerable amount of experience has been built up regarding this.

5.45 p.m.

I have received—particularly from organisations in America interested in temperance, and from churches—an account of their bitter opposition to the way in which the moral training of children and their general education is being interfered with by the extent to which drink advertisements have found their way into television programmes. Not only is this done by direct "puffs" for the liquor trade, and a display of drinking as a normal thing in the daily life of the people, but even by interferences of a most objectionable character with news programmes, both on television and radio.

Shortly before this debate commenced I was told by a lady who was recently in America that she was in Seattle on holiday when she heard an announcement made, or the question asked, before the news came on, "Are you on vacation?" The second question was, "Have you a plentiful supply of Olympic beer?" A short while after, when part of the news had been given, she was pressed again to take note of the fact that she could not have a proper vacation unless she had a plentiful supply of Olympic beer. The news was then allowed to run its course.

I dare say, for those who like Olympic beer, or any other sort of ambrosia and nectar associated with Olympus, that it would be all right to have this constant reference to Olympic beer. But for a great section of the American public who are still entirely without this sort of thing, and who have to listen to these advertisements, the whole thing is felt to be very objectionable indeed; especially when it is remembered that children listen to these suggestions and have them brought prominently to their attention.

In view of the short time allocated to our discussions, I must get on to the experience—not merely the theory, but the experience—which we have won in this country in this matter. These, to my mind, are the more important grounds on which I wish to lodge an objection against any possibility of drink advertisements appearing on our television programmes. There has been, in this country, and there still is, what I can only describe as a mighty tide of advertisement for liquor in Britain. It was examined in great detail by the last Royal Commission which considered the general question of licensing. At that time they found that £2 million at least— it was a very moderate estimate—was being spent on general liquor advertisement.

At a later date we have been able to obtain evidence from the statistical anlysis of Press advertisement that now at least £4 million is spent on general advertising, some of which, of course, will be available for television advertisements. That does not reckon in the amount spent on hoardings, which will make a bigger sum still out of which considerable amounts will be offered for television display of liquor advertisements.

We are told by the Royal Commission, in paragraph 736 of its Report, that many of these liquor advertisements contain statements which amount to palpable scientific untruths. In the next paragraph the Royal Commission says: … there is cause for some alarm in this flow of advertisement. and that there is in connection with it a development amounting at times "almost to a public nuisance." The Royal Commission did not know what to do about it, but it recorded its view. Parliament appointed it to examine this and other matters in connection with alcoholic beverages and it recorded an objection in the words which I have recited to the Committee.

One of the members of the Royal Commission, the late Reverend Henry Carter, said that he did know, and that there ought to be a complete exclusion of this sort of advertising. He pointed out that in the General Post Office, for which the House of Commons is responsible, such a rule operated and that there was not the display of drink advertisements in the buildings of the Post Office or in its publications. He pointed out that at Carlisle where, in another way, the House had decided that a certain experiment regarding drink should be carried out, there was no advertising. Mr. Carter gave it as the evidence received that as a general practice advertisements are not shown in, or near, public house premises in that town.

This rule, which we have already adopted in a restricted way in the places to which I have referred, ought particularly to be kept in mind now. As the "Brewers Journal" once said, they could not leave unexploited so magnificent an opportunity for creating public opinion as that offered by advertising. I am certain that they will find in television an extension of this "magnificent opportunity" of which they are bound to take advantage unless the strictest rules are devised against it at the beginning of the experiment. Therefore, I propose that there shall be no liquor advertisements on television.

I do this especially because of the persistent efforts which the community as a whole is now making to give its children and its adolescents maybe a different view about this question from that adopted by the present generation. Indeed, with our encouragement, the Ministry of Education and the local education authorities are carrying out work in this respect in the training of our children. The Royal Commission recommended that the children should have the facts about alcohol and its effects in such a way that when they arrive at years of discretion they will be able to judge for themselves what line to take.

That being so, to risk in every home where there is a television set—where the children perhaps more than any other section of the family enthusiastically watch the displays which are given— anything in the nature of what now goes on in America in this respect would be a grave defect. The Government, with their responsibility for the schools, ought not to contemplate such a risk for one moment.

The trade, which will come with its offers of "puffs" and advertisements in the television programmes, has already stated its view. It stated it a number of years ago when the director of the Brewer's Society said that they were out to capture millions of young people who had never tasted beer. They were out to do that for the sake of the public houses. He said more than that. He said that they were out to use the newspapers and that they could depend on the newspapers. The Newspaper Proprietors Association immediately protested vigorously against any such assumption being made, but that was the cocksureness of the brewers built on their experience that the newspapers could be brought in to a general advertising campaign to capture the young.

In my work for temperance up and down the country I remember being shown young children to whom had been distributed lapel buttons with slogans of the liquor trade which were carried about by the children as a part of the campaign. I remember attractive pictures of the heroes of the young people, the great athletes of our time, with assertions which were sometimes most untrue that they had done their training on liquor. I have seen these advertisements deliberately scattered among the young in the interests of the profits of the trade. When something like that can happen, the time has come, now that we are dealing with this great new organ of public opinion, to be most careful to exclude from it any possibility of the "puffs" being delivered to the minds of our children in the interests of the liquor trades.

There is a special reason why the Government should be careful. There is hardly a big department of public activity today where it cannot be seen that it would be better, as a Royal Commission said, if we could consume less rather than more intoxicating liquor. I put it to those who make a habit to drink, as well as to those who take the teetotal attitude, that we have to face the facts which the Chancellor of the Exchequer faces when he appeals for more National Savings; that the Minister of Agriculture faces when he talks about growing more food at home so that we may be freer of dollar exchange difficulties; and that the Minister of Transport faces when he tries to deal with road safety.

There is hardly a big public issue where it is not to the advantage of the Government to take a clean line against the advertisement of liquor by means of television in order to serve the special interests of a vast trade. Having made these appeals, I hope that the Government will be able to say that they will accept the Amendment. If they cannot accept it, I hope that they will say something to indicate their care and anxiety that there shall be on the Advisory Committee a body of people who are thoroughly well aware of the dangers involved—the same sort of people as those who are entirely helpless in America today who merely pass resolutions and speak of their objections.

We are not like that. The fact that a Bill of this sort is before us gives an opportunity for all well-meaning people who have the lot of the children in their minds, and who wish to safeguard it, to stand between so that the temptation to greater drinking shall not be put before the children. As far as we can, at least from the point of view of television, the advertisement of intoxicating beverages should be ruled out entirely.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Tudor Watkins (Brecon and Radnor)

I support the powerful plea which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). I am sure that hon. Members, whether they agree with my hon. Friend's point of view or not, thank him for the powerful pleas which he makes now and again for the cause of temperance.

I support the Amendment because there are special consideration in connection with it which apply to Wales. Unfortunately, the Committee earlier decided to permit advertising on Sundays. I wish to put the case against the advertising of liquor on television on Sundays because in Wales people are not allowed to have any liquor at all at public houses on Sundays. It would be wrong if the contractors advertised anything to do with the liquor trade in television programmes broadcast to Wales on Sundays. I am supported in my view by a large number of letters which I have received as Secretary of the Welsh Parliamentary Party and as a Member of Parliament.

Viscount Montgomery recently visited Wales and made a speech, which I thought was very indiscreet, about the opening of public houses on Sundays. I can well imagine a programme in which little children would sing: There is a happy land, Far, far away … and we might get such an indiscretion as someone commenting, "You do not need to go very far away. Go down to the local pub and get something to drink." Any such indiscretion in relation to the liquor trade ought to be avoided, particularly on a Sunday. Indeed, I should not want anything like that to happen any day of the week.

I want an assurance from the Government that there shall be no advertising of the liquor trade on Sundays on any stations covering Wales. The plea which is being made by hon. Members from Wales is a very powerful one because, since I have been a Member of Parliament, not one of them has been favourably disposed towards the opening of public houses on Sundays in Wales.

There are many other considerations in favour of the Amendment which ought to be borne in mind. Because of what is done by the education authorities and a number of other organisations in Wales, we do not get a great deal of advertising by the liquor trade. We want the same to be the case in connection with television programmes which are transmitted to Wales. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for Welsh Affairs for his discretion about this matter when he makes speeches in Wales. He makes no reference to the subject. If I could get an assurance that the same discretion would be exercised by programme contractors for the country as a whole and particularly in respect of Wales, I should be delighted

Mr. Black

Clearly, we are discussing issues which transcend the ordinary differences existing between the parties in this House and which stir the consciences of individual hon. Members. It is right that on matters of this kind we should express our views freely and frankly, because, after all, this is not a matter which ought to be dealt with on ordinary party lines.

There are a number of considerations about the Amendment which it is right that the Committee should have in mind when considering the verdict to which it will come. I wish to mention two or three facts which seem to me relevant to our consideration of whether television advertising facilities should be made available to the licensed trade.

It is unhappily a fact, which I think is not always fully realised by hon. Members and the public, that in recent years there has been an alarming increase in convictions for offences connected with drunkenness. Since 1946, convictions for drunkenness have increased by about 150 per cent. That is a sober fact; it is a "sober" fact in the fullest and most proper sense of the word. It is a fact to which hon. Members should pay some regard in considering the Amendment.

It is also a fact that the expenditure on intoxicating drink has risen very considerably in recent years and is now running at about £800 million a year. It is also a fact that, in spite of the efforts of the Minister of Transport, road accidents are taking place at a rate and on a scale which constitute a challenge to the very best thought which hon. Members can give to the problem. Do we realise as fully as we should that 50,000 persons are killed or injured upon our roads each year, and that it cannot be denied that in a number of cases the accidents occur as a result of the drinking habits of those concerned?

It is also a fact that leading Members of all three parties represented in the House have expressed their conviction on many occasions that it is not in the national interest that the consumption of strong drink should continue to increase or that expenditure on strong drink should continue to rise. In the light of those facts it is reasonable that we should consider whether, in these circumstances, it is wise to allow all the resources of what may prove to be the most powerful of all advertising media to be released to increase the sales of something which, according to the opinion of those best able to judge, should not be encouraged to increase but ought rather to be encouraged to decrease.

We have to recognise the fact that the drink trade is unlike other branches of trade. It is characterised in the law of the land as a dangerous trade. There is no question whatever that legislators over a long period of years have found it necessary to legislate in such a way as to exercise a strong control over the sale of drink. I understand that many of the companies engaged in the drink trade do not wish to undertake advertising on television even if the facilities should become available, but, of course, the majority may be forced into using these facilities if one or two of the firms engaged in the trade make use of them.

I submit that the best opinion is against these advertising facilities being made available, and that the best interests of our people will be served by the adoption of the Amendment.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing

Before my hon. Friend sits down, might I draw his attention to the following quotation from "The Economist" this week: Perhaps the most striking feature of this new set of estimates is the decline in alcohol consumption … for the last 20 years people have, on the average, been drinking less than one-half of what they did in 1900. This position is very different from that in the case of tobacco, two and a half times as much of which is now being smoked. The facts as given in the statistical report referred to here are not the same as the ones which my hon. Friend has given.

Mr. Black

I am not wishing to go back to the position which existed in 1900. All I am saying is that the convictions for drunkenness since 1946 have increased by 150 per cent.

Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)

I wish to support the Amendment, and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) on the manner in which he moved it. It seems to me that for many years, in our schools throughout these islands, we have been doing everything possible to try to ensure that when our young people become adults they will refrain from taking strong drink. If this very great medium of television is used for advertising liquor, almost all the good effects which have come from the work done over these many years in our schools will completely disappear. I feel that the Home Secretary, if he rejects this Amendment, will in effect be opposing part of the work which his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education is trying to do at this time.

There is a further point to which reference has already been made. There is a very great loss of life on the roads. Time and time again, Questions are raised in this House and we also have "Safety Weeks," and yet all these efforts do not in any way bring about the results that we wish to see. Various suggestions have been made by various groups as to what steps should be taken to ensure that anyone found drunk in charge of a car, or anyone who is taken to court for careless driving because of drink, would be subject to tests that would help in bringing about justice.

Up to now, objections have been taken to the particular type of test suggested, and since these objections are upheld, the Government ought to be very careful indeed not to do anything that will tend to increase the number of people driving cars who are the worse for liquor. If we are thinking not only of the education of our children but also of their safety, then the Government, in these circumstances, should accept this Amendment.

Already today, we on this side of the Committee, and I know at least the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) on the other side, have been very disturbed by the Government's attitude towards advertising on Sundays, and the decision of the Government will cause not only concern but consternation among thousands of people. If the Government insist on refusing this Amendment, that consternation will be greatly increased when the news goes out from this House tonight.

I have always felt that we could not legislate to prevent people drinking, but here is a chance for legislation to ensure that this very great and powerful medium of television shall certainly not be used in any way to encourage increased drinking. I therefore beg the Home Secretary and those in charge of this Bill to indicate that they will accept this Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker

I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will approach this Amendment with the same sense of responsibility as he approached the batch of Amendments which we have just dealt with. The same principle is involved, and the hon. Gentleman will not have failed to notice that, now that he has accepted some of our Amendments to the Schedule, he will not be able to argue any more that on these matters we must rely upon, and trust, the sense of responsibility of the programme contractors in regard to patent medicines and similar commodities.

There are some things concerning which society must provide protection for a particular category of people to whom they might be dangerous, because, although these things may not necessarily be bad for everybody, they might be bad for them, and it is, therefore, necessary that they should be protected. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will not be able to use the same general argument on which he relied in the earlier stages of the Bill, when he said that we must trust these people because they are decent people. The hon. Gentleman has departed from that argument in the discussion on the last Amendment.

The same principle is involved here, and we are dealing with things which are not necessarily evil in themselves, but which can become dangerous if they are allowed to be advertised at large over the whole community. It is rather like the system of giving "A" certificates for films. Nobody says that all films with an "A" certificate are bad, but only that children should be protected from them. That is really our attitude towards advertising on television. It is that there ought to be a special protection for children, because we must recognise that we are here dealing with a very special problem.

First, a television audience is probably unique, because it is of such a nature that children cannot be separated from it; indeed, they are an integral part of it. We can separate the audiences at cinemas by a system of certificates, we can separate public audiences anywhere, but we cannot separate children from an audience in the home, and that makes all the difference between television and all the other analogies—newspapers and all the rest—about which we have heard.

Secondly, television constitutes a particularly powerful medium, much more powerful than newspapers can ever be, in the impact which it makes on people. Television comes into the home, and is mobile, and it impresses itself on people's minds. They watch it with much closer attention than they give to the advertisements in a newspaper, and the case is not analogous with that of a newspaper; it is, in fact, unique.

Television is an instrument which comes right into the home and makes an unparalleled impact on children, and the television service which the Bill authorises will have behind it the great impulse of profit-making, which will provide a great pressure to use it to the utmost and with the greatest possible effect. There it differs from the B.B.C., which has no such pressure upon it. I am not saying that advertisers will put on advertisements for gin, beer and so forth in the children's programmes, because obviously they would not be so stupid as to do so. Also it would expose them to great public obloquy.

But children listen to all sorts of programmes, and the danger is that these companies will present drinking as a rather attractive, grown-up and smart thing to do, or something which is considered "the thing." That will be very effective and very impressive to children at an impressionable age—and I am not thinking of the very small children, but of the adolescents. Drinking may be presented to them in such a way as to suggest that it is something in which one ought to indulge.

Mr. Cyril Osborne (Louth)

Surely that point of view is presented today on T.V., under the B.B.C.?

Mr. Gordon Walker

There is no advertising. We are talking about deliberate advertising, designed by the owners of whisky and gin.

I am not talking about programmes but deliberate advertising during the natural breaks, solely designed to make drink more attractive, and to present it as the proper thing to do. That is how the stuff is sold. I do not say that this kind of thing will not come in the course of the programmes or that that does not apply to the other system. There will, however, be natural breaks where advertisements will be given with the sole purpose of selling drink and making drink attractive.

Mr. Paul Williams (Sunderland, South)

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the type of propaganda on T.V. today is infinitely more dangerous, because it is not so easily recognised by everyone, being much more subtle?

Mr. Gordon Walker

The two television system will be equal in that respect. They will have the same sorts of programme, but over and above those will be deliberate attempts to sell drink to audiences that will contain lots of children. We cannot get away from that.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), and I think also the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), about road accidents is not to be ignored. One has to think of the times of these programmes and of the great danger of people driving away under the influence of drink because of the idea of "one for the road." That is a dangerous thing, and all of us want to stop it, whatever our attitude to drink may be.

The programmes will come to people who are spending a social evening around the television set. The advertisements will come on at about the time when such parties are breaking up. There will be all sorts of drink advertisements, put on at the most valuable times, because those advertisers will have the most money to spend. The matter should not be ignored.

It may happen that some of the advertisements will tempt people to have "one for the road," which they otherwise would not have. Even though it is not done on a great scale, that will be a very great disservice to the country. I hope that the Home Secretary or the Assistant Postmaster-General will reply in the spirit of their reply to our last Amendments because something of very similar import is here involved. I think it will be very difficult for them, having accepted our previous Amendment, to reject the present Amendment without contradicting their own arguments.

Mr. Gammans

I do not think there is the slightest analogy between the previous Amendment and this one. We all agreed from the beginning about the need to prevent undesirable advertisements which might harm the health of the people. [An HON. MEMBER: "So Will these."] There is at least a difference of opinion about it. I put it no higher than that.

I thought that this Amendment was sponsored only by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) and one or two of his hon. Friends, but I gather that it now has the backing of the Opposition officially. If that is so, I find their attitude a little illogical. The Opposition are responsible for one of our big daily newspapers, which accepts this kind of advertisement. Last week, the "Daily Herald" carried a gigantic advertisement for Hammerton's Ales. I do not object to it, but before the right hon. Gentleman gets up and officially sponsors the Amendment he should at least put his own house in order.

Mr. Gordon Walker

The hon. Gentleman no doubt realises that that is a very false argument. He is starting something new, a system which could be financed in a different way. He has deliberately chosen to finance it by advertising. Newspapers have only one means of financing, namely, by advertisements. For television there are two ways. We are discussing a novel project, which has no analogy at all with newspapers.

Mr. Gammans

I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

I entirely accept the sincerity of the hon. Member for Ealing, North. He is always logical and sincere. When the party opposite officially sponsors an Amendment of this sort its spokesmen might at least get up and explain why the "Daily Herald" accepts these advertisements.

Mr. J. Hudson

Should not every Member who is sincere about what he brings forward feel devoutly thankful when he can persuade his fellows, and even the whole of his party, to take a view for which he has been struggling for years? Would it not be a good thing for the party opposite if their honest and sincere Members got the whole party to accept their point of view?

Mr. Gammans

I have never doubted the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman. All I am saying is that it is slightly illogical that the same arguments as are developed by him should be put forward officially from the benches opposite.

I am sorry that the Leader of the Liberal Party is not here. This is his Amendment. I looked up two newspapers which represent his party. I found in the "Manchester Guardian" advertisements for Sweet Martini, dry sherry, George IV Sherry, and "Champagne of Distinction." The "News Chronicle" advertises Oatmeal Stout, Sandeman's Port, and Dubonnet—with a French lesson thrown in. I do not mind some people being illogical in this matter, but we must be logical all round.

Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield, East)

The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. We are discussing a public corporation, the I.T.A., and what it can do. That is entirely different from discussing private enterprise newspapers.

Mr. Gammans

I should have a certain diffidence in sponsoring an Amendment of this sort if newspapers which to some extent were under my control did the same thing. I would say: "I can't do it. I will leave it to the hon. Member for Ealing, North." He is at least logical all round, and makes no attempt to dissemble his views. I entirely respect him.

What the hon. Member for Ealing, North feels is that advertisements for drinks are undesirable and ought to be banned altogether. I accept that, as representing his point of view. I do not know what the attitude of the Independent Television Authority will be, but I can imagine it. I imagine that it will be willing to be guided by normal advertising practice. That is the only attitude any sensible person would take.

Mr. Arthur Colegate (Burton)

Is it not a fact that another public corporation, British Railways, not only accepts advertisements for drink but actually sells drink?

Mr. Gammans

That is true. To ban advertisements for drink in this particular medium would be quite illogical, and I think it would be unfair. If there were any general prohibition against drink advertisements the Amendment would be logical, but there is no general prohibition. We have only to pick up any publication. I have given the names of three of them. The "Daily Express" this morning asked me if I had ever tried a Burton Brown Ale; "The Times" advertises Guinness's Stout, claret, whisky and South African sherry. Why? Because they see that there is no harm in that.

6.30 p.m.

That is what I regard as normal advertising practice. I can imagine nothing more illogical than that a person who is tired of this type of television programme should turn from it, pick up a newspaper and read an advertisement for gin. There is an analogy between what is advertised in the Press and what is advertised on television.

Mr. Gordon Walker

If the hon. Gentleman says that why does he ban religious advertisement on television?

Mr. Gammans

Because I think that falls into a special category. We have endeavoured in that matter to seek the views and accept the advice of the churches.

Mr. Gordon Walker

So in that case the analogy between the newspaper and television does not hold?

Mr. Gammans

What the right hon. Gentleman is now speaking of is covered in another Amendment which refers to whether a religious sect should be allowed to advertise itself. That Amendment we shall no doubt debate later. I must press this analogy with the newspaper a little further. The newspaper goes into people's houses and lies there to be read by anybody—children or adults.

As I understand the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), there are two things which influence his point of view. I will see if I can in any way resolve his pleas. First there are those who themselves so dislike every form of drink that they do not think it ought to be advertised. That, I think, is a view which the hon. Member shares. I naturally respect that view, but I am sure that the people who hold it would be the very last to compel other people to accept it. They might say, "After all, we do not think that drink is right; we think it is quite wrong," but surely they would not insist that others should share their outlook.

The other point, which I think is far more relevant, is the fear that these advertisements for alcoholic drink might have an unfortunate effect, especially on young people. That would be a very valid argument, if I may say so, if I could be persuaded that it was borne out by the facts. The facts are that by and large this country, fortunately, is becoming more temperate year by year, in spite of the fact that wherever one goes—on the railways, the tubes, the buses—one sees advertisements for drinks. I simply cannot accept the view that, because drink is advertised for those who like it and want it, that must have an unfortunate effect on those who do not like it and do not want it. That to my mind, is the crucial point of this argument.

If I understood correctly the hon. Lady for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), she said that if these advertisements were allowed it would undo all the work done by education committees. I do not really think that that is a fair representation, and I hope that she feels that it is a slightly exaggerated statement. I should not like to feel that because drink was advertised on television it would undo all the work done by education authorities.

In various forms prohibition has been tried by many countries. There was absolute prohibition in the United States, where they tried to prohibit drink by law. I am sure we all agree that that had most disastrous results. Canada has tried prohibition in various forms in different Provinces. I do not think that anyone would agree that the ideal way of dealing with the matter has yet been discovered. What we in this country have tried is a combination of limited hours plus excessive prices, and I suggest that that is as good a way as any.

I do not believe that advertising alcoholic liquors makes people take up drinking. I absolutely refuse to accept that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why advertise it?"] What it does is to persuade people to take up a particular type of drink. It does not persuade a person who all his life has been a total abstainer suddenly to cease being one. Were we to accept this Amendment we should be accepting something quite contrary to advertising practice all over the country.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

During a discussion on an earlier Amendment the hon. Gentleman was asked why he voted as he did—and as I did—on the Battersea fun fair. He replied that it was because it was something new in this country though, as a matter of fact, plenty of seaside places have fun fairs open every Sunday afternoon. This advertising medium is something new in this country, and we are just as entitled to take the

view we have done on this matter as the hon. Gentleman was to take a view which, according to his logic, was a mistaken one about the Battersea fun fair. To talk about prohibition is to prove how weak the hon. Gentleman's arguments are.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 229.

Division No. 127]	AYES	[6.37 p.m
Albu, A. H.	Hamilton, W. W	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Hannan, W.	Palmer, A. M. F.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Hargreaves, A	Pannell, Charles
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Hastings, S.	Pargiter, G. A.
Awbery, S. S.	Hayman, F. H.	Parker, J.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Parkin, B. T
Baird, J.	Herbison, Miss M	Pearson, A.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J	Hobson, C. R.	Pearl, T. F.
Bartley, P.	Holman, P.	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J	Holmes, Horace	Porter, G.
Bence, C. R.	Houghton, Douglas	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Benson, G.	Hoy, J. H.	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Beswick, F.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Proctor, W. T.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Bing, G. H. C.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Rankin, John
Black, C. W.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Blackburn, F.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Blenkinsop, A	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Rhodes, H.
Blyton, W. R.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Boardman, H.	Janner, B.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Ross, William
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Shackleton, E. A. A
Burke, W. A.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Short, E. W.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Shurmer, P L. E.
Champion, A. J.	Keenan, W.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Chapman, W. D.	Kenyon, C.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Clunie, J.	King, Dr. H. M.	Skeffington, A. M.
Collick, P. H.	Lawson, G. M.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgfield)
Cove, W. G.	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Snow, J. W.
Crossman, R H. S.	Lewis, Arthur	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Daines, P.	Lindgren, G. S.	Sparks, J. A.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M	Steele, T.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Logan, D. G.	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R
Davies, Harold (Leek)	MacColl, J. E.	Stross, Dr. Barnett
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	McInnes, J.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E
Deer, G.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Sylvester, G. O.
Delargy, H. J.	McLeavy, F.	Taylor, Barnard (Mansfield)
Dodds, N. N.	Mainwaring, W. H.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Manuel, A. C.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Edelman, M.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)	Mason, Roy	Thornton, E.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Mellish, R. J.	Tomney, F.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Mikardo, Ian	Turner-Samuels, M.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Mitchison, G. R.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Fienburgh, W.	Moody, A. S.	Viant, S. P.
Finch, H. J.	Morley, R.	Warbey, W. N.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Watkins, T. E.
Follick, M.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Foot, M. M.	Mort, D. L.	Wells, William (Walsall)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Moyle, A.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Gibson, C. W.	Mulley, F. W.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Gooch, E. G.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	O'Brien, T.	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)	Oldfield, W. H	Wilkins, W. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Oliver, G. H.	Williams, David (Neath)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Orbach, M.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Hale, Leslie	Oswald, T.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Paget, R. T.	Williams, W. R.(Droylsden)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Willis, E. G.
Wilson, Rt. hon. Harold (Huyton)	Wyatt, W. L.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)	Yates, V. F.	Mr. Wallace and Mr. James Johnson.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.	Younger, Rt. Hon. K
NOES
Aitken, W. T.	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Pickthorn, K. W. M
Alport, C. J. M.	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfild)	Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Hay, John	Pitman, I. J.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Pitt, Miss E. M.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)	Heath, Edward	Powell, J. Enoch
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Higgs, J. M. C.	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Baldwin, A. E.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Banks, Col. C.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Profumo, J. D.
Barber, Anthony	Hirst, Geoffrey	Raikes, Sir Victor
Barlow, Sir John	Holland-Martin, C. J	Ramsden, J. E.
Baxter, A. B.	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P	Rayner, Brig. R
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Horobin, I. M.	Redmayne, M.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Remnant, Hon. P
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Renton, D. L. M.
Birch, Nigel	Hurd, A. R.	Ridsdale, J. E.
Bishop, F. P.	Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Bossom, Sir A C.	Iremonger, T. L.	Robertson, Sir David
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon J A	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Robinson, Roland(Blackpool, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Robson-Brown, W.
Braine, B. R.	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Roper, Sir Harold
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Brooman-White, R. C.	Kaberry, D.	Russell, R. S.
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P G T	Kerr, H. W.	Savory, Prof Sir Douglas
Bullard, D. G.	Lambert, Hon. G.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E	Langford-Holt, J. A	Scott, R. Donald
Burden, F. F. A.	Leather, E. H. C.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Shepherd, William
Carr, Robert	Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Simon, J. E. S.(Middlesbrough, W)
Cary, Sir Robert	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Channon, H.	Linstead, Sir H. N.	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Llewellyn, D. T.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)	Soames, Capt. C.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.	Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C	Spearman, A. C. M
Cole, Norman	Longden, Gilbert	Speir, R. M.
Colegate, W. A.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Stevens Geoffrey
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Macdonald, Sir Peter	Steward W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Crouch, R. F.	McKibbin, A. J.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Studholme, H. G.
Deedes, W. F.	Maclean, Fitzroy	Summers, G. S.
Digby, S. Wingfield	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Teeling, W.
Drayson, G. B.	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. I. R. L.(Hereford)
Drewe, Sir C.	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Marples, A. E.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Duthie, W. S.	Maude, Angus	Tilney, John
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.	Maudling, R.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C	Turner, H. F. L
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Mellor, Sir John	Turton, R. H.
Finlay, Graeme	Molson, A. H. E.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Fisher, Nigel	Moore, Sir Thomas	Vane, W. M. F.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Vosper, D. F.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Fort, R.	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Neave, Airey	Wall, Major Patrick
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Gammans, L. D.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.	Watkinson, H. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H	Nugent, G. R. H.	Wellwood, W.
Glover, D.	Nutting, Anthony	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Godber, J. B.	O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Gough, C. F. H.	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Wills, G.
Gower, H. R.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Graham, Sir Fergus	Osborne, C.	Wood, Hon. R.
Grimond, J.	Page, R. G.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Peake, Rt. Hon. G.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Perkins, Sir Robert	Mr. Richard Thompson and
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Peto, Brig. C. H. M	Mr. Robert Allan.
Hare, Hon. J. H.	Peyton, J. W. W.

Mr. Chapman

I beg to move, in page 17, line 13, at the end, to insert:

1. No advertisement shall be permitted which promotes or is directed or calculated to promote any form of gaming or wagering, to which section eighteen of the Gaming Act, 1845, applies, or any unlawful lottery.

Perhaps it would be convenient if I referred also to the Amendment in page 17, line 13, at the end, to insert:

1. No advertisement shall be inserted by or on behalf of any person in so far as he carries on the business or vocation of a promoter of pool betting or of a bookmaker or of communicating forecasts of races; and in this rule "a promoter of pool betting" and "a bookmaker" have the same meaning, respectively, as in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1947, and the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934.

I want to make it clear that I am no kill-joy, and, indeed, I should like to see some amendments of the Lotteries Acts so that some of the small, harmless lotteries which are at present banned could be legalised. Lotteries supporting cricket clubs and assisting schools, and so on, have been closed down, and I should like to see them legalised.

I move this Amendment for four main reasons. In the first place, the point about this Amendment, which is very similar to the last Amendment, is that gaming is a pastime which is getting to the stage of becoming a social disease of very great magnitude. The Assistant-Postmaster said that advertising does not persuade people to drink. But advertising certainly persuades people to bet. It encourages people to stake high by the promise of very high rewards of £75,000 or £100,000.

My first objection to the advertising of lotteries, tipsters and bookmakers, and so on, is that there is a very great danger that this thing which is now a great social disease will become even greater, because of the urgent mass impact and the imperative nature of television advertising which is so very different from advertising in the newspapers. People spending an evening watching the normal programmes will not switch off in between programmes, so that there will be this imperative urge—"Send your half crown or your 5s. Step up your bets, and get nearer to that £75,000 or £100,000 prize."

This disease, which represents an annual expenditure of something like £600 million or £700 million per annum in gambling, will be furthered in a way that no other advertising medium could further it once it gets on to the television screen. It is helped along by euphemisms. The punter becomes an investor, and the gambler a sportsman. In advertising the whole thing is dressed up to make it appear as something quite different from what it is. It is made to appear as a gentlemanly and sportsmanlike pastime instead of the frank gambling that it is. As in the case of the previous Amendment, something which may not be harmful in moderation can become very harmful once it has behind it the imperative nature and mass appeal of television.

The second objection is that if it were advertised on the Independent Television Authority programmes it would lower the standard which the B.B.C. has very jealously guarded during recent years. There would be a conflict between the standard which has been set by the B.B.C. and that which would be set by the I.T.A. I can give two recent examples to illustrate this point. First, in September, 1952, the B.B.C. broadcast a programme of tips on the St. Leger. There was very strong national objection to this afterwards. The programme was fairly well handled. It was not offensive, and it did not put over the worst form of tipstering, but the net result was that the B.B.C. admitted that it was "misconceived" in intention and execution, to use its own word.

Again, not many weeks ago, a similar episode occurred in the very popular parlour game, "What's my Line," when one of the challengers gave a tip for the Grand National. The Bishop of Willesden and many other people made emphatic protests to the B.B.C., and the Director-General said that it was an unfortunate mistake, and that the B.B.C. policy on gambling, which was not to encourage it directly, remained the same.

Mr. David Llewellyn (Cardiff, North)

These constant representations to the B.B.C. do not seem to be having very much effect. On television on Sunday, Johnny Longden was asked what would win the Derby, so I do not see what good is done by these constant corrections.

Mr. Chapman

Such a thing may occasionally slip through, but the B.B.C.—at least on the occasions to which I have referred—admits that it is not part of its policy, and the person concerned is immediately told that it should not have been done.

The third objection to the use of the medium can best be put in the form of a question. Is it intended that the television screen shall become a mass medium for tipsters? Shall we have Ras Prince Monolulu, who is famous enough, appearing on the screen and advertising bogus tips—or very imaginary tips—and asking for financial reward in return? Shall we arrive at a situation in which the many so-called infallible betting systems which have been exposed as frauds by the newspapers are allowed to be advertised and sold, thereby getting honest money from people—and many people are gullible enough to be deceived—in return? Surely we ought to know where the line is to be drawn. Newspapers, on the whole, no longer allow these tipsters to advertise. Is the same ban to be put upon them on the television screens?

The fourth objection is that if we throw the television screen wide open in this way it will encourage the very large football pools, whose only interest is profit-making, as against the smaller pools who do not have that sole guiding principle. Many pools, operating under the National Association of Sports and Welfare Clubs, run small and quite legal lotteries with very modest prizes, for quite good social purposes. If we are to throw open the television screens to the advertising of gambling and lotteries generally, it will mean that the large pool promoters, who are the only ones able to advertise, will put on big and attractive announcements about the huge prizes to be gained, and the life of the small and much more socially worth while pools, whose days are already numbered, will be ended even more quickly.

Let us look at the finances of the football pools. Some 87 per cent. of their turnover today is handled by three firms. Although they are private firms and one cannot arrive at a very accurate estimate of their business turnovers because their returns are not published, if we work back from the figures that are known we can make a fair estimate that Littlewoods Football Pools turn over some £35 million a year, and that their advertising costs some £500,000.

The three firms who control pool betting on this scale, and who are able to spend such enormous sums on advertising as that example shows, will clearly be able to corner more and more of the betting and gambling, which, as a harmless flutter, can quite often be used for socially useful purposes, and the whole thing will become more and more confined to the people who run these organisations as profit-making businesses. For that fourth reason, I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will see that we are putting forward a reasoned case and are not trying to be killjoys over the whole ambit of gambling.

Mr. Eric Johnson (Manchester, Blackley)

Will the hon. Gentleman clear up one point? As I understand it, his argument is that the whole of this advertising will be cornered by the big firms. How, then, does he envisage the small tipsters obtaining any advertising time?

Mr. Chapman

That is a very good question, because the one thing we know about these schemes is that it very often happens that for the expenditure of £100 a man can put in a big advertisement, knowing that in these matters the public is so gullible that he will get that money back and make a profit on a huge scale. It has been proved time and time again that the British public are very big fools on the question of infallible betting systems and tips. A tipster may very often find it worth while to spend £100, because he knows that he will get it back very quickly.

That is the sum total of our case. I have put it forward on four grounds—the danger of furthering the social disease; the lowering of the standards set by the B.B.C.; the danger of throwing this medium wide open to tipsters and people we know to be fraudulent; and, finally, the danger that the whole medium will be cornered by the large pools, as against the smaller and much more socially worth while ones.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Money (Sheffield, Park)

I do not want to engage too much in the controversy about tipping, but I suggest that any tipster who has an infallible system and broadcasts it through the medium of television would be most ill-advised. I know little about racing, but I know that there is some connection between the odds one gets and the amount of money that is placed on the horse in question.

One field about which I know a little is that of pool betting. One possibility would be for the pool company to engage people, not actually to forecast results of matches, but to give details of interesting permutation schemes. The outcome of all permutations is that one spends more than he would do otherwise. To select nine matches so that six results are correct costs much more than the normal 2s. 6d. or 5s. bet.

Pool betting is different from every other form of betting, for the simple reason that the people who do the betting pay directly for the cost of the advertisements. While the churches and particularly the Nonconformist churches object to advertisements, any body of people is entitled to have its views considered. A substantial number, at any rate, of those who use the football pools object to any form of advertisement of this character, because they themselves must pay directly for the advertisements in that the cost of the advertisements is deducted from the pool before it is divided among the winners. Since all pool betters hope to win—and probably, in the course of a season, they do in fact have a small win —they do not want to see their own money flickered away on the television screen.

In connection with another Bill, I have had a large amount of correspondence from people who bet with the pools, asking whether the great advertisements of the pools cannot be curtailed so that the moneys available for return to successful punters would be thereby increased. This is an argument that will appeal to a great number of people.

It may be asked why the pool promoters should be concerned with large-scale advertising. Their position is quite different because, particularly if another Bill completes all its stages in the present Session, their profits are determined by the percentage of total turnover. Consequently it may even be profitable for pools to spend £1,000 to increase their net amount by as little as £100, because unlike any other sort of business they have their expenses paid and their profits taken before any return is made to their customers.

I suggest to the Assistant-Postmaster-General that this is a particularly interesting Amendment, because he can get the support, not only of those who object to gambling, but of those who gamble themselves, if he accepts an Amendment, either now or at a later stage of the Bill, to prohibit the advertisements of football pools or pool betting of any kind. The hon. Gentleman might like to be in the unique position of having the churches, the punters and the bookmakers on his side, which he would do by accepting an Amendment to prohibit pool betting advertisements. At the same time, although this probably appeals less to him, he would be doing something socially desirable and would be removing one of the many blemishes in the Bill. I hope therefore that the hon. Gentleman, if he cannot accept the precise Amendment, will undertake at a later stage to introduce an Amendment to deal in this way with pool betting.

Mr. Gammans

I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) is for or against the Amendment. I rather gather that he is in favour of one bit, but against the other bit, and that if only we could devise a means whereby pool betters could charge the expenses in a different way, he would be in favour of the Amendment.

Mr. Mulley

I am sorry that I did not make the matter clear. Since I am opposed to commercial television of any kind, the restriction of any advertising on it commends itself to me. But on social grounds there is a case for the prohibition of all forms of gambling advertisements. The argument is especially strong in the case of pool betting, because the people who place the advertisements do so with their clients' money.

Mr. Gammans

Even now I am not quite sure how exactly the hon. Member comes into the picture. I found this debate interesting. I was wondering how far the Opposition would go in condemning football pools. The nearest that the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who moved the Amendment, came to doing so was to talk about a social disease. I do not know whether the Labour Party is against football pools and will say so, or whether it would go a bit further.

Mr. Chapman

The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting me.

Mr. Gammans

I did not know whether the hon. Member was against football pools as such, and would like to do away with them.

Mr. Chapman

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I talked about the extent to which gambling as a whole, once it had reached its present astronomical heights, is becoming a social disease. I made it clear that a moderate flutter on the pools is something which I regard as quite harmless.

Mr. Gammans

The hon. Member is now going backwards.

Mr. Chapman

Oh no.

Mr. Gammans

I gather that he is in favour of football pools, although I thought he regarded them as a social disease. I quite understand the delicacy of opposing football pools, because it would be political dynamite to oppose them considering the enormous number of people who patronise them every week.

I gather that the hon. Member for Northfield was talking about gambling for socially desirable purposes, and that that was something of which he was in favour. I assure him that when people have a flutter, they do not do it for socially desirable purposes; they do it in the hope of making money. Whether socially desirable purposes come into it is somewhat different.

What it comes down to is that the Opposition do not object to football pools. In fact, the hon. Member said that he likes them. The party opposite do not object to the pools being advertised—they cannot, because they are advertised in the newspapers, and in their party's own newspapers. They cannot object to tipster advice being given, because that is in their newspapers. They cannot object to advertisements explaining how to fill up a football pool coupon. All that they object to is the big pools advertiser on television.

That is the argument of hon. Members opposite. It is not that football pools are so leprous, undesirable and dangerous that one must not touch them, but that one must not touch them on television. They object to them only on television.

Mr. Mulley

I should be happy to put down Amendments, if they were in order, to restrict pool betting advertisements in a large number of categories, but we on this side of the Committee are bound to observe the rules of order, whether the hon. Gentleman observes them or not.

Mr. Gammans

I am keeping to the rules of order; I am trying to elucidate the case, and it is now crystal clear. Hon. Members opposite do not mind football pools at all, except on television, which they regard as evil. They say that it would do damage and would lead people into bad ways, and make them spend more money than otherwise, and that all sorts of terrible things would happen.

What will in fact happen? The Independent Television Authority, I have no doubt whatever, will make rules about gambling advertisements, and so on; they have the Gambling Acts to consider. What those rules are to be is not for me to say now, and I will not attempt to say, but I cannot think of anything more illogical than for the Opposition to sponsor an Amendment which permits every other form of advertisement for gambling, but bans it on television. For that reason, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ness Edwards

A good number of Aunt Sallies have been put up and knocked down with equal efficiency. The Assistant Postmaster-General says that either the Opposition is or is not in favour of football pools and gambling, and that if advertising is allowed on the underground and everywhere else it must be allowed on television. That is his argument. We allow patent medicine advertisements in all sorts of places. The hon. Gentleman has agreed not to allow them on television. We allow impersonation advertisments everywhere; the hon. Gentleman has agreed not to allow them on television. The hon. Gentleman has agreed that religion can advertise anywhere; he has not allowed religion to advertise on television. The only people whom, apparently, the hon. Gentleman is prepared to allow to do so are the brewers and the bookies. When we discussed the last Amendment he allowed in the brewers; now his is going to allow in the bookies on this one.

That was our fear. We on this side of the Committee have said repeatedly that the programmes on commercial television will be affected by their association with advertisements. And what will greatly affect those programmes is the money of the brewers and the bookies—Shermans, Littlewoods and Vernons have tremendous sums of money. I have been asked by an hon. Member who has not been here long how it will affect television. The programme companies have to sell their programmes, and they must have some knowledge of how much money will be made available for the time associated with their programmes before they can decide the approximate cost.

We have argued this out time and time again, in Committee, on Second Reading, and previously. This leaves the door open to the I.T.A. being influenced by the substantial sums of money which will be available from the brewers or the bookies for advertising. That is our case. We want to try to safeguard the commercial programmes from those associations. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman did not say anything about normal commercial practice this time. He is himself responsible for a substantial portion of advertising space in this country. I make this challenge to him. If he will accept for the I.T.A. the code that he adopts in the Post Office, we will accept it, because neither the brewers nor the bookies are allowed to advertise in the Post Office guides or in the post offices.

Where does the hon. Gentleman stand? Is he going to allow brewers and bookies to advertise in post offices or in the stamp books? If there is nothing wrong in doing this, why does he impose a complete ban on territory over which he has complete control? The hon. Gentleman has something to answer for. Either he is doing an injustice to the brewers and the bookies in the Post Office or he is giving them something in commercial television which they ought not to have.

These rules were laid down not by my party, but by the party opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "Monstrous."] It is no use saying "nonsense," because it is the absolute truth. [An HON. MEMBER: "He said monstrous."] The Tory Party has done monstrous things in its time, but that is one code of public conduct which commends itself to this side of the Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "There must be something wrong."] It might happen that there could be something right with it. In this case, hon. Gentlemen opposite have told us repeatedly that the commercial programmes will have a high standard, will have regard for the susceptibilities of our fellow countrymen, and will be decent in all respects.

There is our case. We shall divide the Committee on this Amendment because we think it undesirable from every point of view to allow these huge sums of money to interfere with the formation of programmes and with the display of advertisements on commercial television.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Shackleton

The Assistant Postmaster-General seems to know less and less about the proposals in this Bill as the debate goes on. He is sitting there looking very pleased with himself, having dug out once again the old arguments about newspapers. What he does not realise is that in setting up this service he must take the consequence of his own actions, and the result will be that advertising of this kind will go into the homes of our people in a particularly powerful form.

The hon. Gentleman made a frivolous reply, saying he did not know whether the Labour Party and the Labour Party newspapers were in favour of pools, and that people betted only for what they got out of it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is not a single hon. Member here who has not had to take part in some form of gaming activity, even if only by buying lottery tickets, when he did not care whether he got anything out of it.

Whether one is a betting man or not, there is a wide body of opinion in the churches and amongst many hon. Members, to the effect that gambling is on the increase today and is something of a national danger. Is the hon. Gentleman, by his actions, and the actions of this Government, going to provide opportunities for increasing what is a social evil if it becomes too great?

What the hon. Gentleman is going to do is quite different from what is done abroad. Commercial television in this country has frequently been defended on the ground that it will not be anything like American commercial television. In this respect it will be a great deal worse, because there is no advertising for bookmaking in America, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Neither is there advertising for hard liquor or spirits. Now the hon. Gentleman is going to widen this field and will do so for the sole reason that the newspapers do it at present.

If that is a serious reason for the Government bringing forward this Bill and allowing this kind of thing, I can only ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to read some of the earlier debates and learn why we are opposed to this Measure. The main reason is that we do not want these influences affecting the television programmes of this country, and the hon. Gentleman persists in refusing to understand that point.

My right hon. Friend has said that we shall divide the Committee in support of this Amendment. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who vote for the Government will realise what they are voting for. It is not a question of whether they or any others are betting men. It is a question of whether we want to provide opportunities for the encouragement of betting, gambling and pools —I do not think many hon. Gentlemen opposite will be in favour of that—also whether we are in favour of exposing the television programmes to the influence of the gamblers. I hope that the Government will be satisfied with what they are doing.

Mr. Llewellyn

I interrupted the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) when he referred to tips being given on ordinary television. My interruption was to the effect that on Sunday night the American jockey, Johnny Longden, was invited by a member of the panel to suggest what horse would win the Derby. So that no one is misled in this Committee or outside into taking a favourable view or otherwise of the chances of his mount, I should like to make it clear that he resisted the temptation to give tips of any description.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing

I intervene to answer the point which has been made from the Opposition benches. We are all concerned to see that betting should not spread like wildfire throughout the country. The only difference of opinion between us is on whether one ought to write a sanction into the Bill. We on this side of the Committee believe that the I.T.A. will be composed of people perfectly fit to govern the standards of advertising and the programmes, and that it is not necessary to write a sanction into the Bill. If hon. Members opposite felt so acutely about this why did they not bring the matter up when the Charter of the B.B.C. was being prepared?

Mr. Ernest Davies

The B.B.C. does not advertise.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

The B.B.C. Charter does not state that the B.B.C. must not refer to betting or gambling, but responsible people are at the head of the B.B.C. and throughout its life they have said that it is undesirable that there should be any reference to betting or gambling on the programmes. No less responsible people will be at the head of I.T.A.

Mr. Chapman

Does the hon. Member therefore expect that the I.T.A. will firmly refuse to advertise betting?

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I have confidence that the I.T.A. will be composed of responsible people who will set up a high standard of what is right and wrong, and I do not think that it is necessary for the Committee to write a provision to that effect into the Bill.

Mr. Shackleton

If the hon. Member thinks that this matter should be left to the I.T.A., will he give the Committee his own opinion as to whether this sort of advertising should take place on commercial television, because in future the I.T.A. might listen to his views?

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I am very flattered that the hon. Member is trying to draw me, but I believe that it is for the I.T.A. to make the rules and not for us.

There are other bodies which are anxious to see that high standards are maintained on the television service. When the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers and the Institute of Incorporated Practititioners in Advertising drew up their code they laid down in paragraph 12 of "The Viewer and the Advertiser" that there should be no advertisements of:

"(a) any form of speculated finance,

(e) organisations/companies/persons seeking to advertise for the purpose of giving betting tips." Surely it is fair to say, therefore, that we have not only the I.T.A., who will watch the standard set very carefully, but these responsible advertising bodies, which have a considerable interest in seeing that only responsible advertising takes place.

Mr. Ross

Would the hon. Member comment on the Postmaster-General's remarks, the gist of which was that there was no good reason at all why this kind of advertising should not take place on television?

Mr. Ernest Davies

The Assistant Postmaster-General's speech was quite inconsistent with that of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) who was clearly speaking in favour of the Amendment.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing

indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies

Judging from the quotations he made, it would be quite reasonable for the hon. Member to vote for the Amendment.

The Assistant Postmaster-General is not accepting the fact that the I.T.A. has a responsibility and a duty to the community. In previous debates he has frequently compared the I.T.A. to the B.B.C. and has said that there is no reason why the I.T.A. should not be equally responsible for equal duties and put out equally good programmes. This afternoon, however, the hon. Gentleman has compared the I.T.A. to the newspapers and has said that what the newspapers can do the I.T.A. can do, ignoring the fact that newspapers are operated by private enterprise and the I.T.A. is to be a public corporation responsible to the House of Commons.

The Assistant Postmaster-General should keep in mind that responsibility which the Authority will have. He should remember that in this country there are varying views about drink and betting, and that a very large section of the community would be offended if advertisements were brought into their homes, whilst they were sitting by the fireside with their families, urging them to put bets on this or that or to patronise this or that pool. There is a responsibility on the Authority which the Assistant Postmaster-General is ignoring. If he would accept that there is that responsibility. and if he took a view con- sistent with his previous speeches, it would lead him to the view that the Authority should not accept this type of advertisement.

Mr. Nicholson

Can we not bring a little common sense to bear on this matter and admit that as a nation our whole attitude towards betting is exceedingly illogical? We think it quite harmless in small doses but socially undesirable on a large scale. If the new Authority offends public taste, it will get a rap over the knuckles. It will get into disrepute and suffer trouble. If we adopt the ordinary English illogical procedure which foreigners think so inconsistent, we shall be all right.

I see no reason why we should not have a commentary on the National, but we should not have tipsters' advertisements every night. This is a matter of common sense which, as a nation, we should treat as a matter of common sense. If the Authority does not do likewise it will come to grief. It is silly to try to fence the Authority in with strict rules and prohibitions. That would be hypocritical. It would be far less hypocritical if we left the matter to our national common sense.

Mr. Ness Edwards

The hon. Member has referred time and time again to the fact that we should trust the advertisers.

Mr. Nicholson

I never have.

Mr. Ness Edwards

Hon. Members opposite have done so, and we have heard from the Assistant Postmaster-General that we should trust a very responsible association of advertisers.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing

The I.T.A.

Mr. Ness Edwards

Then we hear, "Let us trust the I.T.A." The only occasions on which hon. Members opposite want to trust the I.T.A. is in relation to brewers and bookies. They say that we should not trust the I.T.A. with regard to quack remedies, politics and religion, but that we must trust it with regard to the brewers and bookies. We are asked to do this despite the fact that the code of conduct, drawn up by an advertising association, which has been repeatedly dangled before our eyes, says, "Do not allow the bookies to advertise." Which way are hon. Members going to vote?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Gammans

We have not asked hon. Members to trust the bookies or brewers, but to trust the I.T.A. for every other form of advertising except that of medicine and religious services.

Mr. Ness Edwards

In relation to every Amendment moved this afternoon that has been the attitude of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Gentleman did not answer my other question about Post Office practice, which prohibits these advertisements. Despite his own practice of not trusting these people, and the code we have been told about from the advertising association saying, "Do not trust these people," the Government claim they cannot accept the Amendment and we should trust the I.T.A. In view of this attitude, we have no alternative but to divide the Committee.

Mr. Nicholson

The right hon. Member brings me to my feet. He has proved too much. Surely it would have been logical for the Government he supported to have taken that line and to have refused to take any revenue from disastrously immoral things like betting and drink by advertisements in stamp books. When things are thought to be so wrong the State does not take any revenue from them. The right hon. Member has reduced the matter to the stamp book revenue.

Mr. Ness Edwards

The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) may have a personal grievance in this matter, but I was referring, not to the stamp book, but to the very elaborate advertisement space which the Post Office has at its disposal—the "Post Office Journal," the Post Office Monthly Circular, the Post Office Guide, telephone directories and post offices themselves—and in none of those cases is the type of person referred to in the Amendment allowed to advertise. I am afraid the hon. Member has much more to learn about the Post Office than the fact that it issues a stamp book.

Mr. Shackleton

Are we to have no reply from the Assistant Postmaster-General in view of the pleas which have

been made by hon. Members behind him? He said that he is in favour of the I.T.A. advertising gambling. Apparently he cannot have read his brief from the advertising association if the Government are to encourage advertising of gambling.

Mr. Chapman

May I press the hon. Gentleman for a further word? We have been told by him that he gives a carte blanche for advertising of gambling. We have heard from back benchers on the Government side that the Authority is expected to make rules and regulations which would freeze out the worst of gambling from the television screen. Are we not to know where the Government stand between that kind of speech and the very different speech of the hon. Gentleman, which would give a carte blanche to this advertising? It would be very useful if we had from the hon. Gentleman some indication of whether he expects the I.T.A. to carry on in the way his hon. Friends suggested and to see that permutation systems will be banned.

Mr. Ross

If the hon. Gentleman will do nothing else, will he inform the I.T.A. when it is set up that when discussing this point, before coming to a conclusion of whether to have advertisements which might encourage gambling, it should altogether disregard the speech the hon. Gentleman has made today?

Mr. Gammans

I have been asked to reply and of course I am delighted to do so. Hon. Members may have forgotten what I said as it is now so long ago since I said it. I said that I would expect the I.T.A. to make regulations in regard to the type of betting advertisement it would accept. That is for the Authority to decide, but I can see no reason why this type of advertisement should be banned by Act of Parliament.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 191: Noes. 220.

Boardman, H.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Proctor, W. T.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Pursey, Cmdr. H
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G A.	Rankin, John
Brown, Rt. Hen. George (Belper)	Janner, B.	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Burke, W. A.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Rhodes, H.
Champion, A. J.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Chapman, W. D	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Clunie, J.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Coldrick, W.	Keenan, W.	Ross, William
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Kenyon, C.	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Cove, W. G.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Short, E. W.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	King, Dr. H. M.	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Crossman, R. H. S.	Lawson, G. M.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Daines, P.	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Lindgren, G. S.	Slater J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Logan, D. G.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Deer, G.	MacColl, J. E.	Snow, J. W.
Delargy, H. J.	McInnes, J.	Sparks, J. A.
Dodds, N. N.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Steele, T.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	McLeavy, F.	Stross, Dr. Barnett
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)	Mainwaring, W. H.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Sylvester, G. O.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Manuel, A. C.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Mason, Roy	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Fienburgh, W.	Mellish, R. J.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Finch, H. J.	Messer, Sir F.	Thornton, E.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Mikardo, Ian	Tomney, F.
Follick, M.	Mitchison, G. R	Turner-Samuels, M.
Foot, M. M.	Monslow, W.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Moody, A. S.	Viant, S. P.
Gibson, C. W.	Morley, R.	Wallace, H. W
Gooch, E. G.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Warbey, W. N.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Watkins, T. E.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Mort, D. L.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Grey, C. F.	Moyle, A.	Wells, William (Walsall)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mulley, F. W.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Oldfield, W. H.	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Oliver, G. H.	Wilkins, W. A.
Hamilton, W. W.	Oswald, T.	Williams, David (Neath)
Hannan, W.	Paget, R. T.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Hargreaves, A.	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Hastings, S.	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Hayman, F. H.	Palmer, A. M. F.	Willis, E. G.
Henderson, Rt. Han. A. (Rowley Regis)	Pannell, Charles	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Herbison, Miss M.	Pargiter, G. A.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Hobson, C. R.	Parker, J.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
Holman, P.	Parkin, B. T.	Yates, V. F.
Houghton, Douglas	Pearson, A.	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Hoy, J. H.	Pearl, T. F.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Plummer, Sir Leslie	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Porter, G.	Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

NOES
Aitken, W. T.	Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Digby, S. Wingfield
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Brooman-White, R. C.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Alport, C. J. M.	Browne, Jack (Govan)	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P. G. T	Drayson, G. B.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Bullard, D. G.	Drewe, Sir C.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M	Burden, F. F. A.	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Baldwin, A. E.	Butcher, Sir Herbert	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Banks, Col. C.	Carr, Robert	Duthie, W. S.
Barber, Anthony	Cary, Sir Robert	Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Barlow, Sir John	Channon, H.	Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Baxter, A. B.	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Finlay, Graeme
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Fisher, Nigel
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Cole, Norman	Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Colegate, W. A.	Fort, R.
Birch, Nigel	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Bishop, F. P.	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Bossom, Sir A. C.	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.	Crouch, R. F.	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Gammans, L. D.
Braine, B. R.	Davidson, Viscountess	Garner-Evans, E. H.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Deedes, W. F.	Glover, D.

Sir L. Plummer

I beg to move, in page 17, line 13, at the end, to insert:

1. No testimonial or other commendation founded or purporting to be founded on professional or other special knowledge or experience or on personal experience shall be included in any advertisement, unless the person on whose knowledge or experience the testimonial or other commendation is or purports to be founded has verified the testimonial or commendation by affidavit deposited with the Authority at least one week before the testimonial or commendation is included in the advertisement.

As the Assistant Postmaster-General decided to think again about the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), I am hoping that I shall not have to press this Amendment very hard, because it is concerned with the form of advertisement permitted on commercial television and so falls within the scope of the committee that the Assistant Postmaster-General announced is to be set up to advise the I.T.A.

I am sorry that the Assistant Postmaster-General is not here at the moment, because I want to make it clear to him that the testimonials to which I refer appear in the "Daily Herald," "Reynolds News" and the "Sunday Pictorial" on the Left, the "Observer," the "Sunday Times" and "Vogue" on the Right, and in the "Racing and Football Outlook" in the Centre. That means to say that all newspapers are guilty of accepting advertisements containing testimonials obtained or subscribed under conditions that are quite deplorable, and do so in spite of the standards of conduct that have so often been referred to today.

We are concerned that testimonials obtained in such ways should not appear on commercial television. I hope, therefore, that the now rather stale and arid argument, that we need not worry, that it will be all right because the newspapers publish them, will not be used against this Amendment.

The purpose of the Amendment is clear. It is to bring within the scope of the Acts relating to perjury, statements professing to be testimonials based on personal experience of the goods advertised. Testimonials in advertisements normally fall into three categories. The first class consists of testimonials by famous people, who sign them. The second class consists of testimonials from unknown people, who also sign them. The third class consists of testimonials also by unknown people, which are printed anonymously, save, perhaps, for the initials of persons who are purported to have signed them.

7.45 p.m.

In the first class are testimonials such as that invited by a prominent daily newspaper which offered my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) £250 if he would write 100 words and sign them saying why he bought that daily newspaper and why he liked reading it. My hon. Friend had no difficulty in refusing the offer, although, of course, it is very tempting to write a testimonial for £2 10s. a word —a rate of payment which makes even the late Arnold Bennett look rather as though he wrote for nothing at all. It happens, however, that my hon. Friend does not like the newspaper, reads it only because he has to, and has not a good thing to say about it.

The testimonials that belong to the first and second class are not a very great danger. They are the testimonials of the sort that a debutante writes saying why she uses somebody's face cream or powder. It is quite usual for her to be photographed at her dressing table and to be described in lyrical terms as a beauty. She testifies that her beauty is the result of her using such and such a face cream or powder. Bless the lass, we would not deprive her of the £100 she is paid for her testimonial, but she might, at least, testify to the fact that she does use that article, instead of holding it in contempt, believing as she does that it is not really good enough for a lady such as she herself, but ought to be left to be used by factory girls. All we ask is that the society girl, while being allowed to play her part in giving the impression that she uses it, should know something about the product before she testifies to it.

Also in this class is the film actress who says, as indeed one was advertised in the newpapers as saying only in the past week, "My favourite partner in the perfect picture is Mars." Actually, her favourite partner is her contract, and we do not for a moment take all these things seriously. If an actress wants to say that the most important assistance to her in her acting is a stick of chocolate, and asks the public to gauge her acting capacity on that basis, that is all right. All we ask is that she should testify and swear an oath to that fact.

After the public has been drugged and dragooned, as it will be by this monstrous innovation, for a few years, it will get to know the difference between that sort of testimonial on the television screen and the other and far more dangerous one, which is used by the advertiser of patent medicines. The third class of testimonials comprises this sort of advertisement, and that was why I said at the beginning that I hoped the Government would be able to include these conditions in the terms of reference of the committee to be set up. I wonder if hon. Gentlemen know how these testimonials for patent medicines are often procured. There are many ways in which they are, but one is to go down the street with a packet of pills and to find some poor, bedridden old soul, give her some of the pills, call back upon her a week or so later, and ask, "Are you feeling better now?" And the poor old girl nods her head, and that is how a testimonial is born.

There is an interchange of these testimonials. Some patent medicine advertisers collect them as little boys collect stamps. They swop them with each other. A careful perusal of the newspapers will show that Mrs. B of Scarborough, who appears in the advertisement this week as having cured her lumbago because she took a bottle of X, was in fact only a few months ago Mrs. Y of Teddington who had spots which improved because she took something mentioned in another advertisement. The advertisers who are not particularly careful about these things exchange these testimonials on a market basis. I culled this from a Sunday paper this week: After a week's trial my friends are asking me if I have been to the South Sea Islands—R.C.G., Birmingham. Who is "R.C.G., Birmingham"? is it a man or a woman? Why does not "R.C.G." come forward and testify so that we shall know that "R.C.G." is an honourable person, who is now so tanned and magnificent that he, or she, elicits spontaneous tributes because the use of whatever it is has made him, or her, look the way he, or she, does.

Another one reads: A friend of mine advised me to try blank and I am thankful to say I have not had a headache since.—W.C.H., Crowborough. Has not had a headache since when—30 years, or 20 years ago, last week, or last night? Then there is Mrs. A.I., of Manchester, who says: I looked and felt old, but since using blank 'for a few nights I can dance and feel young again. May be it is a good thing that she does not give her exact address as otherwise she might find a queue at her door.

These advertisements are designed for the credulous. They are written for the person who is ailing or worried or anxious. They are illustrated with awful pictures of poor suffering women which remind me of pictures in the Rogues Gallery at Scotland Yard of unfortunate women whose fate it was ultimately to be buried in chicken runs by some murderous fanner in Kent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sussex."]—or Sussex. They have that look of doom about them, and perhaps it is that look of doom which makes every incredulous person feel, "I should look like that if I took this medicine." There is a sort of inverted horror about this kind of testimonial advertising.

But the credulous, when they read these things, believe them, and the advertiser who is successful enough to get on a television programme and is permitted to produce this sort of testimonial should be driven off by having to produce an affidavit sworn before a commissioner of oaths by the person who is testifying. That is the least we can do in the protection of solitary, semi-invalid people who will be induced to buy many of these nostrums. I urge the Home Secretary—who I appreciate is in charge of this Bill for the time being—to give us an assurance that this question of faking names on testimonials shall be referred to the Committee that is to be appointed to advise the Authority.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon (Middlesbrough, West)

There have been many very silly Amendments moved to this Bill but this really is quite the silliest—the idea that we can stop people being imposed upon by getting a testimonial put into affidavit form. I think someone said—the right hon. Gentleman opposite will know who it is, but his name escapes my memory—that truth will out, even in an affidavit. Anyone who has known of affidavits sworn on all sorts of matters will know that that is no safeguard at all.

The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) mentioned Mars Bars. The advertisement says: Jean Kent knows that Mars Bars will bring out the best in her. That is a terrible thing, and ought of course to be supported by an affidavit. Curiously enough, I find it appears in the copy of the "Radio Times" of 28th May, 1954.

Sir L. Plummer

We are discussing television advertisements.

Mr. Simon

What is the difference in principle between an advertisement in the "Radio Times" which is put out by the B.B.C. and which goes into every home in the land, and the same thing being shown over the air?

Sir L. Plummer

If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened to the beginning of my speech he would have heard me say that this took place in newspapers throughout the country. I am not supporting that offence but I am saying, "Let us start now, from the beginning, to see that it does not take place on commercial television."

Mr. Simon

I suggest that if there is anything in this point at all, if we are proposing to see that there shall not be advertisements of this kind, the only sensible way is to apply the sanction to all sorts of advertisements.

Mr. Shackleton

I do not know how much of the Committee stage discussions the hon. and learned Gentleman has listened to, but I hope he will not waste time upon general arguments as we wish to get on as quickly as possible with a specific point.

Mr. Simon

I shall not delay the Committee, but this point is a perfectly valid one. It is quite illogical to single out one type of advertisement, particularly when it is singled out on such a fantastic issue as this, and to say, "We wish to legislate against some particular potential abuse." If there is anything in this point—which there is not—it should be applied to all types of advertisements.

Mr. Chapman

May I give one example to the Committee of a faked testimonial? I have been raising this whole problem, and similar things, from time to time in the House. There was an advertisement in the Press for a preparation called "Blue Corn," which is supposed to cure baldness. Some investigators, for whose bona fides I take full responsibility, went to interview the man who makes it. He turned out to be a 33-year old local motor cycle repairer who said he had a complete cure for baldness. The investigators state: We met Mr. Allen in his tiny motor-cycle shed in Bridge Street, Lockerbie"— which is somewhere in Scotland. The floor was littered with spare parts, oil, water and grease. 'This,' said Mr. Allen, 'is my laboratory, and dispensing quarters'. This was an investigation into an advertisement nationally accepted. The investigators state: Part of Mr. Allen's hand-outs consist of testimonials from men who have taken his medicine. One of them is from a man whose name I would rather not give in order to save him from embarrassment. He is a former police inspector in the Occupation Force in Germany. The investigators state that his testimonial says: … apart from being bald, he suffered every year with winter illnesses, bad colds, pains, rheumatics, gout, loss of energy, stomach disorders, chills, headaches and influenza. When he was interviewed at the farm at which he works he told the investigators: I have never suffered from a day's illness in my life. All I've got is a cartilage in the knee. I have been taking this 'Blue Corn' for 14 months. I don't suppose it does me any harm. It seems to have helped my baldness a little, but I don't know how. I thought I ought to see a doctor about taking any more of this 'Blue Corn.' I have not paid one penny for 'Blue Corn.' I volunteered to be one of Mr. Allen's guinea pigs for his experiment. I have not written any testimonial. At Mr. Allen's request I once signed a sheet of blank paper. That is the sort of thing that is done.

Mr. Ede

Do I understand from my hon. Friend that an ex-police inspector signed a blank form?

Mr. Simon

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if that subsequent explanation was by affidavit or if there is any reason to think that it is any more true than the original testimonial.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Chapman

I simply do not know. All I say is that in return for an offer of free treatment people will often say, "It has done no harm." They will be willing to sign something which says a lot more than that. They will be willing to say, "This has done me good," and to invite other people to try it. The account which I have given is typical of the way in which the dealers in patent medicines can get hold of testimonials. That is an example, with the actual case history, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)

Everyone who has heard the discussion will admit that it has contributed greatly to the gaiety of the Committee, if not later on to the gaiety of nations. I hope that the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), who moved the Amendment with great good temper and a great wealth of illustration, will feel on reflection that it can be left to the Authority to consider what rules they should make.

I was interested when the hon. Member referred to the committee Which my hon. Friend mentioned during the debate on the earlier patent medicine Amendment, because this is the sort of thing on which I should think that the Authority would want the advice of the committee. It is interesting to put before hon. Members what was stated in the British Code of Standards in relation to the advertisements of medicines and treatments of this kind. It shows the sort of view that they take of the matter. subparagraph 19, which deals with testimonials, says: No statement or implication should be allowed to appear in a testimonial which would not be permitted in the text of the advertisement. In any case no advertisement should contain a testimonial other than one limited to the actual views of the writer, nor any testimonial given by a doctor other than a registered British medical practitioner unless it is obvious in the advertisement that the writer is not a registered British medical practitioner. I quote that because I want to show—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would go thus far with me—that this is a matter which has been considered seriously by those who have the standards of British advertising at heart. I should put to the hon. Gentleman the consideration whether it is desirable to incorporate the detailed rules in the Bill as he suggests.

I shall not enter into discussion with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) as to the status and drafting of affidavits. I merely mention that that does show that this might not be—and I put it no higher than that—the most efficacious way of dealing with the matter.

The hon. Member for Deptford made an interesting development of the argument in the comparison with other media. I am not convinced on that point. He has given examples, and we have been completely frank as to the newspaper advertisement not being kept to papers of any particular kind. He illustrated from a number of them. My hon. and learned Friend made a relevant point in mentioning the "Radio Times."

It is difficult for the ordinary person trying to approach the subject without any dogma or predilection to see that advertisements in the "Radio Times" which, after all, has the infiltration of a paper connected with radio and television, can be put differently from advertisements which might appear in television itself. Although we have said that, as a starting point, it seems to us reasonable that the methods of advertisement which are acceptable in other media should be taken for a new media, we do not desire to press this view on the Authority as something which has overriding validity or comes from the Government as such. We think that it is a fair point for consideration at this stage, but it is essentially a matter for the Authority, with the advice of whatever committee they have, to make up their minds about what methods they will allow.

I remind the Committee that if the use of testimonials and commendations are to be allowed by the Authority, there are safeguards against abuse which we discussed when Clause 4 (5) was before the Committee. I made it clear then, in answer to a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), that in my view the Authority could not avoid its responsibility under that subsection by doing nothing when there was a duty to consult. Once they had consulted, the Postmaster-General came into the matter and he had his duty to do.

I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment because this is a question on which there may well be two views. Provided the Authority is properly advised, provided we are satisfied that this is a problem which those who are interested in the standards of advertising have had in their minds, then this is a case where one is not merely repeating mystic words but has made out a case for it being left to the Authority to deal with according to these methods. What has been said here, the aspects of the problem which have been put forward here, will I am sure ultimately be considered by the Authority and those advising it. I appeal to the Committee not to legislate in such detail about a matter which has many general aspects. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Naturally, for reasons explained before, we still prefer to have these considerations in the Bill rather than assurances, because we have had a lot of experience of assurances in connection with commercial television. Nonetheless, for reasons of time and because of the Guillotine, we do not press the Amendment to a Division because we are eager to have a certain amount of time in which to discuss the Government Amendment in page 17, line 36.

I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have put down Amendments which fall to be discussed before that Government Amendment will not take up too much time, because we should like what little time is left to talk about that matter before the Guillotine falls.

Amendment negatived.

Dr. Stross

I beg to move, in page 17, line 13, at the end, to insert:

1. No advertisement shall be permitted of any tobacco, smoking mixture, cigars or cigarettes.

This Amendment is rather similar to those on which we had a partially favourable answer from the Assistant Postmaster-General when we discussed curative medicine. The Amendment deals with preventive medicine. It would give us a great opportunity to do something which, I think, would completely meet the desires of the great tobacco companies.

On 12th February the Minister of Health gave a written answer to a Question, and on the same day he made a Press statement. In his written answer he said that the Committee which had advised him was of the opinion that: It must be regarded as established that there is a relationship between smoking and cancer of the lung. The Committee also advised: …it is desirable that young people should be warned of the risks apparently attendant on excessive smoking. It would appear that the risk increases with the amount smoked, particularly of cigarettes. The Minister accepted the Committee's view …pthat the statistical evidence points to smoking as a factor in lung cancer … and he then drew …attention to the fact that there is so far no firm evidence of the way in which smoking may cause lung cancer.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 173–4.] When the Minister discussed the matter at his Press conference he spoke of the rise in the incidence of cancer of the lung in this century, and gave some very striking and startling figures. He said that between 1911 and 1919 we had about 250 cases per year and that by 1952 the figure was 11,981 for males and 2,237 for females. That means that today more than three times as many people die from cancer of the lung as from road accidents. We had reference to death on the roads in an earlier discussion associated with alcoholic liquor. Here we are dealing with something which now causes three or four times as many deaths as road accidents, and yet a generation ago it was hardly known. It has been estimated that if the picture does not change we shall have in this country alone about 1 million deaths from this one cause in the next 50 years.

We have been told that a committee of the British Medical Association and the advertisers is to be set up to consider purely medical matters in relation to the advertising of drugs. The terms of reference of the committee may be embodied in the Bill. Could we have an assurance that the representation on the committee will include two members of the Medical Research Committee, for that would mean that a careful watch would be kept on the position? The position is not static, and we do not know what the future will bring.

We do not know whether the research which will result from the magnificent gift of £250,000 from the tobacco companies to the Minister of Health, which the Minister has handed over to the Medical Research Association, may not be enough to give us a solution to the problem within a few years. It may well be. However, today we know full well that 83 per cent. of all cancers of the lung have an association with excessive smoking, in the main of cigarettes. That cannot be denied.

That being the case, whatever our feelings are, whether we smoke or do not smoke, we must give heed to what was said about warning our young people. Until we obtain a solution to the problem and find which is the factor in tobacco which is responsible—even though we know that it may not be the only factor responsible; there may well be extraneous ones—it is only reasonable for us to have some safeguard. The safeguards which I am mentioning are "off the cuff" because we have heard that there is to be a committee which will take care of the matter in the way suggested.

8.15 p.m.

We certainly do not want the dreadful state of affairs which might have happened to Bannister, one of the greatest athletes in the world, who was apparently to be used when he went over to America to boost cigarettes or some other form of tobacco. We really cannot have that. I am sure that the great and reputable tobacco companies would agree with what I am saying. Unless there is some safeguard to prevent this type of advertising during the next few years, if one company commences the others may have to follow suit. Consequently, we appeal to the Home Secretary to take the same view of this Amendment as was taken by his colleague of the three Amendments which were discussed earlier.

Dr. H. Morgan (Warrington)

I am very chary about intervening in the debate because I hesitate very much to differ, or to appear to differ, from a medical colleague in a debate of this kind.

Nevertheless, I ask the Committee to be very careful about coming to conclusions, or tending to come to conclusions, at this stage of the investigations. We really do not know what may be the cause of malignant disease in the human body; we have made comparatively little progress in getting on the right track in spite of the experiments which have been carried out almost throughout the world.

When I was a research scholar many years ago, some specialised work was done about the possible association of coal miners' lung diseases and chemical substances in coal. We tried as hard as we could to isolate substances from the lungs of men who had died of diseases resulting from the inhalation of coal dust and leather dust. After experiments with animals and consideration of world literature, we came to the conclusion that, on the facts, we had very little evidence.

The Committee ought to be very careful in considering this matter. By all means let research go on, but the Committee ought to be very careful, until the end of the researches before coming to a final conclusion or deciding upon the final road that we should take, or even parallel roads towards our objective.

I have seen many lungs of various kinds—non-smokers, heavy smokers and light smokers—and we have studied them from the point of view of cigarettes or whatever substance has been inhaled, including pipe tobacco, and I and many of my medical colleagues who have considered the matter will be very careful before we come to a conclusion.

I am concentrating on this one subject because I do not want us to make a mistake and to be sidetracked. I hope that we shall be very careful about the money which is being spent on this research until we have better evidence and better grounds for spending money on research of this kind. I may be wrong, but I think that the evidence that tobacco is associated with cancer is very light. very tiny, in fact almost microscopic. There are certain substances which men inhale in the course of their occupation which impose a greater risk than smoking. Someone is laughing, but this is no laughing matter. [Interruption.] I heard the laugh, and I was compelled to make the remark. I am not blaming the hon. Gentleman.

I have seen the lungs of people who have inhaled a great deal of tobacco smoke, and I have compared them before they were cut up into sections for putting under the microscope, and I suggest that this Committee ought to be very careful indeed before coming to a conclusion on this matter, which is so important from the point of view of the general public.

The people should not be led to think that this research may in a few years' time prove successful, and I want to say quite frankly that there is no sign yet that we are on the right road, or that we can even see success coming our way. I hope we shall be very careful in regard to the amount of money which we spend on this research, and I ask the Committee to be particularly careful about any promises which may be made as to the likely success of these investigations.

Mr. Shackleton

I would assure my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) that the result of this Amendment, should the Government accept it, would not be to lead to further expenditure on research on this subject. As a heavy smoker, I am gratified that my hon. Friend takes a more optimistic view than my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, or even the Medical Research Council.

I think it right to refer to the report to which the Minister of Health made reference in his statement in the House—[Interruption.] I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, who protested about people laughing at him, will allow me to go on with my speech. The statement made by the Minister of Health has no doubt been seen by the Home Secretary, and, as on a previous occasion, I am encouraged by the absence of the Minister of Health to hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give an encouraging reply on this Amendment.

Let me say straight away that we do not propose to divide the Committee on this matter. We are as well aware as the Government of the difficulties of imposing an obligation of this kind, but both we ourselves and the Government are up against a real difficulty here, because the findings of the Committee were specific on one point only; namely, that young people should be made aware of the possible dangers of heavy smoking. It seems to me that the Government have an obligation here, and one which I am quite sure the Home Secretary will not evade by saying, "It is in the 'Daily Herald'". The answers which we have had to the other debates have suggested that, because these things are included in general advertising, and are found particularly in the Labour Party Press, we should not stop the I.T.A. doing them, but I am sure the Home Secretary will not use that sort of argument.

What we want is that the medical advisory committee, which I understand will be set up and which we hope will be given statutory form, will keep this matter under review, because we may find that, as medical research advances, there may in fact, be an even stronger reason for finding the direct causation of this trouble. I am quite sure that we cannot legislate specifically on this point tonight, but I am also sure that this is a matter which should not be lost sight of. I therefore hope that the Home Secretary will give consideration to these arguments, and, if necessary, that he will take counsel with the Minister of Health and consider making provision for future medical research on this subject.

Sir Frederick Messer (Tottenham)

I rise only because the impression may have been given that the statement made by the Minister was made with insufficient support for what he said. The Committee may see the position today a little more clearly if they know that this is not a matter of recent emergence.

What happened was that two eminent men, very high in their profession, began this private research. They took a number of cases, looked up the records of those cases, and, to their satisfaction, established nothing more than a relationship. They found that those people who were heavy smokers formed a very large percentage of the people who died from cancer of the lung. That led to further investigation. The Minister's advisers on cancer were not prepared to accept the statement that there was a prima facie case, and a request was made for further investigation, which is taking place. Even now, the profession itself is not able to say that this is the cause of cancer of the lung. All they can say is that there is an association—a statistical and clinical association—between these two things.

The work of the Medical Research Council has been assisted by the tobacco companies, which are themselves undertaking research. I do not believe that anybody wants to make profit out of the health of the people, and I believe that, if the tobacco companies were able to discover that there was anything dangerous either in the paper used for cigarettes or in the tobacco itself, they would be the first to see that it was eliminated.

The position at the moment is that we are left in suspense. Nobody is certain, but the investigation is continuing. Would it not therefore be better if we were to await the outcome of this investigation rather than place ourselves in the difficulty of sponsored television advertising smoking when the Minister of Health himself has said that there is an association between smoking and cancer of the lung? I put it no higher than that, and I suggest to the Government that, at the moment, it would be advisable that such advertising should not be permitted.

8.30 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am not going to make any pronouncement about the terrible problem which has been discussed. I stand by the announcement which was made by my colleague the Minister of Health, and nothing I say must be taken to add to or to subtract from what he said.

The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) said that those in sympathy with the Amendment did not expect it would be accepted in the form in which it was moved, but there is a general feeling that it would be unfair to make this prohibition. The subject with which we are now dealing does not have the associations, and does not arouse great feelings from the moral point of view, as did other things that we discussed earlier, but I ought to undertake to report to and to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health what has been said today, and to consider with him what steps are advisable. I do not think that I ought to go further, but I undertake to do that.

Mr. Shackleton

We had some sort of undertaking from the Assistant Postmaster-General with regard to the medical matters. Is there any chance that the Home Secretary, when making a report on those matters, will indicate the Government's attitude on the present matter?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me. I should like to discuss it with my right hon. Friend before I indicate the course. I will inform my right hon. Friend of the wishes expressed in the speeches.

Dr. Stross

In view of the statement made by the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gammans

I beg to move, in page 17, line 36, at the end to insert:

Any such tariffs may make provision for different circumstances and, in particular, may provide, in such detail as the Authority may determine, for the making, in special circumstances, of additional special charges.

The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that there must be flexibility in the tariff of advertising charges, and that special charges are permissible in certain circumstances. There might be a special performance or a gala show which the programme contractor might want to present on some special festival or at a holiday season. Some distinguished foreign artiste might arrive in this country at short notice, and the programme contractor might wish him to appear on television. The artiste would clearly require an exceptionally high fee, and the programme contractor should be able to recoup himself from the advertisers whose advertisements were to appear before and after such special shows.

Specially large audiences might wish to see the show, and they would also see the advertisements. How it would work out in practice would no doubt be that an advertiser who had booked an advertising interval before or after a special programme was arranged would be given an opportunity to pay a special surcharge. Otherwise his announcement would be carried forward to some subsequent occasion.

The Amendment takes into account that the tariff will vary according to whether advertisements appear at peak hours or off-peak hours, and according to the day of the week. For example, the tariff for Saturday would be higher than that for Monday, and the charges for spot advertisements, say of 30 seconds' duration, must be at a higher rate than for a quarter of an hour or half an hour in a documentary film or a shoppers' guide.

The Government felt that the Second Schedule did not make this point clear. Therefore they propose this Amendment. It concerns a very important point. Under paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule the rates which an advertiser can charge must be published, and the publication would include the unusually high rates for special items such as I have just mentioned. This would mean that just as the ordinary rates must be fixed in advance and published, so also would be the provision for special rates. In other words we are here asking for a system of premiums which would be as much open to public scrutiny as would the ordinary rates.

There are adequate safeguards against any tendency for a programme contractor to try to have one advertiser bidding against another, either during or after a special attraction.

Mr. Shackleton

What safeguards?

Mr. Gammans

They are to be published.

Mr. Shackleton

Would the hon. Gentleman clarify that? He has just said that they will be published but earlier he said that the figure would be named and the advertiser would have the opportunity of accepting it or not.

Mr. Gammans

I want to make clear that there will be no hole-and-corner business about this. The ordinary rates will be published, and when on special occasions special arrangements were desired those would have to be published as well. I think that this clears up what otherwise would be a slight deficiency in the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Walker

I have greatly admired the way in which the Assistant Postmaster-General tried to give the impression that this was merely a clarifying Amendment put down to prevent error. This, of course, is one of the major retreats of the Government. It is not just a clarifying amendment; it is contradicting something which was put into the original Schedule with deliberate intent.

When the Conservative Members who are critical of the Bill were attacking sponsorship, great play was made by the Home Secretary and others that there could not be sponsorship because there was a flat tariff, and that advertisers would not be able, by bidding up the price, to get themselves into a particular programme and then influence it. The flat tariff was to be one of the ways in which the Bill will differ from the United States practice. It was written into the Bill in clear words that there was to be a flat tariff. If that was not the intention, why was it put in the Bill? Or was it merely designed to be read by the Conservative critics of the Bill in the hope that they would forget about it when the Bill reached the Committee stage?

This Amendment is a complete departure from the flat tariff. It goes back to the American idea of prices varying according to the attractiveness of the programme. The Assistant Postmaster-General got very near to saying that we were to have sponsorship, because he said that it was quite right to charge more to the advertiser who wanted to be near a particular programme. The next thing will be that the advertisers will say, "If you do not put us on such and such an attractive programme we shall not advertise." The hon. Gentleman more or less admits that with such a flexible tariff in place of the flat tariff we shall get sponsorship,

This is an extraordinary retreat, very blandly explained by the hon. Gentleman. I was amazed when, in a sentence, he said, "We shall have safeguards to stop the abandoning of what we had in the Schedule before." What safeguards can there possibly be? How can one publish in advance special tariffs when one of the examples given by the hon. Gentleman was that of a great comedian or some other artiste coming here at short notice?

What safeguards can there be to stop sponsorship? Once one departs from the fiat tariff and has the flexible tariff what is to prevent advertisers being made to pay what the traffic can bear? We feel very strongly about this as a really grave retreat, and we hope that Conservatives who have been critical of the whole idea of commercial television will realise that there has been an important major retreat on a critical point on which they thought previously they had been satisfied by Her Majesty's present Ministers.

Mr. Mitchison

I find great difficulty in understanding both the original paragraph and this Amendment. The paragraph, so far as I can see, allows any individual programme contractor to fix his own tariff, and there is no provision whatsoever that individual programme contractors should have the same tariff or anything like it. That is, no doubt, left to the free play of competition. But it is more than that. The original paragraph provides that the programme contractor is to fix his tariff "from time to time." It gives no indication when. He can draw it up "in such detail" and publish it in such form and manner as the Authority may determine. That seems to me to leave it entirely to him when he does or does not change his tariff, on what sort of notice, and what he does with it.

As regards the Authority, what it has to do is to tell the contractor how much detail he has got to put in and how he has got to publish it. I have no idea how he has got to publish it, and the Assistant Postmaster-General gave no indication at all whether he is supposed to put advertisements in a newspaper or issue some kind of paper, or in what way he should make known to the public something which the Government apparently believe concerns them.

The Amendment states: Any such tariffs may make provision for different circumstances … It then goes on to state that additional special charges may be made. The Assistant Postmaster-General spent all his time talking about an instance in which this could be done, but he did not explain the more sweeping provision that the tariff may make provision for different circumstances, unless he meant what I thought was already in the Bill—that is to say, that allowance should be made for different times of the day and a higher volume of viewers on one day than on another.

It seems to me that the whole of this paragraph is completely useless as a safeguard to the public. It provides for the programme contractor fixing what charge he likes, when he likes and changing it as he likes and when he likes. It gives the Authority no control whatever over any substantial point. It gives the Authority a highly limited control over the way in which the tariffs are drawn up and the form and manner of publication.

Then we are assured that that vestige and shadow of control is the one protection which the public are to have in this matter. It seems to me that it throws the door wide open to the complete domination of the programmes by the advertisement contractors. It removes any uniformity—indeed, any order—in tariffs as a weapon of any sort, and of course it gives the Authority nothing whatever by way of effective control.

The more I go through this Bill, the more astonished I am that anybody should have dreamt of swallowing the extraordinary proposition that this Authority could do anything or was meant to do anything. I have never seen a body so obviously set up as a concession to public opinion in a matter where the Government are entirely unwilling to meet the real intention of the public.

I hope I shall be in order if, without specific reference to an Amendment which was not selected, I say that I should have thought the straight thing to have done in a case of this sort was to give the Authority control, not over the amount of detail and the manner and form of publication, which are trifles, but the tariffs themselves, which form the substance of the matter. But no—the Authority is not to be allowed to do that. The Authority is meant to be simply a shadow; something which is nothing but a name, has no power, hardly any duty and, to use a crude metaphor, no teeth whatever. No other part of the Bill makes this fact more obvious.

8.45 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser (Morecambe and Lonsdale)

When hon. Members on this side opposed the nationalisation of coal, iron and steel and the Bank of England, even though we subsequently partially denationalised certain of these industries, we did not immediately follow our action through by doing everything in our power to make that nationalisation unworkable. It may be right to oppose the Bill in principle, but it cannot be right to do everything possible to prevent it from working. If it is going to work it must surely earn as much money as possible, and in order to allow it to do that we must make it possible for the advertiser to be made to pay the highest price for the article which will suit him best. He must therefore be tempted, invited and encouraged to pay a higher price for a good listening hour or for a good programme next to his advertisement.

It is great humbug to suppose that that will not occur. Everybody who hopes that this scheme will work hopes that that will be so. Therefore, we need to make it quite clear in the Bill that an advertiser can buy the best time, the best place and the best opportunity to advertise his goods. Unless we do that we shall not give the scheme a chance to work. Surely it is better to face that fact and not pretend that there is going to be a disassociation between advertising tariffs and the best circumstances? An advertiser buys the best place in a newspaper; why should not he buy the best place in these television programmes? That seems to me to be most sensible, and I cannot see any objection to it if we want to make the scheme work.

Mr. Ernest Davies

The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) has certainly given the game away. It is quite clear from what he stated that the result of the Amendment will be exactly contrary to the original intention of the Bill. As the White Paper was originally explained and the Bill originally presented to us it was quite clear that no means were to be provided by which the door could be opened to sponsorship. There is no doubt that the Amendment will open that door, for the very reason which the hon. Member has just given.

When the programme contractor finds that special charges can be made for special times and special programmes in special circumstances—the words "special circumstances" being in the Amendment—he will quite clearly do everything in his power to create a very large audience for his programme and then charge a higher price for it.

Mr. Gammans

indicated assent.

Mr. Davies

The Assistant Postmaster-General nods his head. That is just what we do not wish to happen. If it does happen it will mean a deterioration in the programmes because there will then he, on the part of the programme contractors, a searching after mass audiences at peak periods in order to be able to charge the highest possible prices for those programmes at those times.

If that is the method which is to be followed, we are scrapping immediately all the plans which were originally put forward for balanced programmes, for programmes complementary and supplementary to the B.B.C., and so on. We are getting away from balanced programmes and from the protections and safeguards which have been introduced into the Bill, and for which we have fought consistently, particularly this afternoon. If I understand the Amendment correctly, as explained particularly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), that is the result.

I therefore suggest that the Assistant Postmaster-General reconsiders the Amendment and realises the result which will flow from it. It is a result which would destroy some of the original guarantees, as it were, which were given to us as to what commercial television would mean and would not mean.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have let their suspicions run away with them with regard to the Amendment. It is an important matter, and therefore I venture to intervene. I start from the point at which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) began, namely, the paragraph of the Schedule as it now stands.

As the hon. and learned Member said, the charges are to be made by the programme contractor, and they shall be in accordance with tariffs fixed by him from time to time. At that stage, as the hon. and learned Member said—I do not dissent from it—the programme contractor fixes the charges, and the times at which he does it are left to him.

I did not know there was any dispute between us—I certainly never intended to convey anything different—on the point that there could, and there must, be different charges, say, for a Saturday and a Monday.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Fixed months ahead?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

Not months.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Well, a month?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

Fixed from time to time in accordance with the Schedule. As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering said, "fixed …from time to time" does not mean that the charges will be laid down months ahead; but it means that they will be fixed. That is the first point, and I did not think there was any dispute that it would be reasonable to have a different charge for a Saturday, which is one of the best listening days, and a Monday.

The next point is that it should be made quite clear that there could be a different charge for different times of the day. I thought that that was completely common ground. Nobody has questioned it before, and I have certainly not voluntarily or intentionally said anything to the contrary.

Mr. Mitchison

The right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees, does he not, that there is nothing to prevent different programme contractors having different sets of charges?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

There is nothing at all to prevent that.

Mr. Mitchison

Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us exactly the effect of the paragraph, as amended? Has it any effect at all?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

The Guillotine falls at 9 o'clock and this is an important point which I should answer, other wise I should be prepared to give way.

It is common ground that different contractors can charge different rates. There is nothing in the original drafting as to what period of time is fixed, and it is open, on the original paragraph, clarified by the Amendment, for there to be different rates for different days and for different hours.

Now we come to what this Amendment does. I remind the Committee that the words are: In particular, may provide, in such detail as the Authority may determine"— it is for the Authority to determine in what way it will be done— for the making, in special circumstances, of additional special charges. What has worried right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is that "special circumstances" might be twisted to deal with a variation in programme.

I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has not time to intervene on this point, because I should like his support.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)

Is it not a fact that the Amendment effects a fundamental change from paragraph 5 of this Schedule, and if it does, why was it not put in the Bill originally?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I do not think it is a fundamental change, and that is the point on which I should have been glad of the help of hon. and learned Members in all parts of the Committee.

It has been my experience that "special circumstances" has always been a term which has been construed strictly. To give one example. I receive letters from all parts of the House when people have lost their driving licences because they have been convicted of being drunk in charge. The courts can remove this disqualification in special circumstances, but, as all my hon. and learned Friends know, the circumstances must be particular to the offence and not the offender.

Mr. Gordon Walker

There would be no court interpretation.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am coming to that point. It is difficult to take every point at once, but I will do my best.

I was dealing with this first point, which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have not appreciated, that "special circumstances" are a strict limitation and must be special, and must be something extraordinary and not a mere tergiversation of the programme. The right hon. Gentleman is right in that the deciding factor here is the Authority, and it is for the Authority to determine the detail of the provision. The words are: and, in particular, may provide …for the making, in special circumstances, of additional special charges. Such detail as the Authority may determine—

Mr. Turner-Samuels

rose—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I cannot give way.

My point is that this is a limitation to special circumstances, and my hon. Friend gave an example which nobody has ventured to criticise. In the case of some special show—the artiste need not necessarily be a comedian, he may be a distinguished musician or a distinguished singer—what is wrong in giving to a person the right either to go on and get the ordinary programme of a future week or to take a special programme in this way and pay a special charge?

I repudiate the suggestion that we have gone back on our original intention. We shall provide for an opportunity which will be to the genuine and general advantage of the public.

Mr. Shackleton

The whole Committee will agree that the Home Secretary's honour is not personally involved in this, but I am satisfied that events will show that the Government have exposed the whole of their proposals to direct sponsorship.

It being Nine o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 200.

Division No. 128.]	AYES	[7.34 p.m.
Albu, A. H.	Baird, J.	Beswick, F.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.	Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Bartley, P.	Bing, G. H. C.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J	Blackburn, F.
Awbery, S. S.	Bence, C. R.	Blenkinsop, A.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Benson, G.	Blyton, W. R
Boardman, H.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Proctor, W. T.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Pursey, Cmdr. H
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G A.	Rankin, John
Brown, Rt. Hen. George (Belper)	Janner, B.	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Burke, W. A.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Rhodes, H.
Champion, A. J.	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Chapman, W. D	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Clunie, J.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Coldrick, W.	Keenan, W.	Ross, William
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Kenyon, C.	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Cove, W. G.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Short, E. W.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	King, Dr. H. M.	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Crossman, R. H. S.	Lawson, G. M.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Daines, P.	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Lindgren, G. S.	Slater J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Logan, D. G.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Deer, G.	MacColl, J. E.	Snow, J. W.
Delargy, H. J.	McInnes, J.	Sparks, J. A.
Dodds, N. N.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Steele, T.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	McLeavy, F.	Stross, Dr. Barnett
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)	Mainwaring, W. H.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Sylvester, G. O.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Manuel, A. C.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Mason, Roy	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Fienburgh, W.	Mellish, R. J.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Finch, H. J.	Messer, Sir F.	Thornton, E.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Mikardo, Ian	Tomney, F.
Follick, M.	Mitchison, G. R	Turner-Samuels, M.
Foot, M. M.	Monslow, W.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Moody, A. S.	Viant, S. P.
Gibson, C. W.	Morley, R.	Wallace, H. W
Gooch, E. G.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Warbey, W. N.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Watkins, T. E.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Mort, D. L.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Grey, C. F.	Moyle, A.	Wells, William (Walsall)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mulley, F. W.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Oldfield, W. H.	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Oliver, G. H.	Wilkins, W. A.
Hamilton, W. W.	Oswald, T.	Williams, David (Neath)
Hannan, W.	Paget, R. T.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Hargreaves, A.	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Hastings, S.	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Hayman, F. H.	Palmer, A. M. F.	Willis, E. G.
Henderson, Rt. Han. A. (Rowley Regis)	Pannell, Charles	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Herbison, Miss M.	Pargiter, G. A.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Hobson, C. R.	Parker, J.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
Holman, P.	Parkin, B. T.	Yates, V. F.
Houghton, Douglas	Pearson, A.	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Hoy, J. H.	Pearl, T. F.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Plummer, Sir Leslie	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Porter, G.	Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
NOES
Aitken, W. T.	Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Digby, S. Wingfield
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Brooman-White, R. C.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Alport, C. J. M.	Browne, Jack (Govan)	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P. G. T	Drayson, G. B.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Bullard, D. G.	Drewe, Sir C.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M	Burden, F. F. A.	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Baldwin, A. E.	Butcher, Sir Herbert	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Banks, Col. C.	Carr, Robert	Duthie, W. S.
Barber, Anthony	Cary, Sir Robert	Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Barlow, Sir John	Channon, H.	Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Baxter, A. B.	Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Finlay, Graeme
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Fisher, Nigel
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Cole, Norman	Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Colegate, W. A.	Fort, R.
Birch, Nigel	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Bishop, F. P.	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Bossom, Sir A. C.	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.	Crouch, R. F.	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Gammans, L. D.
Braine, B. R.	Davidson, Viscountess	Garner-Evans, E. H.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Deedes, W. F.	Glover, D.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Maclean, Fitzroy	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Gower, H. R.	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Russell, R. S.
Graham, Sir Fergus	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Grimond, J.	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Marples, A. E.	Scott, R. Donald
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Maude, Angus	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Hare, John J. H.	Maudlin, R.	Shepherd, William
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Harvey, Air Cadre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Hay, John	Mellor, Sir John	Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Malson, A. H. E.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Heath, Edward	Moore, Sir Thomas	Soames, Capt. C.
Higgs, J. M. C.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Spearman, A. C. M.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E	Speir, R. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Hirst, Geoffrey	Neave, Airey	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Holland-Martin, C. J.	Nicholls, Harmar	Stevens, Geoffrey
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Horobin, I. M.	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Summers, G. S.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Nutting, Anthony	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Hurd, A. R.	Oakshott, H. D.	Teeling, W.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)	O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Iremonger, T. L.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Orr, Capt. L P. S.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Johnson Howard (Kemptown)	Osborne, C.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Page, R. G.	Tilney, John
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Kaberry, D.	Perkins, Sir Robert	Turner, H. F. L.
Kerby, Capt. H. B	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Turton, R. H.
Kerr, H. W.	Peyton, J. W. W.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Lambert, Hon. G.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Vane, W. M. F.
Langford-Holt, J. A.	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Vosper, D. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Pitman, I. J.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Pitt, Miss E. M.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Powell, J. Enoch	Wall, Major Patrick
Lindsay, Martin	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Linstead, Sir H. N.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Ward, Miss. I. (Tynemouth)
Llewellyn, D. T.	Profumo, J. D.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Raikes, Sir Victor	Watkinson, H. A.
Longden, Gibert	Ramsden, J. E.	Wellwood, W.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Rayner, Brig. R.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Remnant, Hon. P	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Ridsdale, J. E.	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Wills, G.
Macdonald, Sir Peter	Robertson, Sir David	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry	Robson-Brown, W.	Wood, Hon. R.
McKibbin, A. J.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Roper, Sir Harold	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Studholme and Mr. Redmayne.

Division No. 129.]	AYES	[9.0 p.m.
Aitken, W. T.	Hare, Hon. J. H.	Page, R. G.
Alport, C. J. M.	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N,)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Perkins, Sir Robert
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)	Harvey, Air Cdr. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Perkins, Brig. C. H. M.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Hay, John	Peyton, J. W. W.
Baldwin, A. E.	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Banks, Col. C.	Heath, Edward	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Barlow, Sir John	Higgs, J. M. C.	Pitman, I. J.
Baxter, A. B.	Hill, Rt. Charles (Luton)	Pitt, Miss E. M.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Hirst, Geoffrey	Powell, J. Enoch
Bell, Philip (Bottom, E.)	Holland-Martin, C. J	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Holt, A. F.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry	Raikes, Sir Victor
Birch, Nigel	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Ramsden, J. E.
Bishop, F. P.	Horobin, I. M.	Rayner, Brig. R.
Black, C. W.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Redmayne, M.
Bossom, Sir A. C.	Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Ridsdale, J. E.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A	Hurd, A. R.	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W)	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Braille, B. R.	Iremonger, T. L.	Robson-Brown, W.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Roper, Sir Harold
Brooman-White, R. C.	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Russell, R. S.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Bullard, D. G.	Kaberry, D.	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Burden, F. F. A.	Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Kerr, H. W.	Scott, R. Donald
Carr, Robert	Lambert, Hon. G.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Cary, Sir Robert	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Shepherd, William
Channon, H.	Leather, E. H. C.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Legge-Bourke Mai. E. A. H.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Clyde, Rt. Horn. J. L.	Lindsay, Martin	Soames, Capt. C.
Cole, Norman	Linstead, Sir H. N.	Spearman, A. C. M
Colegate, W. A.	Llewellyn, D. T.	Speir, R. M.
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C	Spent, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Longden, Gilbert	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Low, A. R. W.	Stevens, Geoffrey
Crouch, R. F.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S	Studholme, H. G.
Davidson, Viscountess	Macdonald, Sir Peter	Summers, G. S.
Deedes, W. F.	Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Digby, S. Wingfield	McKibbin, A. J.	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Teeling, W.
Doughty, C. J. A.	Maclean, Fitzroy	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Drayson, G. B.	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Drewe, Sir C.	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Marples, A. E.	Tilney, John
Duthie, W. S.	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Touche, Sir Gordon
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.	Maude, Angus	Turner, H. F. L.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Maudling, R.	Turton, R. H.
Finlay, Graeme	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Fisher, Nigel	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Vane, W. M. F.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Mellor, Sir John	Vosper, D. F.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Matson, A. H. E.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Fort, R.	Moore, Sir Thomas	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Wall, Major Patrick
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Neave, Airey	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Gammons, L. D.	Nicholls, Hamar	Walkinson, H. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Wellwood, W.
Glover, D.	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Nieid, Basil (Chester)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Gough, C. F. H.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Gower, H. R.	Oakshott, H. D.	Wills, G.
Graham, Sir Fergus	O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Grimond, J.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Wood, Hon. R.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Osborne, C.	Mr. Robert Allan and Mr. Legh
NOES
Adams, Richard	Awbery, S. S.	Bartley, P.
Albu, A. H.	Bacon, Miss Alice	Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Baird, J.	Bence, C. R.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J	Benson. G.
Beswick, F.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Bing, G. H. C.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Rankin, John
Blackburn, F.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Blenkinsop, A.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Blyton, W. R.	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Rhodes, H.
Boardman, H.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Janner, B.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Jager, Mrs. Lena	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Ross, William
Burke, W. A.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Royle, C.
Champion, A. J.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Chapman, W. D.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Short, E. W.
Chetwynd, G. R.	Keenan, W.	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Clunie, J.	Kenyon, C.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Coldrick, W.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Collick, P. H.	King, Dr. H. M.	Skeffingion, A. M.
Corbel, Mrs. Freda	Lawson, G. M.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-con-Trent)
Cove, W. G.	Lee Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgfield)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Crossman, R. H. S.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Smith, Norman (Nottingham S.)
Daines, P.	Lindgren, G. S.	Snow, J. W.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Logan, D. G.	Sparks, J. A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	MacColl, J. E.	Steele, T.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	McInnes, J.	Stross, Dr. Barnett
Deer, G.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	McLeavy, F.	Sylvester, G. O.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)	Mainwaring, W. H.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Manuel, A. C.	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Mason, Roy	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Fienburgh, W.	Mellish, R. J.	Thornton, E.
Finch, H. J.	Messer, Sir F.	Tomney, F.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Mikardo, Ian	Turnen-Samuels, M.
Foot, M. M.	Mitchison, G. R.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Monslow, W.	Viant, S. P.
Freeman, John (Watford)	Moody, A. S.	Wallace, H. W.
Gibson, C. W.	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Warbey, W. N.
Gooch, E. G.	Morley, R.	Watkins, T. E.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Weitzman, D.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Grey, C. F.	Mort, D. L.	Wells, William (Walsall)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Moyle, A.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Mulley, F. W.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Hall, Leslie	Oldfield, W. H.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Oliver, G. H.	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Oswald, T.	Wilkins, W. A.
Hamilton, W. W.	Paget, R. T.	Williams, David (Neath)
Hannan, W.	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Hargreaves, A.	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Williams, Rt. Hon Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Hastings S.	Palmer, A. M. F.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Hayman, F. H.	Pannell, Charles	Willis, E. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Pargiter, G. A.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Herbison, Miss M.	Parker, J.	Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Hobson, C. R.	Parkin, B. T.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Holman, P.	Peart, T. F.	Yates, V. F.
Holmes, Horace	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Houghton, Douglas	Porter, G.
Hoy, J. H.	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Mr. Arthur Allen and Mr. Pearson
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Proctor, W. T.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to Schedule 2, and the further Question necessary to complete the proceedings on that Schedule.

Amendment made: In page 17, line 45, after "for," insert: local advertisements, of which a suitable proportion shall be."—[Mr. Gammans.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5.—(CONTRACTS FOR PROGRAMMES.)

Mr. Shackleton

I beg to move, in page 7, line 16, at the end, to insert: or of which a disqualified person is a director, officer, employee, shareholder or member, or in which a disqualified person has directly or indirectly any financial interest. I think that most of the Amendments on this subject have not been selected, but it would be easier for the Committee to consider this Amendment if we considered with it the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), in page 7, line 32, at the end, to insert: or— (iv) whether an individual or a body corporate, advertises or has advertised in any programme broadcast by the Authority or is in the employment of any person who so advertises or has advertised or is a director, officer, shareholder or member or otherwise directly or indirectly financially interested in or in any relevant matter an agent, nominee or trustee of any body corporate who so advertises or has advertised. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) who was to have moved this Amendment, has some very important evidence to put before the Committee in support of it.

Mr. Mitchison

I had not understood anything of the sort.

Mr. Shackleton

There has been plenty of evidence that if the Clause is left as it is without this additional qualification it will be open for individuals, by a side wind, so to speak, to come into the programme companies and exercise that type of control and influence that, I acknowledge, it is the sincere intention of the Government, certainly of the Home Secretary, to prevent from being exercised.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

Is the Amendment the hon. Gentleman is moving the one in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)?

Mr. Shackleton

Yes.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am so sorry to have interrupted. I wanted to be sure that was the one.

Mr. Shackleton

The right hon. and learned Gentleman alarms me. I hope my remarks are relevant to the Amendment. There is evidence from statements in the Press and elsewhere that it may be possible for that type of control to be exercised, unless we make the Clauses firmer. I should like the Home Secretary to consider the Amendment very closely, and even set a record in this Committee by being the first Minister to accept an Opposition Amendment to the Bill. It is one in support of which my hon. and learned Friend will be able to give some learned arguments. I urge the Home Secretary to realise that the Amendment is designed to preserve the integrity of the scheme to which he attaches so much importance.

It is essential that we keep these programme contractors free of the type of influence from which the Government say they must be protected. We should like to have kept them free of the influence of advertising, but that is not possible under this Amendment. I hope that the Home Secretary will at least consider this point, because there is plenty of evidence of a real danger and, unless the position is made abundantly clear the Government may find themselves in difficulty.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison

May I, if I am in order, say not too seriously that the comment on my absence for failure to move the Amendment is, upon the facts with which I do not propose to weary the Committee, completely incorrect and unfounded.

This Amendment is very simple. A disqualified person includes, among other people, an advertising agent and a corporate body having a disqualified person in control who cannot become or continue as programme contractors. At least it is the duty of the Authority, whatever their powers may be, to do all they can to secure that end.

The position therefore is that neither the advertising agent nor the company or other corporate body over which he has control can, so far as the Authority has any say in the matter, become a programme contractor. The difficulty is—and advertising agents are well alive to it—that without having control, in the sense which it is defined in this Bill, the advertising agent can become a director or an officer of a body corporate which can be a programme contractor, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that from happening. As defined in the Bill, control means complete control, that is to say, to secure that the affairs of the controlling body are in accordance with the wishes of the controller—if I may paraphrase the definition in the Bill.

We are asking that the Government shall prevent that. As appears from a circular issued by the National Television Council, the advertising agents have already produced their comments on the subject. They point out to their members that they perfectly well can be—

The Temporary Chairman

I am informed that the intention of the Chairman is to have a general discussion, though not a Division, on the other Amendments down to the Amendment in line 32. I did not make that clear before as I was not aware of it.

Mr. Mitchison

Thank you, Sir Austin. That, on the one hand, makes my task easier, but on the other hand it puts me under an even sterner obligation to be short. I think that I have made the substantial point which we have in mind in moving this Amendment, although I do not expect the Home Secretary to agree with me. We wish to prevent advertising agents getting in as directors and officers of corporate bodies which could become programme contractors. They would not have control in the full sense in which control is defined in the Bill, but they might have very considerable influence.

It might be found that a whole board consisted of advertising agents, not one single one of whom had individual control. We had a debate earlier on the question of financial interest, large or small, and I have no wish to take up time by repeating that argument again. I agree that the Amendment, which was put down before that debate, may go beyond what I have said, because it also refers to financial interest. I can only say that I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would not object to its being accepted in principle and rephrased to eliminate the point about the small financial interest.

Probably in the case of programme contractors financial interest is not really the point. The real point is the effective directoral control. I hope that the Home Secretary will bear in mind the possibility of a board composed of a whole number of advertising agents not one of whom may have control of the outfit but who together may represent an element which I am sure he does not want to see on the programme contractors board.

I also want gently but, I hope, firmly, to point out that the Amendment in page 7, line 16, in the name of two hon. Gentlemen opposite has the same effect except that it does not refer to financial interest—a point which I have said we will not press at this stage, though we still think that it is right. Therefore, I rely with confidence on the support of those two hon. Gentlemen if and when we divide on this matter.

Next, there is an Amendment to disqualify Members of the House and of either House of the Northern Ireland Parliament. I can only say about that that I should have thought that there was every reason for it. I can hardly conceive hon. Members of this House in the position of being programme directors. Whether or not under the very complicated rules on the subject they would thereby be disqualified from being hon. Members because they had a contract with the Government is doubtful, but it is certainly against the intention of all the usual arrangements. I should have thought that the Government would have accepted that Amendment in page 7, line 20.

The same goes for the next Amendment which restricts the matter to people of British nationality; that is to say, to people who are not aliens. A similar point has been argued before, and here again in view of the measure of public responsibility—I do not think that it is very much, but there is some of it—put upon programme contractors in the Bill, I should have thought that there was every case for saying that they ought to be British nationals.

I will skip the remaining Amendments and turn to the substantial point raised by the Amendment in page 7, line 32. The Bill provides that an advertising agent is to be disqualified from being a programme contractor. There is no such provision about advertisers. Here again, we do not necessarily ask that every letter of the Amendment should be accepted. The substantial point is that advertisers should similarly be disqualified.

I would point out to the Home Secretary that there is no obligation on advertisers to employ advertising agents. An advertising agent might be convenient and his advice might be valuable—who am I to say?—but it is certain that an advertiser can make arrangements direct for his advertisements to be shown. It may be that he will have employed an advertising agent to prepare his advertisements, and he will no doubt have employed an artist or a writer of some sort to assist in preparing them, but when it comes to the television transmission there appears to be no reason at all why he should employ an advertising agent. If the advertising agent is to be disqualified from being a programme contractor, why should not the advertiser be equally disqualified?

It may be said that if one disqualifies one advertiser one will have to disqualify all advertisers. I am not sure that that need necessarily be so. However, I would say in reply that it is obviously so unfair to disqualify an advertising agent and not disqualify an advertiser who makes his own arrangements direct that it is better to disqualify all advertisers than to allow this inconsistency to remain in the Bill.

I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to do what I think is obviously right in this matter. He should do what he can to remedy this major ill by accepting an Amendment in this or similar terms—I do not insist upon the precise language here—and disqualify advertisers just as advertising agents are disqualified.

I have not referred to some other Amendments. I have touched upon the ones which seem to me to be the most important. Having regard to the iniquitous procedure of the Guillotine in a matter of such doubt and of such public importance, I do not think I had better take up any more of the time of the Committee.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

It will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene at this moment to follow the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) with a review of these Amendments, because I think that we approach each other on at any rate one important point, and that may make things easier for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen.

To deal first with the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), I do not think that there is much difference between the two sides of the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman attached importance to "director" primarily without explicitly saying so, and attached less importance to "officer" because that would include a secretary and so on.

The Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) limits the matter further. It says: or of which any person who is a disqualified person by virtue of paragraph (iii)"— that is, as an advertising agent— of the definition contained in this sub-section is a director, officer or servant. I should be prepared to accept that limitation, and I think that that substantially meets the point of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).

9.30 p.m.

I should like to say a word or two as to why I draw the line there. I accept the point on the position of a director, and I am accepting the fact that such a director may be in a position undesirably to influence the conduct of a programme contractor's business. I am also going so far as to say that, to a lesser extent, an officer, for example, a secretary, or a senior employee, such as a manager who is not on the board, may be in the same position. Thus far, there is no difference between us.

I cannot go so far as the hon. and learned Gentleman by dealing with shareholders or members as being disqualified because of having, directly or indirectly, any financial interest, because, respectfully, I think that would be unreasonable. It would disqualify a company as a programme contractor if one of its directors was not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, or if it employed part-time as an office cleaner someone who was also employed by an advertising agency.

I do not think that is important, but what is very important is that it would also disqualify if a trifling number of shares and debenture stock were bequeathed to a person employed in a very humble capacity in an advertising agency or a person who resided permanently in Australia. I think that goes too far, and I think I shall meet the point if I accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green. That will meet the substance of the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the position of the board or a combination of directors on the board.

The next Amendment is that referring to a member of the Commons House of Parliament or of either House of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. On that, I find that I am not in the same conciliatory mood or position. We have made it impossible for a Member of this House to be a Member of the Authority, but I cannot see that the position applies to a programme contractor, because the position of the programme contractor has not, in my view, the slightest resemblance to an office of profit under the Crown.

They will not hold contracts of any kind from the Crown. Their contract will be with the Authority, which will not be an agent of the Crown as would appear from Clause 1 (11). Further, their contracts will not be of a kind which would disqualify them as Members of the House of Commons or of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, even if they were made with the Crown.

I might remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that I once gave an opinion on disqualification which a higher tribunal found to be entirely wrong—

Mr. Ede

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman this time taken the precaution of consulting my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing)?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I agree that, on pass form, that would be a very desirable course to adopt, but I must admit that I have not done so. I need not go so far as that, because it is only analogous to that position, and, therefore, we should not so declare it.

I should like the Committee to look at the matter from another point of view. The disqualification provisions in the Bill, relating to residence outside the United Kingdom and certain connections with advertising agents, have been included because of the danger that the people covered by them might be able to influence programmes in a manner considered undesirable in this country. That is the other side of the shield. As regards Members of Parliament, that is very tender ground, because a Member of Parliament does not, ipso facto or ex hypothesi—or whatever other cliché one likes to use—

Dr. Morgan

Use plain English—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

—necessarily bring an undesirable influence into any company of which he becomes a director. We think that this proposal would be an unwarranted interference with the liberty and the right of citizens to engage in earning their living.

I come to the question of the alien, which is contained in the Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Preston, South and of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering who addressed the Committee. I hope that they will not press that Amendment. We have provided for residence in this country, and I have again consulted the Departments which are specially concerned with our commercial treaties. It has been the policy of every Government, irrespective of party, to try to secure, and, having secured, to maintain, the greatest possible freedom for United Kingdom business and professional men and companies to engage in other countries in all branches of commercial activity, including many in which British interests are important. Two examples which I am sure spring to the mind of every hon. Member are insurance and shipping.

The Board of Trade and the Foreign Office, which are the Departments involved, feel very strongly that that objective can only be reached if we give reciprocal treatment. It would be no use our preaching this if we did not practise it. They have very strongly pressed me to put before the Committee the view that the furtherance of British trade and commerce, focused on certain British individuals or companies, would be hampered in respect of the carrying on of legitimate businesses if we took this limiting line of conduct suggested in the Amendment.

I did not hear the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with this matter. I do not blame him for that, and I do not want to make a debating point of it. I want to put it to the Committee, however, that it would be unfortunate and contrary to the policy which our predecessors have put forward of trying to get British interests into other countries, whether in the form of a company or an individual, if we made the proposed limitation.

Mr. Mitchison

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, I would make the point that it strikes me as rather curious that in the case of an individual the disqualification depends on the usual residence abroad, while in the case of a company it depends on the place of incorporation—not, therefore, on the place where the company carries on business and where it might, for instance for Income Tax purposes, be located. The test is really completely different as regards the person and the company.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I considered that point very carefully. In all the years when I dealt with Income Tax cases—in which this point usually arises—I found that the number of cases in which a company incorporated here changes its siège and becomes a foreign company are very few indeed. I should have thought that, in over 90 per cent. of the cases, the test of incorporation which is the prima facie test of the nationality of a company, is an accurate test.

With regard to the minority of cases, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there is considerable difficulty in deciding whether a change of siege has taken place. I came to the conclusion that the best practical guidance would be given by leaving the matter in the form of the prima facie test, which is the incorporation of the registered office.

Mr. Mitchison

My point is that with regard to a company the Home Secretary says, in effect, "You must not have an alien company wherever it resides, but you may have an alien individual providing that he resides in the right place."

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am sorry if my explanation was laboured, but I gave it as best I could. In over 90 per cent. of the cases in my experience, the residence of a company was shown by the incorporation of the registered office. Therefore de facto the test was the same although de jure it was not.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)

Outside the provision of this Bill itself is there not full control of the position as regards an alien, by the Home Office?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I think the point the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) wanted to have explained was this. At first sight it looks as if I have made an irrational distinction between a company and an individual. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman is theoretically right I do not think that the practical effect is irrational. Had I put in the other test it would have raised difficulties and would not have made any material difference. The next point relates to the Amendment, in page 7, line 26, at the end, to insert: (iii) being a body corporate, is a private company; or. I do not think that is an important point, because the differences between a public and a private company are well known. One usually wants to have a public company because it is a bigger organisation, but I have known private companies which have had £5 million of free capital. Perhaps it would be convenient were I to put it in this way. Under the Bill an individual is allowed to be a programme contractor, and a public company is allowed to be a programme contractor. Therefore, I can see no logical reason why the intermediate stage of a private company should be barred.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison

Without wishing to take up time, may I tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman shortly the point that we had in mind? A public company publishes its accounts to shareholders and others very fully. Some, but not all, private companies are exempt from that publication, and it seemed to us that the private company was a channel through which one could get a very powerful financial interest and perhaps, in this case, one of an undesirable character.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I should have thought that that was very difficult, and, in view of the shortness of time, I shall not go through the argument because I do not think it is an important matter.

Frankly, with regard to the next Amendment, in page 7, line 29, after "of," to insert: or in any relevant matter an agent, nominee or trustee of. I think that is rather vaguely phrased. It would be difficult to decide what is meant by: in any relevant matter and the term "nominee" is a difficult one in this connection. I think that we have covered the point for all practical purposes by the extent that I am prepared to go on the first Amendment.

Then we come to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, the object of which is to enlarge the category of persons disqualified from continuing as programme contractors to include anyone who has control over … any body corporate who carries on business as an advertising agent. I do not think anyone will disagree with that. It is obviously in the direction of the views of hon. Members opposite, and I think that we are coming towards them on that point. Then there is the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) and others in line 31, and I think I have already dealt with that point in discussing the earlier Amendments.

I now come to the Amendment in line 32, and here I am afraid there is a difference between the two sides of the Committee. The effect of that Amendment would be to disqualify from acting as a programme contractor anyone who advertised or had advertised in the Authority's programme or was connected with or interested in any advertiser in the programme. As I have said before, all the large commercial interests in this country are likely to advertise on television at one time or another, and this Amendment would so increase the number of disqualified persons that the whole of the commercial and business community would be excluded. The result would be that programme contractors would have to raise their capital and recruit their staffs without having recourse to the financial and other resources of commerce and trade.

I know that there is a difference between us here. Hon. Members opposite think that there ought to be a complete divorce between advertisers and programme contractors in order to prevent advertisers from influencing the programmes. We have discussed this question before. This is one of the fundamental points on which we cannot agree, and I am sorry that I cannot change the opinion which I have already expressed.

I am sorry that I have spoken for so long, but I think it has been helpful in delimiting the issues. I am really with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering on his first point, although I am accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green; that is, I am meeting the point he made relating to the board. I cannot meet him as regards Members of the House of Commons, the alien or the private company, but I think that the viewpoint of hon. Members opposite has been partly met by the the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend, which brings in the question of control and, therefore, widens the field of disqualification. I am sorry that my view has not altered and that I cannot make any change on the lines of the Amendment in line 32. That is the position, and I hope that I have made clear how far 1 can go.

Mr. Mitchison

With regard to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point, will he tell us how he is going to deal with the case of the large advertiser who goes direct to the programme contractor? He will remember that by Clause 4 (2) that situation is expressly provided for, and there is, therefore, no need for the advertising agent. Surely he ought to be disqualified?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am afraid that I cannot see that point. Hon. Members opposite may pity my myopia, but I think it would be too great an exclusion to ban the advertiser.

Mr. Ness Edwards

We are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his comprehensive review of the nine Amendments; it was a wide piece of ground to cover. Whilst he has gone some way in relation to one part of the problem, he has certainly rejected our Amendments in relation to the other part. I think my hon. Friends will agree that it is highly undesirable that Members of Parliament, from whichever side of the House they come, should be programme contractors. After all, they are in association with a public body—the I.T.A.—and it would appear that if they were programme contractors there might be some degree of favouritism, and what happened in relation to the programmes with which they were associated might give rise to a lot of discussion, which might not help the progress of the I.T.A.

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows—perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) will help us later on and not now—throughout all the debates we have had on this matter desire has been expressed to keep the advertisers and advertising agents away from the programme contractors. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has repeatedly said that in order to prevent any influence by anybody upon the programmes the programme contractors should be completely independent. He has gone some way in accepting two of our Amendments with regard to advertising agents, and he has said that he feels that both sides of the Committee are going along the same road with regard to some of our other Amendments and that he may be able to find the necessary form of words that would give expression to our point of view.

What the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not done is to favour the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) which prevents a programme contractor from being the creature of a big advertiser. I should have thought that the greatest danger of influencing a programme arose from the situation where a programme contractor was completely in the pocket of a big advertiser. That big advertiser need not necessarily be a British advertiser. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are in this country many subsidiary production units of foreign undertakings in competition with our own production. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can, I am sure, envisage a situation in which the subsidiaries of foreign production units could form their own programme company and put on programmes and themselves arrange to buy the associated advertisement time, which would favour the production subsidiary of the foreign undertakings as against a normal British product.

This is one of the greatest dangers against which we have no protection whatever in the Bill. That is why I ask the Home Secretary to pay a little more attention to the Amendment in line 32.

Let me go one step further. There is nothing in the Bill or in the Amendments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has accepted which prevents control being divided between a foreign production unit and a British advertising agent owning the programme company. No provision is made to debar a collusion of that kind. The only person to be debarred is the person who is the principal. There might be the offspring of a United State's advertising company with an extremely small interest in the programme company but with the major interest being held by a foreign advertiser.

Is that the kind of situation that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to enourage? This seems to me to be placing British industry in a most disadvantageous position. At the same time it would be providing a type of programme which would be very much on the borderline as to whether it was British in content. That is the situation as my right hon. and hon. Friends see it. This most serious side of the problem has not been touched on by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

Would that case not be caught by the non-resident provision? At the moment, if the interest is held by someone abroad, it would be caught in that way.

Mr. Ness Edwards

The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows much more about law than I do, but let us take the position with regard to non-residency. Ford's have their main undertaking in the United States. They have their British registered subsidiary in this country, and therefore they are resident. That type of company in this country would not, therefore, be caught in the way the Home Secretary put forward.

Mr. Ede

They might only be registered in Alderney, with all that that implies.

Mr. Ness Edwards

I am sure the Home Secretary appreciates the great dangers. There are loopholes which might disadvantageously colour the whole of the programmes and the control of the programme contractors. After all that I have said, I should be astonished if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not realise the substance of these points and that they must be tackled if we are to safeguard British interests.

Mr. Aubrey Jones (Birmingham, Hall Green)

All I wish to do is to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his accommodating mood towards my hon. Friend and myself.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Shackleton

The Home Secretary pointed out the difficulties with regard to the Amendment to line 32, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) made it clear that we were not wedded to those particular words, and that we felt it should be possible in some way to meet this problem. The Home Secretary will recall that when we were discussing the earlier Amendments relating to the Authority, and the question as to whether the Postmaster-General should have the power to decide whether somebody had interests which were likely to be prejudiced, the right hon. and learned Gentleman came near to accepting the form of words that we had in mind.

We should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to indicate that the Postmaster-General, or someone else, should possess the power to say that an individual, by virtue of his special interest as a major advertiser, should not be in a position to control a programme company. I hope the Home Secretary will agree that this is not something by which we are seeking to hamstring the programme companies, but that it represents a real difficulty.

I quote again the example I gave with regard to the I.T.A.—the chairman or managing director of one of the big soap companies or the official of one of the big advertisers. Something needs to be done, because otherwise we shall find serious trouble growing up when there is such a limited field for development. We know that we shall not have free competition, but only a limited amount of opportunity for the programme contractors, and they must be in a special position if people are to have confidence in them. So would the Home Secretary look at that point again?

Mr. Turner-Samuels

This is a very important issue dealing with the question of who are to be programme contractors. We realise that the Government are throwing a party on behalf of the programme contractors and we want to try to keep the party clean. It was perfectly clear on the threshold of this matter that the drafting of this Clause was higgledy-piggledy because it sought to do something which it then cancelled out.

It starts by referring to persons being bodies corporate over which some disqualified person has control, and later on it says that a director of that body is not to be disqualified from being a programme contractor as long as he does not have control of the body corporate. The Home Secretary quickly saw through that thin device and very properly accepted an Amendment which has the effect of curing that defect.

There are one or two other facets of this matter which are important. It has been said that a Member of Parliament ought not to be a member of a programme contracting firm. I, of course, see the point of view of the Home Secretary, who wants to be just about it. He does not see why, merely because a person happens to be an hon. Member of this House, he ought necessarily to be excluded. However, we cannot shut out from our minds that there are certain Members of the present House who have been very active in getting this Bill, indeed, it might never have materialised if it had not been for the interest they clearly have in this matter. It is not made any better when that interest is to be interpreted in the shape of personal profit.

If these elements are to be taken into consideration, as I believe they should be, we have to consider whether the service to be done in which the Member of the House is personally concerned is to be done with the object of his profit or with the aim of giving the public a proper programme which is worthy of an alternative television service. We believe for these and other reasons that the Bill would be a very much better Bill if Members of Parliament were excluded from any participation in the business or profits of a programme contractor.

As to whether an alien should be allowed to participate, as a programme contractor, I should have thought that the Home Office might have sufficient power to control that, apart from the Bill itself, but if that is not so a very important point arises, because there might well be an alien programme contractor who might be interested in most unsuitable propaganda. That seems to me a very serious matter against which some protection ought to be provided in the Bill. There is clearly no protection whatever in the Bill as it stands, and it must be wrong to allow matters to remain as they are. I think that I have said enough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—as far as the Government side of the Committee are concerned I have no doubt said too much—to demonstrate that this part of the Bill needs to be tightened up very much.

Mr. Ernest Davies

I very much regret that the Home Secretary has not accepted our two Amendments. The first refers to the exclusion of Members of Parliament from being associated with programme contractors. It seems to me axiomatic that they should be excluded, because the I.T.A. is to be a public corporation which will have close relationship with the programme companies.

It has been made clear that we shall be able to question the Assistant Postmaster-General concerning the programmes which are to be put out by the I.T.A. and therefore, through the I.T.A., about the programme contracting companies. In that case it is right that Members of Parliament should not serve on the companies. They will be far too close to the Authority, whereas when Questions are asked in the House they should be in an independent position and able to exercise independent judgment. In view of the fact that Members of Parliament are excluded from membership of all publicly-owned corporations and the fact that the programme companies are so closely related to the I.T.A., the rule should also apply here.

The other Amendment refers to page 7, line 32, to insert a new paragraph. If an Amendment of this kind is not put forward on the Report stage the way will be open to a form of sponsorship. It means that if any large firm of advertisers wanted to run a programme company they could do so by not placing their advertisements through an advertising agency. It would be a simple matter for some well-known firms to cease placing their business through advertising agencies and then to form a programme contracting company and put on their own programmes. That is as close to sponsorship as anything can be.

Although we admit that these words go too far and would bring into the net certain persons we might not think it desirable to bring in, we believe that a form of words could be devised which would prevent advantage being taken of this loophole and prevent an evasion of the Bill as it stands. I ask the Home Secretary to look once more at this matter between now and Report stage and to bring in an Amendment which will prevent a large advertiser by-passing advertising agents by forming programme contracting companies themselves.

Mr. Ross

The Home Secretary has been so reasonable on this group of Amendments that I think there may be some hope for him after all. He saw just what we were driving at in the proposed Amendment to line 16, but, if I understand him properly, he thought that we were going too far by using the words "employee, shareholder or member." He preferred to accept the more limited Amendment moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones). In view of the recognition by the Home Secretary of what we are after and his sympathy for our viewpoint, it is all the more reason for my complete lack of comprehension of why he does not go so far as to accept the Amendment proposed to line 32, or go some way to meet us.

It is quite possible that some of the large advertisers will become programme contractors. We must recollect that some of these advertisers are spending very large sums indeed. We have mentioned them earlier today. It will be wrong to permit, as the Bill presumably would, these advertisers to become programme contractors or to identify themselves too closely with them. All along our fear has been that he who pays the piper will call the tune and that the tune will not be the one best suited to the nation as a whole. Here it will not only be a case of he who pays the piper calling the tune but he would himself be the piper calling the tune. We shall be back to the point at which we started—sponsored television. I understand that the Government eschew sponsored television, and I therefore appeal to the Home Secretary to accept this Amendment or at least assure us that he will consider it between now and Report.

Mr. H. Morrison

A desirable aim in this discussion, and what we on this side of the Committee have been trying to do, is to simplify it from the point of view of the question of principle involved. I wish to call attention to the wording of the Government writ as stated in the White Paper, Command 9005 That White Paper said: The Government has decided as a basic principle that there should be no 'sponsoring' and that the responsibility for what goes out on the air shall rest upon the operator of the station, and not on the advertiser. This Clause of the Bill does not talk much about the advertiser; it talks about advertising agents. Therefore, the Government have departed from the White Paper which was presented to the House in November, 1953, on the responsibility of the Postmaster-General and, substantially, the advertiser is being left out of the category of persons who should be disqualified from these positions. The language of the White Paper is "advertiser." It is not "advertising agent." We are entitled to know why the Government have made this material departure from the policy set out in their White Paper.

10.15 p.m.

The programme contractors are to discharge an exceedingly important function in relation to the so-called Independent Television Authority. The Authority is in the main concerned with arranging contracts with the programme contractors. In the day-to-day conduct of the business, in the actual dissemination of matter on the air, in the showing of pictures, and so on, it is the programme contractors who will function in the ordinary way, and not the Authority.

That being so, the make-up, the constitution, the human composition of the programme contractors is just as important as that of the Authority. It could be argued that it is more important. To assume that the programme contractors are merely ordinary day-to-day business concerns of no great significance is entirely wrong. They will be in effective charge of television disseminations day by day and hour by hour. They will be the men who will be in charge, and, therefore, the composition of these companies is a matter of the most profound importance.

Nevertheless, the Government seems to be excessively indifferent to the composition and the direction of companies that can do much harm, which may be socially, commercially and politically biased. They may be biased not only in the party political sense of the term. As they will be dependent for their own revenue on big business—inevitably, because it is the big business concerns which have the money —they will probably be biased against the little man in business, commerce and industry. He is likely not to get a fair deal in their hands in the ordinary organisation of the programmes. Consequently, the impartiality, the objective public spirit of the programme contractors is of the greatest importance.

It was for this reason that this series of Amendments was put down, commencing with the one in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), which seeks to extend the definition of "disqualified person" beyond a body corporate, beyond a personal proprietor and the disqualified business, to such people as directors, officers, employees, shareholders or other members concerned with such a disqualified undertaking or person. That seems to us to be reasonable if the concern is to be above suspicion, and if association with the programme contractor is to be objective and beyond apprehension. Indeed, to some extent the principle is admitted by the acceptance by the Home Secretary of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones).

The Home Secretary has said that it is going far to disqualify from the direction of these programmes contractors Members of this House of Commons or of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. I do not think that it is. Again we must keep in mind how important are these concerns. Substantially, they will be in day-to-day control of programmes going out from commercial television stations. We exclude Members of Parliament from public corporations, and from the I.T.A. itself, and it seems to me that there are strong grounds for excluding them from these programme contractors.

There is another reason. We cannot forget that in the history of this matter of commercial television Members of Parliament, not unassociated with commercial firms which are affected by the policy of the Government, have been taking an exceedingly active part. We cannot forget that they have exercised a very powerful influence over the Government. They have had a material voice in the adumbration of this policy and the introduction of this Bill. In fact, a material reason why the Government have gone ahead with this Bill is that the interests in the advertising world have been ably represented by a limited number of hon. Members opposite who have exercised their power and influence in the House. They have threatened the Government, who have acted in a way for which they should be ashamed, because there was no need for them to be so frightened. But this is a weak Government, otherwise they would never have brought in this Bill.

The Government have allowed themselves to be coerced by a handful of not very important hon. Gentlemen opposite. That being the case, and because many of these hon. Members are associated with commercial undertakings which will have a relationship with this new Television Authority, it seems to us—they having exercised this bad influence which has resulted in the introduction of this Bill—that it is most undesirable that those same hon. Members, or the same kind of gentlemen, should now have a continuing influence in this House and on the programme contractors, because the two things fit in and dovetail almost too perfectly.

I should have thought that this was an elementary point for the Home Secretary and that there has been enough trouble between the Front Bench opposite and those hon. Members. The Government have been charged by us with all sorts of things. Now they are getting into more trouble and are laying themselves open to the suspicion that they want this new development to be associated so far as possible with advertising interests; that Members of Parliament—especially Conservative Members—shall have a pull in the matter, and, in this House and in the 1922 Committee upstairs, shall have the maximum opportunity of coercing Ministers and pushing them around.

In this and other matters we are accustomed to seeing Ministers being pushed around. We are well aware of the extraordinary power of that so-called Private Members' Committee, better known as the 1922 Committee, to which Ministers are summoned and sent away, whose Chairman goes to see the Prime Minister and all that sort of thing. Now we are to have another danger from Members of Parliament sitting opposite, who are tied up with some of the commercial interests; who have a material influence over the policy of the Government and who, no doubt, urged the Government to impose a Guillotine on our discussions so that they could be sure of having their own way.

It is now proposed that we should walk into the position—on the recommendation of the Home Secretary—in which these hon. Members will be able to influence, from the inside, the day-to-day operations of the undertaking; and to influence from the House of Commons the relationship between the Government and these concerns. Therefore, we say that it would be better if they were kept out.

Similarly, in view of the Government's language in the Bill to the effect that this system shall represent the British way of life, that it should be essentially British in spirit, I cannot understand why the Home Secretary wants aliens to run the programme contractors. He appears to want them. I should have thought that they were better out of it, whether they are resident in this country or not.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that it might prejudice our people engaged in commercial operations in other countries is one which I do not believe. This is an exceptional case. It is concerned with a great public concern—at least, it ought to be a public concern; it is a great public operation of television which ought not to be subject to the influence of aliens, and so on.

Finally, there is the Amendment, in page 7, line 32, which provides that there shall be restrictions calculated to safeguard the composition of these programme contractors against persons who ought not to be with them, on the general lines of the argument in which we have engaged. We hope that the House will bear these considerations in mind and that it will support the only Amendment that can now be put from the Opposition, which is my Amendment in page 7, line 32.

Mr. Shackleton

In view of the acceptance by the Government of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 7, line 16, at end, insert: or of which any person who is a disqualified person by virtue of paragraph (iii) of the definition contained in this subsection is a director, officer or servant."—[Mr. Aubrey Jones.]

In line 30, after "or," insert "has control over or."—[Mr. Gammans.]

Amendment proposed: In page 7, line 32, at end, insert: or— (iv) whether an individual or a body corporate, advertises or has advertised in any

programme broadcast by the Authority or is in the employment of any person who so advertises or has advertised or is a director, officer, shareholder or member or otherwise directly or indirectly financially interested in or in any relevant matter an agent, nominee or trustee of any body corporate who so advertises or has advertised."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes. 220.

Division No. 130.]	AYES	[10.29. p.m.
Albu, A. H.	Hayman, F. H.	Pannell, Charles
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Pargiter, G. A
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Herbison, Miss M.	Parker, J
Awbery, S. S.	Hobson, C. R.	Parkin, B. T.
Baird, J.	Holman, P.	Pearson, A.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Holmes, Horace	Pearl, T. F
Bartley, P.	Houghton, Douglas	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Hoy, J. H.	Porter, G.
Bence, C. R.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Benson, G.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Berwick, F.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Proctor, W. T.
Bing, G. H. C.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Blackburn, F.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Rankin, John
Blenkinsop, A.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Blyton, W. R.	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Boardman, H.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Rhodes, H.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Janner, B.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Ross, William
Burke, W. A.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Royle, C.
Callaghan, L. J.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Shackleton, E. A. A
Champion, A. J.	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Short, E. W.
Chapman, W. D.	Kennon, W.	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Chetwynd, G. R	Kenyon, C.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Clunie, J.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W	Skeffington, A. M.
Coldrick, W.	King, Dr. H. M	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Collick, P. H.	Lawson, G. M.	Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Cove, W. G.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Lindgren, G. S.	Snow, J. W.
Crossman, R. H. S.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Sorensen, R. W.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Logan, D. G.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	MacColl, J. E.	Sparks, J. A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	McInnes, J.	Steele, T.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Deer, G.	McLeavy, F.	Stross, Dr. Barnett
Dodds, N. N.	Mainwaring, W. H.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Sylvester, G. O.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)	Manuel, A. C.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Edwards,Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Mason, Roy	Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Mellish, R. J.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Messer, Sir F.	Thornton, E.
Fienburgh, W.	Mikardo, Ian	Tomney, F.
Finch, H. J.	Mitchison, G. R.	Turner-Samuels, M.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington,E.)	Monslow, W.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Foot, M. M.	Moody, A. S.	Viant, S. P.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Wallace, H. W.
Freeman, John (Watford)	Morley, R.	Warbey, W. N.
Gibson, C. W.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Watkins, T. E.
Gooch, E. G.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Weitzman, D.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Mort, D. L.	Wells, William (Walsall)
Grey, C. F.	Moyle, A.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mulley, F. W.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Hale, Leslie	Oldfield, W. H.	Wigg, George
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Oliver, G. H.	Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)	Oswald, T.	Wilkins, W. A.
Hamilton, W. W.	Paget, R. T.	Williams, David (Heath)
Hannan, W.	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Hargreaves, A.	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Hastings, S.	Palmer, A. M. F.	Willis, E. G
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)	Yates, V. F.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Winterbotton, Ian (Nottingham, C.)	Younger, Rt. Hon. K	Mr. Arthur Allen and Mr. Roger.
Woodburn, R. Hon. A.
NOES.
Aitken,W. T.	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)	Osborne, C.
Alport, C. J. M.	Hay, John	Page, R. G.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Heath, Edward	Perkins, Sir Robert
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Higgs, J. M. C.	Pete, Brig. C. H. M.
Baldwin, A. E.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Peyton, J. W. W.
Banks, Col. C.	Hirst, Geoffrey	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Barlow, Sir John	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Holt, A. F.	Pitt, Miss E. M.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry	Powell, J. Enoch
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Horobin, I. M.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Birch, Nigel	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Raikes, Sir Victor
Bishop, F. P.	Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.	Ramsden, J. E.
Black, C. W.	Hurd, A. R.	Rayner, Brig. R.
Bossom, Sir A. C.	Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)	Redmayne, M.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.	Iremonger, T. L.	Ridsdale, J. E.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Braine, B. R.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Robson Brown, W.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Brooman-White, R. C.	Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W	Roper, Sir Harold
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Kaberry, D.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Russell, R. S.
Bullard, D. G.	Kerr, H. W.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Burden, F. F. A.	Lambert, Hon. G.	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Carr, Robert	Leather, E. H. C.	Scott, R. Donald
Cary, Sir Robert	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Channon, H.	Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Lindsay, Martin	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.	Linstead, Sir H. N.	Soames, Capt. C.
Cole, Norman	Llewellyn, D. T.	Spearman, A. C. M
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J C.	Speir, R. M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Longden, Gilbert	Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Low, A. R. W.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Crouch, R. F.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Stevens, Geoffrey
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Summers, G. S.
Davidson, Viscountess	Macdonald, Sir Peter	Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Deedes, W. F.	Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Digby, S. Wingfield	McKibbin, A. J.	Teeling, W.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Doughty, C. J. A.	Maclean, Fitzroy	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm	Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Drayson, G. B.	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Thornton-Kemeley, Col. C. N.
Duthie, W. S.	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.	Tilney, John
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Marples A. E.	Turner, H. F. L.
Erroll, F. J.	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Turton, R. H.
Finlay, Graeme	Maude, Angus	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Fisher, Nigel	Maudling, R.	Vane, W. M. F.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Vosper, D. F.
Fort, R.	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Mellor, Sir John	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell	Molson, A. H. E.	Wall, Major Patrick
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Moore, Sir Thomas	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Gammans, L. D.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
George Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Watkinson, H. A.
Glover, D.	Neave, Airey	Wellwood, W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Nicholls, Harmar	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Gough, C. F. H.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Gower, H. R.	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Williams, Sir Herbert (Craydon, E.)
Graham, Sir Fergus	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Grimond, J.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.	Wills, G.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Nugent, G. R. H.	Wilson, Godfrey (Truro)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Nutting, Anthony	Wood, Hon. R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Oakshott, H. D.
Hare, Hon. J. H.	O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Studholme.
	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Question put, and agreed to.

It being after Half-past Ten o'Clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.