Title (Hansard, 30 July 1963)

§ Mr. David Gibson-Watt (Hereford)
On a point of order. I should like your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. During the Report stage of the Bill, I put down an Amendment to the Title. That Amendment was not accepted. Since then, the Title of the Bill has been amended in another place. May I be informed why an Amendment which was put down in the Commons and refused is afterwards accepted in another place and the Bill is changed on the lines on which I wanted it to be amended?

§ Mr. Speaker
I regret that, although I do not remember it, I must in the exercise of my powers and duties, for good reasons, have declined to select the hon. Member's Amendment. I know nothing about what is done in another place. If their Lordships suggest an Amendment which comes back here, this House then considers it. That is the position.

§ Mr. Mawby
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is consequential on the Amendments to Clause 18 which had the effect of removing my right hon. Friend's powers under that Clause to require the B.B.C. to co-operate with the I.T.A. in the provision and use of broadcasting installations and to confine my right hon. Friend's powers to give directions solely to the I.T.A. Similar powers are to be written into the B.B.C.'s Licence as being the proper place for obligations to be imposed upon the Corporation.

§ Mr. Willey
I rise only because my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) showed an interest in this Amendment. It is with alacrity that I rise to defend the Government. We are delighted to see the Leader of the House present. He expressed the view some time ago that we might improve the Bill. We have worked hard upon it in both Houses and we have considerably improved it.
In view of the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, we from these benches have a responsibility for the Amendment. However important or unimportant it is, it is consequential upon certain Amendments which we moved and which were accepted by the Postmaster-General. In view of this, I hope that my hon. Friend will not be unduly critical.

§ Mr. Mason
It is not my intention to be critical, but as including relations between the Authority and the British Broadcasting Corporation has been taken out of the Title, I would expect the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General to have made it plain at the Box tonight that this is not because friction exists between the two Authorities. Indeed, Clause 18 of the Bill specifically relates to co-operation with the B.B.C. That is why this phrase was originally in the Title. In view of the fact that almost at the eleventh hour of our long proceedings on the Bill the Postmaster-General should withdraw these words, we should have a satisfactory explanation before the Title is allowed to be changed.
Clause 18 specifically relates to the joint use of installations, masts, booster towers, and so on, that will be necessary between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. Clause15 deals with audience research. It may be necessary at some time for the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to co-operate on audience research or audience reaction throughout the whole country and not solely among people who, they think, are watching their own programmes.
On Clause 17, concerning experimental transmissions, it is essential that there should be co-operation between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. It may be necessary for the I.T.A. to put out colour transmissions with the co-operation of the B.B.C. All I ask of the Postmaster-General is to state clearly before the 361 Title is changed that no friction exists, that relations are good and will continue like this and that it is absolutely necessary for the betterment of television as a whole that they should.

§ Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)
I hope my right hon. Friend will accept this Lords Amendment because I think that many Members, if not all of us, will agree the Bill should protect the I.T.A., though no doubt the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), whose constructive suggestions throughout the proceedings on the Bill I have been most interested to hear, will have the thanks of the B.B.C. I hope that in future on every occasion when we discuss television we shall be able to collaborate in the same constructive way as we have done in the past. I hope my right hon. Friend will accept this Lords Amendment.

§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)
He moved that the House should.

§ Mr. Bevins
May I extend my sympathy to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) who sought to do precisely this at a certain stage of the Bill's passage through this House—and also to myself, who also tried very valiantly to have the Title changed? I think I ought to leave it at that, except perhaps to add that I am quite sure that the relations between the B.B.C. and the Authority are far happier and more cordial and co-operative than I have ever known them.