Powers of Authority

HL Deb 12 July 1954 vol 188 cc716-823

2.—(1) The Authority shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have power to do all such things as are in their opinion necessary for or conducive to the proper discharge of their function as described in subsection (1) of section one of this Act, and, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, they shall for the purpose of discharging that function have power—

1. (a) to establish, install and use stations for wireless telegraphy;
2. (b) to arrange for the provision and equipment of, or, if need be, themselves to provide and equip, studios and other premises for television broadcasting purposes;

(2) The programmes broadcast by the Authority shall, so far as may be consistent with the observance of the requirements of this Act, be provided not by the Authority but by persons (hereafter in this Act referred to as "programme contractors") who, under contracts with the Authority, have, in consideration of payments to the Authority and subject to the provisions of this Act, the right and the duty to provide programmes or parts of programmes to be broadcast by the Authority, which may include advertisement; but the Authority may—

1. (a) arrange for the provision of parts of programmes otherwise than as aforesaid for the purpose of securing the inclusion in the programmes of items of particular classes which in their opinion are necessary for securing a proper balance in the subject matter of the programmes and cannot, or cannot as suitably, be provided by programme contractors; and
2. (b) apart from the provision of such items, arrange for the provision, otherwise than as aforesaid, of, or, if need be, themselves provide, programmes or parts of programmes so far as may be necessary by reason of any temporary lack of suitable persons able and willing to become and continue as programme contractors on suitable terms and to perform their obligations; as such, or by reason of any interval between the expiration or termination of one contract with a programme contractor and the commencement of another contract with that of another programme contractor,

and may, for the purpose of so providing programmes or parts of programmes or putting themselves into a position to do so if necessity arises, make such arrangements for obtaining the necessary material, enter into such contracts, employ such persons, acquire such property and do such things as may appear to them to be necessary or expedient.

5.51 p.m.

EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (1), to add to paragraph (b): and, where the,Authority deem it expedient to do so, to own and use such studios or premises;

The noble Earl said: This amendment raises an important point which gets nearer a question of principle. Those of us who dislike this Bill would like it much better if we could think that the Authority were to play a much larger part in providing programmes than is envisaged in the Bill at present. Whatever we may say about politics, I have not a shadow of doubt that the Postmaster General will appoint a board of highly reputable people who I hope will receive and deserve public confidence. That is what we all wish. To my mind the tragedy of this Bill, even assuming that a body of that sort are appointed, is that thereupon they have to wash their hands of the whole business and put themselves in the hands of programme contractors who are going to do the work for them. I should be so much happier if' this highly reputable body were much more like the B.B.C. and themselves provided the programme by their servants or, if necessary, agents, keeping much greater control over the whole thing than they will ever be able to do under the present Bill.

I have no knowledge of these matters, and I have not talked to anybody on the B.B.C., but there are many features, like Henry Hall's "Guest Night" the arrangement of which, I suppose—I. do not know—is left to Mr. Henry Hall. I suppose he submits some particulars to the B.B.C. of what he is going to do, and in that way the B.B.C. have a cheek over it; but he is the originator of the programme, and it is proper that he should be. I should like the same sort of thing here for this body. I should like them to put on programmes by their own servants, and no doubt they will contract with people to put on programmes, but they will be in authority. We are about to come to a group of Amendments, beginning with Amendment No. 8, based on a suggestion which the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury put forward on the Second Reading. That suggestion I find very attractive, and I think it would do much to eliminate the bad features of this Bill. While giving the Government the competition they want, it would break the monopoly and give them the money from advertisers. I do not like any of these things, but if the Government would meet us to that extent, then, speaking for myself, and for myself alone, I should be confronted with a Bill that I disliked very much less than the present Bill.

The position about studios which this Amendment raises is as follows. If arable Lords will turn to the top of page 4 of the Bill, among the powers of the Authority is set out the power (b) to arrange for the provision and equipment of, or, if need be, themselves to provide and equip, studios and other premises for television broadcasting purposes; That paragraph led me to refer on Second Reading to this as a kind of default power. What is plainly contemplated is an arrangement for the provision of studios only if they break down; only "if need be" can the Authority themselves provide studios. That seems to be the wrong way around. There are many purposes for which I devoutly hope this Authority will have studios and premises suitable for broadcasting. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Bristol is to move an Amendment with regard to religious broadcasting. There seem to me immense advantages in having religious broadcasts under the direct control of the Authority, instead of under the control, maybe, of three programme contractors. I cannot doubt that at all.

There are many other matters in regard to which, from time to time, I should have thought it plainly desirable this Authority should themselves arrange programmes. They can do that only if they have the necessary studios. The Bill says that they should provide studios only when needed. I would much rather put it the other way round. Let the studios be the studios of the Authority, who may let them out from time to time to programme contractors, as and when needed. It is for that reason I move this Amendment. I have talked much too much to your Lordships to-day there is a number of distinguished speakers whose names are attached to this Amendment, and I would prefer them to take the labour of arguing the point. I think this is an Amendment of major importance. I know the Postmaster General is going to do his best to make this Authority a good one, and I want to see them in the position in which the members can come in and influence this whole system and set the tone and tendency. They cannot do that if they have not the studios within which to broadcast. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 3, at end insert ("and, where the Authority deem it expedient to do so, to own and use such studios or premises;").— (Earl Jowitt.)

VISCOUNT WAVERLEY

Apart altogether from the considerations urged by the noble and learned Earl, with which I entirely agree, I suggest to your Lordships that this Amendment is necessary to complete the Bill as it stands, because a later provision in the Bill contemplates the contingency of the Authority having to determine the contract of a programme contractor. If that contingency were to arise, surely the Authority must be in the position themselves to step into the breach. I suggest that they cannot do so if they are empowered merely to arrange for or to provide studios and are not also empowered, in case of need, to use them. For that reason alone, I suggest that this Amendment should be introduced into the clause.

LORD REA

I should like to support the noble Lords who have spoken, and add another point. The Authority will have no power of acquiring a studio in such an emergency. In another place the suggestion that the Authority should be able to acquire studios by compulsory powers was refused—properly refused, as some of us think. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has said, that awkward situation can be overcome only if we allow this Amendment to go through.

LORD BRAND

I should like to support this Amendment. I think it is a fundamental alteration to the Bill. I think that an Authority who have nothing to do but supervise are certainly different from an Authority who are also going to make and distribute programmes. It may be that if the Bill were altered in this way the Authority would require a much bigger organisation and staff, and would have two totally different attributes, one to see what the other people did and the other to do the thing themselves. I believe it would be a great strengthening of the Bill, and a protection for viewers, if an Authority of this kind were able to distribute programmes. It would certainly add to what I understand is the desire of the Government—namely, to increase competition. The programme companies would have as a competitor, not only the B.B.C., but an Authority which would help to maintain the level of their own programmes. For those reasons I support this Amendment.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

Having heard the noble and learned Earl say that this was one of the most important Amendments to the Bill, I listened with great attention to the arguments that he deployed in favour of the Amendment. It may be that there is necessity for this Amendment, but I cannot for the life of me see it. The Clause which he is seeking to amend enables the Authority to arrange for the provision and equipment of, or, if need be, themselves to provide and equip, studios and other premises for television broadcasting purposes. The Amendment says that the Authority should he able to "use such studios or premises." They can certainly use them, under the words I have read out. But they can do even more, because at the beginning of Clause 2 (1) the Authority are given power to do all such things as are in their opinion necessary for or conducive to the proper discharge of their function … Under Clause 2 (2) (b), in the event of the Authority having the desire to provide programmes, owing to the failure of contractors to provide them, they would obviously have power to do everything that was necessary. I cannot see anything in the Bill which excludes the Authority from the ability to own and use studios in the manner suggested in the Amendment. I agree that the idea behind the Amendment may be of great importance, but that idea has been fully provided for in the Bill.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I have no doubt that we shall hear from the noble Earl the Postmaster General whether the interpretation of the Bill given by the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, is correct, or that of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, tells us that the Bill says that the Authority can own studios, but my noble and learned friend reads it in a different way.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

The Bill says that they have power to do all such things as are in their opinion necessary…

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

That will be settled, I hope, when the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, replies. It is essential to know whether the Authority can own studios, or whether they will be owned by the programme contractors, so that, if the Authority wish to use a studio, they will have to lease the premises with the consent of the programme contractor. The Government are faced with the dilemma that, under the terms of this Bill, the Authority will not be able to carry out certain of their obligations unless they have the power to acquire a studio. The noble Earl, the Postmaster General, might accept this Amendment. There is one alternative to this, and that is the alternative suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rea—namely, that the Authority should be given compulsory powers to acquire a studio in order to carry out their obligations under this Bill.

For instance, supposing a contract expires and another contractor is not ready to provide a programme, then the Bill lays down that it is the duty of the Authority to provide a programme in the interval—if there is an interval—between the end of one contract and the beginning of another. How can the Authority provide such a programme unless they have studio space in which to put the programme on? Again, if my noble and learned friend's interpretation of the Bill is correct, at the moment they could obtain that studio space only with the consent of the programme contractor. If that consent is withheld, then the obligation on the Authority to provide a programme in default of the commercial company could not be carried out. I put that point because I feel that it is a dilemma which only the Government can solve, and to find out how they intend to get round it.

VISCOUNT HUDSON

I do not think noble Lords opposite can get away from the wording at the bottom of page 3. I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought it was abundantly clear. It says: The Authority shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have power to do all such things as are in their opinion necessary for or conducive to the proper discharge of their function.… I have been trying to see why noble Lords are so worried about this. I hazard, as a guess, that they are bemused—if I may use that word—by the use of the word "studio."

EARL JOWITT

If I may help the noble Viscount, we are bemused by the use of the three words "if need be."

VISCOUNT HUDSON

it is not necessary to have an enormous studio, such as the White City, for the purpose of filling a gap in prograrnmes. I should have thought it would he comparatively easy to hire quite a small studio, if it were necessary to provide a programme to fill a gap, should the advertiser fail to carry out his programme. I do not think this is a genuine case. I believe that noble Lords opposite are being unduly perturbed, and are imagining all sorts of things which are not likely to occur, always assuming that they admit that the desire of the Government in this Bill is not to encourage the Authority to set up on their own large studios for the production of programmes.

LORD SILKIN

I should like to say a word or two on what has already been said. I would ask the Government to bear in mind that the Authority are going to be a most responsible body, appointed by the Postmaster General, not on political grounds but on the grounds of men of standing in business, with commercial experience, and so on. All that this Amendment says is: where the Authority deem it expedient to do so, to own and use such studios or premises. It does not say that they must do it. Surely, these businessmen can be trusted to decide whether it is "expedient to own and use" premises. If they can lease them, or get them in some other way, these businessmen will not be so foolish as to go to the expense of buying premises; and if they can get a small studio, they will not be so foolish as to try to get a large one. They have already been given authority to produce programmes in certain places; all the Amendment says is that they should be trusted to provide such facilities as they may think expedient. I really cannot see what all the fuss is about.

VISCOUNT HUDSON

The logical conclusion of the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just delivered to us is that the Amendment is completely unnecessary.

LORD SILKIN

On the contrary, the logical conclusion—

VISCOUNT HUDSON

They have the power to do it.

LORD SILKIN

Not without these words.

EARL DE LA WARR

I was going to use exactly the same language as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin: I really cannot imagine what all this fuss is about. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has presented me to your Lordships as a great legal authority, able to clear up this problem of drafting. I have no doubt that he was referring to the advice that stands behind me. Certainly on my own personal standing I should not venture for a moment to stand in the path of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has raised an important point of principle, and we have had an interesting argument on it. Of course there is a difference of principle between us—we know it. Our first impulse is to get someone else, the programme contractor, to produce the programme and only in certain circumstances for the I.T.A. to do it. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in an arguable proposition, prefers the I.T.A., and he would really like to have a second B.B.C. Therefore, we have frankly got to admit a difference of opinion. But I do not honestly see how it arises on this Amendment. I should have thought that the drafting of this clause and the subsections included in it is perfectly clear, and I should take exactly the view that the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, has taken. The clause starts off by saying that the Authority shall have power to do all such things as are in their opinion necessary—we cannot have stronger words than that. Later on, in subsection (1) (b), they are given power to arrange for the provision and equipment of studios or if need be—

EARL JOWITT

What do those words mean?

EARL DE LA WARR

If they consider it necessary. I cannot believe that the noble and learned Earl would want them to do it "if need not be." They seem to be very rational words. They can provide and equip studios and so on. Then the noble Earl wants us to introduce the words "own and use." Of course, if you can provide and equip a studio you can own and use it. Indeed, in the next subsection we go on to lay down occasions on which they shall be able to use those studios. Finally, if any doubt remains at all, we look to the words which I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, has already quoted in line 40, that they shall have power to acquire such property. Of course you can own property, if you are allowed to acquire it and do such things as may appear to you to be necessary or expedient. That means, naturally, making use of the studios for which they have either arranged the provision or which they have actually provided. Therefore, I conclude with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, "What is all this fuss about?" This clause is perfectly clearly drafted, and I would ask your Lordships to leave it as it is.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I would ask your Lordships' forgiveness for not having been here at the earlier part of this Debate, but I was concerned with a matter concerning the liberty of the subject about which I informed my noble friend. My noble friend has left me in doubt about the drafting of this clause. I find my doubts not at all allayed by the optimism of my noble friends in front of me who made two speeches which seemed to me to leave out part of the vital words of this clause which have to be construed. I fully accept the view lat if one looks only at the first two lines of the clause at the bottom of page 3, one would think that the Authority had power to do all such things as are in their opinion necessary for or conducive to the proper discharge of their function,… If it had stopped there, I must say I should have left relatively happy, but it does not. Then it says that without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision there are to be certain specific powers. When we look at what those specific powers are, we find that there is a significant—and I can only treat it as significant—difference between the powers in relation to the wireless stations and the powers in relation to the studios. What my noble friends in front of me have wholly failed to draw to the attention of the Committee, is that in relation to wireless telegraphy stations the Government have thought it necessary— I repeat, necessary—to use the words: to establish, install and use stations for wireless telegraphy. That is as plain as a pikestaff. All this Amendment seeks to do, as I understand it, is to employ in relation to studios the same words as the Government have employed in relation to wireless stations.

What I was looking forward to my noble friend explaining was why the Government have used different words in relation to studios from those they have used in relation to the wireless stations. As I apprehend the argument of my noble friends, which really was a little brash, it was that you did not need to say anything because, under the first words of the clause, the Authority had power to do anything it liked. Then why include paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) at al if that is the view? I should like to know what the many learned Lords who have had something to do with the drafting of this Bill really think about this. I must say that I am disappointed not to have the Lord Chancellor's opinion on a matter of this importance. What is the purpose of paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) if my noble friends, Lord Hore-Belisha and Lord Hudson, are correct? I do not know. Assuming that it was necessary for some reason to use words of a specific import under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c), why have different words been used for the wireless stations front those used for studios? Is it really to be said that these words are wholly without significance?—because that is the logical conclusion of the speeches of my noble friends Lord Hore-Belisha and Lord Hudson. It was said, "Why put in 'use' in paragraph (b), because you do not need it?" I would say, with respect, to the Government: Why refuse to put it in paragraph (b) if it does not make any difference? If you thought it necessary to put it in paragraph (a), why have you not put it in paragraph (b)?

I should have thought that we were at least entitled to some explanation, but the Postmaster General made a speech in which he simply adopted the arguments of my noble friends in front of me. I confess that I find myself disappointed. I thought he was going to tell us the reason for this vital and significant change. I hope he is going to learn now what it is. I really hope we are going to have now, as it were from the horse's mouth, what the purpose is in this significant difference of language employed as between paragraphs (a) and (b), because at the moment we are left completely in the dark. I think it would be a mistake to part from a clause which goes to the root of the whole matter unless we are told. Is it the view of the Government that the word "use" is unnecessary and, therefore, otiose? H it is, is it their view that it is also unnecessary and otiose in paragraph (a)? If so why not omit it from paragraph (a)? Or is it their view that it served some purpose in paragraph (a)? If so why not insert it in paragraph (b)?

It is a matter of vital importance, because sooner or later we are going to come to the stage when we are going to look at the practical sanctions the Authority have to employ against the programme contractor. Sooner or later we are going to be told that it can determine the programme contractor's contract "after three bites." Then we shall want to know what practical chance there is of its being able to determine the programme contractor's contract. Of course, if there is only one programme contractor and he owns all the studios in the area, it is not much good giving to the Authority power to determine the programme contractor's contract, because if it does it will not be able to put any programmes on the air at all. That is a situation which I am not prepared to contemplate. Therefore some noble Lords, of whom I was one, put down this Amendment to make it plain that the Authority, once they have provided and equipped studios, should be entitled to use them.

I am not satisfied with the Postmaster General's explanation and I want to know why there is this significant change in language. If you leave the clause as it is, even if there is power to provide and equip studios under the description "if need be," I want to be sure that the Postmaster General is not going to leave the Authority he professes to trust in the position of having no programme contractor and no studios, in a case where it determines the authority of the programme contractor to continue the contract. If so, the whole of the sanctions of the Bill are simply a scrap of paper.

6.23 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

Perhaps I could enlighten my noble friend who has just spoken by making the kind of speech I might make if I were on the Government Bench and were speaking in favour of the Bill. Perhaps this is the speech the Postmaster General is about to make. He may be about to say the truth of the matter is that our possible programme directors are exceedingly nervous lest the I.T.A. compete against them. That is one thing they fear. They desire to set up a new monopoly with one contractor for each station and to have as free a hand as possible, and they will say that only in that way can you get the benefit of private enterprise. Above all, they will say, "We do not want the I.T.A. to be our master and also our competitor." That is the reason, the Postmaster General will say, why he cannot accept this Amendment.

EARL JOWITT

I should like to hear if the Postmaster General can tell us what he has had from the horse's mouth. We do not want all this argument about law. I venture to think that anybody of ordinary common sense who puts himself in the position of construing the words would come to the same conclusion. First of all, you will notice the words in paragraph (a). You notice the change in phraseology in paragraph (b), and you have, in construing the clause, to give effect to every word you can. It starts off, to arrange for the provision and equipment of, or, if need be, themselves to provide and equip. That quite plainly means that the second course is what I might call the exceptional course. Normally the course is "to arrange for the provision and equipment of," and, if that does not work, "if need be" you take the second course and you yourself provide and equip. What is plainly contemplated—we need not shirk it—is that the Government do not want the Authority itself to provide studios. They hope that will not be necessary. They want the programme contractors to provide studios. They do not want the Authority to have to launch out on the expense of studios. They therefore contemplated that the programme contractors will provide the studios. If they do, it will not be necessary for the Authority to provide studios at all. But it may become necessary in certain events for the Authority to provide programmes under the Bill, and there are several illustrations to be found lower down page 4. On line 31 you find this: or by reason of any interval between the expiration or termination of one contract with a programme contractor and the commencement of another contract with that of another programme contractor, they themselves provide programmes. And the clause goes on: and may, for the purposes of so providing programmes acquire such property as they like. Strangely enough, the Postmaster General prayed in aid those words, not realising that they are exactly contradictory to what he obviously was saying as an illustration of the emergency power. When the programme is in danger of breaking down, because the programme contractors have gone and there is an interval, then it is said that the Authority may acquire studios. But it will be too late them.

What I want is to have it made quite plain that the right of the Authority themselves to equip studios, which are their studios, arises in the first instance. From the first they may let them to the programme contractors. Really it is quite plain at the present time—it is a matter of common sense—to see that this is what is contemplated, and for the Authority themselves to provide studios is an emergency power which happens only if the other scheme does not pull through. I want the Authority in the first instance to provide the studio, and I say it is useful that they should have that power and exercise it. I want the Authority not merely to provide the programme but to provide the programme as part of the ordinary running of things—as the Postmaster General said, as another B.B.C. That is the controversy between us. I think we may as well recognise that this Amendment I am seeking to put into the Bill is really an echo of that controversy. I do not doubt that.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

Since the words in the Bill say, "where the Authority deem it expedient to do so," this Amendment is rather disingenuous, if the noble and learned Earl says he wants it anyway.

EARL JOWITT

Perhaps it is. I am not sure it is at all well drafted; in fact I am certain it is badly drafted. I should have struck out paragraph (b). I ought to have struck out the words "if need be" and put in a new paragraph (b), my paragraph (b) bringing in the same terms as paragraph (a); but it is a difficult matter, when drafting, to get it all right. But we are not turning on a question of drafting. The principle between us is that I want the Authority to start providing the studios, and the noble Earl opposite wants the Authority to provide studios only in the case of need; and the words of the Bill bear out what his intention is and reveal the difference between us. I do not think there is any room for doubt about the legal implication; I am certain the advice he will get is as I have said. Wanting, as I do, the Authority to provide the studios and not merely to exercise default powers, I move the insertion of these words, it being plainly understood that if I succeed at a later stage I will try to get in rather more appropriate and shorter language the point I really desire.

6.30 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR

The whole House is deeply indebted to the noble and learned Earl for making perfectly clear what is at stake. I make no apology for having been a little confused because, indeed, the noble and learned Earl now tells us that the Amendment does not mean what it seemed to mean, and that is really my reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Incidentally, let me say that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, made my speech very much better for me than did the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. He said exactly what I wanted to say: that there is this division of opinion; that the noble and learned Earl, who argues with great force and strength, wants a second B.B.C. and we want to give private enterprise a chance. That is what is at stake in this Amendment, and I think it is very much better that I should not delay your Lordships any longer, the issue is so clear. I am sure the noble and learned Earl will want to press this Amendment to a Division. Quite definitely, we cannot accept the Amendment.

EARL JOWITT

I should like to ask the noble Earl this. Apart altogether from a second B.B.C., in case of default powers, supposing a programme contractor breaks down, goes bankrupt or runs away and the Authority has to provide programmes, and it has not got a studio, how is it to provide them?

EARL DE LA WARR

Studios are not all that difficult to get hold of. It is almost certain, under the machinery of the Bill, that it will become pretty clear when a company is weakening in its position. That is just where the words "if need be" conic in.

EARL JOWITT

Would the noble Earl give compulsory powers in regard to the studio?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I am sorry to be persistent because, quite apart from the controversy between the two sides of the House in this matter, I was Concerned to see those words come in, on the grounds which I have stated. I want to be sure that there is power, if it is thought expedient to do so, to use the studios. The Leader of the House suggested to me that there was something disingenuous in the words "deem it expedient to do so." I put my name to this Amendment in good faith. I thought those words were very apt for the purposes for which they were wanted. I would hardly have put my name to an Amendment which said—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I would not wish to impugn the integrity of the noble Viscount. All I said was that he and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, did not mean the same thing, though they both put their names to the same Amendment.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I know I put my name to this Amendment, meaning exactly what it said. But why, I should like to know, is there this extraordinary divergence of language between paragraphs (a) and (b)? Really, the two noble Lords on the Front Bench take this draftsmanship very cavalierly; but, sooner or later, somebody has to decide what those words mean. The Civil Service will have to decide what they mean, the I.T.A. will have to decide what they mean and maybe the courts will have to decide what they mean. Can one or other of the noble Lords, or both of them collectively, tell me why the word used there was thought necessary in paragraph (a) and not necessary in paragraph (b)? I must say, without any doubt at all, that I put this Amendment down, not because I do not agree with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in what he said—as a matter of fact, I do—but in the belief that this was an exceedingly reasonable compromise.

The I.T.A. ordinarily will not be putting on programmes except in circumstances to be defined hereafter in subsection (2), but what sort of effective power can the Authority have, if, in fact, they have not got a studio—I was going to say, but it would have been inelegant —"up their sleeve"? How can they do the things which they have contracted to do or which they have had imposed upon them as a duty to do if they do not ordinarily have access to a studio for that purpose—access as of right and not as a stranger? If the Government are being a little unreasonable about this, if the fact be, as my noble friends in front of me have said and as the Government claim to accept, that the right for which we ask in this Amendment is already there by imputation, what can be the objection to inserting it plainly? If it is said that it is unnecessary to insert it plainly, why was the very same word inserted in paragraph (a) at the Government's own behest? With respect, I know the Government mean to be conciliatory about this, but they are not going very far to be conciliatory when they offer no explanation of the extraordinary inconsistencies in their own draftsmanship and no real explanation why they will not accept the words of this Amendment, even if they will not accept the policy underlying the policy of the noble and learned Earl opposite.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I am grateful to the Postmaster General for having accepted the speech of which I gave him the draft, because when we come to the essential point, what he said was that the real reason why the Government are standing by this clause, as defined, is that they want to give private enterprise a chance. That is the purpose. I put it in slightly different language, and said that the programme contractors will not tolerate having the I.T.A. as their competitor. That amounts to the same thing. For that reason, I propose to support the Amendment.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

My noble friend Lord Hailsham has twice asked a question which seems to me susceptible of being answered, in spite of the fact that he puts it with great emphasis and iteration. There is a difference—and he wants to know why there is a difference—between paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 2 (1). I do not want to trespass beyond my sphere, but I think I can see the distinction. It is this. In paragraph (a) the Authority is required: to establish, install and use stations for wireless telegraphy; that is to say, it is providing the technical apparatus through which the broadcasting will be done. The Authority alone can perform that function and that is why these words are used. When you come to paragraph (b), you are concerned with a different aspect of television. You are concerned with the programmes to be provided by programme contractors who normally will be performing the service imposed upon them by this Bill. In this case, the Authority arrange for the provision and equipment, if need be, of the studios. The distinction in the language used is based upon that distinction of principle between the duties of the broadcasting Authority and the duties of the programme contractors.

"But," says my noble friend, or says the noble and learned Earl. "there may be circumstances in which the Authority itself has to provide the programmes, and those circumstances are when there is no suitable programme contractor to provide them, or when there is a hiatus between the contract of one programme contractor and the contract of another—when there is a gap to be filled. In those circumstances," says the noble and learned Earl, "the Authority will have no studio ready in which to perform its function." I think that is covered by the clause, for the clause says, after paragraph (b), towards the end— for the purpose of so providing programmes or parts of prograrnmes or putting themselves into a position to do so. the Authority may acquire such property. Therefore, the Authority has to anticipate, or can anticipate. If it has reason to believe that there is going to be a breakdown in the service, it can provide these studios.

It seems to me that, technically and on the legal aspects, if I may presume to say so, of this clause, there is no flaw in the drafting at all. There is, however, a clear distinction which everyone must respect: that the noble and learned Earl wishes the Authority to provide the programmes and the Government wish the programme contractors to provide the programmes. The noble Earl wants to turn this Bill upside down, and he approaches this in an oblique manner, through this Amendment; but, as he himself now admits, the Amendment is not satisfactorily drawn, and I do not, in fairness, think it should be pressed. The noble Viscount occupies an entirely different position, although for temporary reasons he finds himself associated with the noble Earl. I think there is a simple answer to his question, which ex plains why there is the distinction between paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 2.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

I think we are entitled to ask the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, this question. If the obligations of the Authority set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) are to be taken seriously—that is to say, it is part of their job to see that there is a balance of programmes, and if, as is bound to be the case, the advertising programmes do not make a balanced whole, they will fill it in—I would ask, how can they perform that obligation if they have no studio?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I am sorry to be completely dissatisfied with the speech of my noble friend. I was looking forward to some explanation from the Government. I know my noble friend is an extremely ingenious reader of documents and I was interested to hear what he had to say. I imply no criticism or reflection on him when I say that on matters of Parliamentary draftsmanship one looks for some authoritative exposition from the Front Bench, without any derogatory reflection on those who put forward other and ingenious approaches from the Back Benches. I think this matter extremely unsatisfactory. We have in paragraph (a) words providing for the use of the wireless telegraphy apparatus. It had occurred to me that the explanation might reside, as my noble friend suggests, in the difference of function; but that explanation will not "wash," so far as I can see. We are here dealing with the enabling clause: paragraph (a) does not impose any duty on the Authority; it merely gives them power to do something. It is that same language that is used in paragraph (b). Every body knows, and I think I can say this without fear of contradiction, that when you are setting up a corporation, whether it be a limited company or a statutory corporation like this, your object in drafting the provision will not be to provide it with the power to do only those things which it ordinarily will do. It will be, whether you are drafting the Memorandum of Association of a company or an enabling section of a Statute, to give it the power to do all things which it may require to do. In paragraph (a) you are giving it the power to use the wireless station; but in paragraph (b) you are not giving it the power to use the studios.

There was an extraordinary difference of interpretation between the two speeches of my noble friend Lord Hore-Belisha. The first speech was designed simply to show that the Amendment was unnecessary; that the power was already there. That was the burden of his song. But the second time he spoke he said "Dear me, no; the Amendment is not unnecessary; it is undesirable; it reflects the fundamental cleavage between the two sides of the House." He seems to prefer, for reasons which are not apparent to me, an apparatus which does not include the expressed power to use the studios. He goes on to say that for reasons of policy, which again I do not understand, it is desirable that the I.T.A., in relation to the studios, should have power only to lock the stable door after the horse has been stolen—that is under the emergency power in subsection (2). I venture to say that if we were dealing with this simply as a business proposition, and were considering it solely as businessmen would consider it if they were considering a draft Memorandum of Association, that would not satisfy them in the least, and they would demand the power, whether they intended to use it ordinarily or whether they intended to use it, as the Government now propose, extraordinarily, to be inserted in the clause.

For that reason I think that, instead of these unauthorised private enterprise expositions of what is an extremely difficult clause, we should have an authoritative exposition. Enough has been said on this Amendment. We are passing an extremely important Statute, and noble Lords need not think we can pass an Amendment of this importance simply by loud noises from the Back Benches; that will not "wash," even in the other place. I venture to think that enough has been said in relation to this Amendment to show that it is possible to take more than one view of this draftsmanship. I should like to know from the

Government, with respect, exactly why this particular form of draftsmanship has been chosen, and I venture to suggest that it would lie within the powers of the Government to make it plain without a peradventure, by inserting appropriate words, to remove any ambiguity. Like the noble and learned Earl, I am not concerned with the actual wording of the Amendment, although I thought it was extremely appropriate. All I want to do is remove any ambiguity; and I should like to know why the Government have inserted these words here, and that they will be prepared to remove any ambiguity at a later stage in the Bill.

THE EARL OF HALIFAX

My Lords, with all respect to my noble friend behind me, to my noble friend on the Front Bench and to the noble and learned Earl opposite, I would, in spite of what my noble friend has just said, appeal to him and all the participants in this debate to allow us to come to a decision on it. We have had the advantage of extremely lucid explanations from my noble friend behind me, and from others below me as to their respective points of view. I think the matter is well clear in our minds as to where the issue lies. For my own part I shall support the Amendment, if it is taken to a Division. No amount of further argument from those who disagree with me will make me change my view, and I do not suppose that any amount of argument will make the members of the Government change theirs. Let us decide and get on.

On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents 38; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS
Halifax, E.	Amulree, L.	Merthyr, L.
Jowitt, E.	Brand, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Listowel, E.	Burden, L. [Teller.]	Moran, L.
Lucan, E.	Carnock, L.	Nathan, L.
	Darwen, L.	Ogmore, L.
Addison, V.	Harvey of Tasburgh, L.	Pakenham, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.	Henderson, L.	Rea, L. [Teller.]
Hailsham, V.	Inman, L.	Shepherd, L.
Samuel, V.	Kenswood, L.	Silkin, L.
Waverley, V.	Kershaw, L.	Sinha, L.
	Lawson, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Bristol, L. Bp.	Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.	Strang, L.
Liverpool, L. Bp.	Mathers, L.	Wilmot of Selmeston, L.
		Wise, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Astor, V.	Freyberg, L.
	Bridgemar, V.	Gifford, L.
	Buckmaster, V.	Grantchester, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. President.)	Davidson, V.	Hacking, L.
	Falmouth, V.	Hampton, L.
Northumberland, D.	Furness, V.	Hawke, L.
	Goschen, V.	Hore-Belisha, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Hudson, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Reading, M.	Knollys, V.	Layton, L.
	Leathers, V.	Leconfield, L.
	Swinton, V.	Lloyd, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Woolton, V.	Mancroft, L.
Bessborough, E.		Melchett, L.
Birkenhead, E. [Teller.]	Baillieu, L.	Milne, L.
De La Warr, E.	Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Remnant, L.
Home, E.	Brassey of Apethorpe, L.	Rennell, L.
Howe, E.	Carrington, L.	Rochdale, L.
Lonsdale, E.	Coleraine, L.	Strathcora and Mount Royal, L.
Morley, E.	De L'Isle and Dudley, L.
Munster, E.	Derwent, L.	Teviot, L.
Onslow, E. [Teller.]	Dormer, L.	Teynham, L.
Radnor, E.	Dovercourt, L.	Waleran, L.
Selkirk, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Wolverton, L.
Winterton, E.	Fraser of North Cape, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.57 p.m.

LORD SILKIN had given notice of three Amendments to subsection (2) the first being to leave out "not by the Authority but". The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, which is part of a series of Amendments which should be read together. They fall into two categories, which I ought perhaps to explain. Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 12 are put forward as drafting Amendments—they can be justified purely on the ground of drafting. However, if one were moving Amendment No. 11, Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 12 would be preparatory to that Amendment. So that one would justify these Amendments on these two grounds: first, on the ground of pure drafting, and secondly, on the ground of the proposal put forward in Amendment No. 11. I hope I have made my point clear.

I propose to say a few words about each Amendment. First of all, on the question of drafting, I invite the Committee to look at subsection (2) of the clause. I must confess that in all my experience of drafting—and I have sometimes been held responsible for some very difficult drafting—I have never come across anything quite like this. There are expressions used here which I have never seen in any Statute and which seem to me to be quite unintelligible. Let us take the expression: The programmes broadcast by the Authority shall … be provided not by the Authority but by persons (hereafter … referred to as 'programme contractors'). What is the point of having those words "not by the Authority." You might equally say, not by all sorts of people—not by the noble Earl, not by me, not by the noble Viscount. There are all sorts of people by whom they will not be provided, and it seems to me that the clause will read just as well if it said that the programmes will be provided by persons thereafter referred to in the Act as "programme contractors." Furthermore, the insertion of those words seems to be rather confusing. The first Amendment is therefore to leave those words out.

The second Amendment is to leave out ("under contracts") and insert ("have contracted"). There again, the language is rather unclear. It says: Programme contractors, who under contracts with the Authority have, in consideration of payments"— et cetera. Why not say "who have contracted"? That is the simple and natural language, if you mean that. The second Amendment is put down for that reason. The third Amendment is put down similarly to improve the language and to make it clear and understandable. Amendment 12 is to leave out the words "the right and duty"—that the programme contractors have "the right and duty" to provide programmes. I do not begin to understand what the juxtaposition of those two words, "right" and "duty," means. Having entered into a contract they have an obligation to carry out their contracts. They have no duty to provide programmes and they certainly have no right, so surely those words are wholly inappropriate; and again, I submit they should be left out. I do not suppose that the noble Viscount who appears to be going to reply will have much objection to improving the language of this clause, and certainly I do not think I should feel justified in taking up a lot of time, having drawn the attention of the Committee to the unsatisfactory wording of the clause. Therefore I will not take up a lot of time pursuing those points. It is our "right and duty" to make the language of legislation that we pass as good as we possibly can, and I feel justified in drawing the Committee's attention to those points.

Apart altogether from drafting, these Amendments are necessary as part of Amendment Number 11, which, in form, is a very simple one; it is to leave out the first ("to") and insert ("by"). The purpose of that Amendment is to bring in issue before the Committee a proposal put forward by the most reverend Primate on the Second Reading of this Bill which has received a certain amount of publicity. It is that the Authority should be responsible for providing the programmes and should themselves receive the revenue from the advertisers, but should use the programme contractors as their agents to make up the programmes. I will not disguise from the Committee (indeed, I do not suppose I should succeed if I tried to do so) that this is a fundamental Amendment which goes right to the root of this Bill and which, if accepted, would involve a considerable number of Amendments. Indeed, I should not be at all surprised if it did not involve a recommittal and a complete redrafting; but I do not imagine the noble Viscount would be deterred—and certainly the Committee would not—if it was thought to be a real improvement to the Bill. I am not entirely optimistic as to the fate of this Amendment, but I, in common with those who are supporting it, think it a duty to put this Amendment forward as an alternative policy to the one laid down in the Bill.

It was put forward with much greater eloquence and force than I am able to give to it by the most reverend Primate on Second Reading, and it would have the immense advantage that, if it were accepted and if the Government could see their way to redraft the Bill along those lines, it would reconcile a great many people to a Bill which at the present time they regard with complete abhorrence. I do not think it will affect seriously the principle of the Bill. It would still enable programmes to be provided with advertisements if the Authority so desired. It would provide them with revenue. It would give all the advantages of an alternative programme which would be provided by programme contractors who would have different, independent people from those on the B.B.C., and it would give the consumer a choice of programmes. It would have a further advantage in that it would permit of collaboration between the Authority and the B.B.C., so that the viewer really had an effective choice of programme as between the B.B.C. programme and that of the Independent Authority. It would indeed do all the things which those who are supporting this Bill want to do; but it would do them in a way acceptable to the great majority of people in this country. While I recognise that the noble Viscount is not only going to resist these Amendments but to resist them probably with great violence and force—

VISCOUNT SWINTON

With force but not violence.

LORD SILKIN

—nevertheless, I think Her Majesty's Government may feel it is worth while to pause and consider whether they cannot get what they seek to get by means which will be acceptable to the large number of people who at the present time view their proposals with great horror. I have broadly set out the purpose of these Amendments. It is twofold. The first deals with drafting pure and simple, and can stand up whether or not Amendment No. 11 is accepted. The second, and, of course, the real amendment to the Bill—the real amendment of principle—is in Amendment No. 11; and I imagine that the discussion which will take place will be not on the drafting but on the point of principle set out in that Amendment. At this stage, to put myself in order I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 11, leave out ("not by the Authority but").—(Lord Silkin.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

When I was Minister in Africa during the war, I once received a Petition from an African who thought he had been done down by a fellow African. The Petition ended with these words: He my fidus Achates let cat out of bag, thereby showing which way wind blows. The noble Lord, if I may refer to him as my "fidus Achates" has certainly let the cat out of the bag. Of course, all these ten or eleven Amendments are consequential upon the decision which your Lordships' House is taking to-day on the last Amendment. I could not accept them as drafting Amendments, and I will tell the noble Lord, in a very few words, why those words that he does not like were put in. But he has said, with the frankness he always shows to this House, that he would never have bothered about the drafting points—though he put the drafting first, a modest approach—but he kept the good wine to the end, and he said that, of course, the real object was to turn the Bill upside down. That would, he said, please a great many people. Unfortunately, it would not please the people by whom I am sent here. I am not going to argue whether they are in the majority or not, but from all the Gallup Polls and other information which one gets, I do not think I should please any but a very small minority in the country if I were to do as he suggests.

Of course, the noble Lord is right when he says that here there is a fundamental difference between us. The noble Lord wishes this Authority to be a second B.B.C., a Government company which is going to say what is to go into the programmes, and, in fact, is going to give people, not what they want, but what it thinks they ought to like; a Government machine that is going to run the business. That, I agree, is one point of view. Frankly, if the alternative were simply to set up a sort of B.B.C. Minor, I could not see any point in having it at all; I should have thought that it would be much better to let the B.B.C. go on as a monopoly, which is what the noble Lord would like. I am not going to take long over this Amendment. I do not mean any discourtesy, but I am going to be brief, because we decided this point on Second Reading; and, as the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, has said, we have all made up our minds about this, and if we argued all night none of us is likely to persuade any of the others to go into a different Lobby. We stand firmly by the principle that we want the programme contractors to provide the programmes, and we want this Authority—except in the remote contingency of having to use their emergency powers—merely to select suitable programme contractors and make contracts with them (I do not agree with the noble Lord that that will give them merely the right to provide programmes) and impose on them the duty to provide programmes in accordance with the principles laid down in the Bill. That is the fundamental difference of the two systems.

I need not elaborate it because, as I say, I think the complaint against us might easily be that we have already taken an extremely long time about this matter. We have produced one White Paper and then produced another. If people were to have any complaint against us it might well be that they would say: "You took a long time thinking about it and taking your final decision." Be that as it may, we have taken our final decision, which is a great decision of principle. As the noble Lord says, the whole Bill would have to be recast if this Amendment were accepted. We really decided this matter on the Second Reading. The noble Lord wants to have the Authority as the makers of the programmes and we want to have the programme contractors—that is the simple issue. That being so, I cannot accept his Amendment as being convenient or better in any way for my purpose. I do not think the words would be better or more convenient.

The noble Lord says that we need not put in the words that the programmes shall be provided "not by the Authority"; he says if they are to be provided by someone else it is unnecessary to put in the words "not by the Authority." I have been told several times today that words ought to be put in to make clear what is meant. We mean clearly that the Authority are not to provide the programmes. That being so, we think it right and proper to say it. Therefore we stand by what is in the Bill, and we hold that we ought to keep in the words which the Amendment proposes to omit. The noble Lord objected also to the words "right and duty." I think it is correct to put them in because they actually describe the position of the programme contractor who will have a "right and duty." I think I have dealt concisely with the whole issue raised on this Amendment, and I am sure the Committee will acquit

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I think I am right in saying that that decision really covers what we were discussing, both on the merits and the drafting. It does, as I understand it, cover Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 48.

LORD SILKIN

By all means let us get rid of the drafting Amendments. They can be negatived without any speeches at all, but I think No. 11 should be called separately. After all, No. 11 is a matter of principle, and we may wish to divide on it. I accordingly beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 13, leave out ("under contracts") and insert ("have contracted").—(Lord Silkin.)

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD SILKIN

I beg to move the next Amendment.

me of any discourtesy if I do not elaborate it further.

On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents. 25; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Carnock, L.	Nathan, L.
	Darwen, L.	Pakenham, L.
Hailsham, V.	Harvey of Tasburgh, L.	Shepherd, L.
Waverley, V.	Henderson, L.	Silkin, L.
	Kenswood, L.	Sinha, L.
Bristol, L. Bp.	Kershaw, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Liverpool, L. BP.	Lawson, L.	Strang, L.
	Mathers, L.	Wilmot of Selmeston, L.
Brand, L.	Merthyr, L.	Wise, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS
Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Winterton, E.	Fraser of North Cape, L.
		Freyberg, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. President.)	Astor, V.	Gifford, L.
	Bridgeman, V.	Hacking, L.
Northumberland, D.	Buckmaster, V.	Hampton, L.
	Davidson, V.	Hawke, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Furness, V.	Hore-Belisha, L.
Reading, M.	Goschen, V.	Layton, L.
	Hudson, V.	Lloyd, L.
Birkenhead, E. [Teller.]	Swinton, V.	Mancroft, L.
De La Warr, E.	Woolton, V.	Melchett, L.
Halifax, E.		Milne, L.
Lonsdale, E.	Baillieu, L.	Remnant, L.
Morley, E.	Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Rennell, L.
Munster, E.	Carrington, L.	Rochdale, L.
Onslow, E. [Teller.]	De L'IsIe and Dudley, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Radnor, E.	Derwent, L
Selborne, E.	Dovercourt, L.	Teynham, L.
Selkirk, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 13, leave out ("have").—(Lord Silkin.)

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD SHEPHERD

In view of the fact that the next Amendment is an important one, I wonder whether it would be advisable for us to adjourn—we are only a few minutes from dinner hour—and take Amendment No. 11 as first business when we return.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I do not think it would be. It would be much more convenient to deal with it now. What the noble Lord said was that we have debated this and we want to see whether we should like to divide. If noble Lords wish to divide on No. 11 then we can divide upon it. What would not be reasonable or convenient for the Committee would be to go away now and then come back at half-past eight to divide.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I was not at all aware that Amendment No. 11, which stands in the name of the most reverend Primate, amongst others, had been negatived by implication by the Amendment standing in my name, No. 8. I must say that, if so, I should have thought No. 8 would have been deserving of a great deal more discussion. It surprises me to know that the noble Viscount proposes to treat this Amendment as having been negatived by implication without further discussion. It is an Amendment which attracted considerable attention when first mooted by the most reverend Primate on Second Reading.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I was not suggesting that it should be treated as negatived. We can divide on it, if necessary. What I have done is to adopt the language used by my noble friend Lord Halifax, who said that Amendment No. 7 raised the whole issue and, no matter how much more we discussed it, nobody would be in the least convinced. I think the Committee very much agreed with the noble Earl at that moment, and I thought it would be convenient to the general sense of the Committee if I made a comprehensive but brief statement. Then I thought the Committee would wish to divide, if a Division were required.

LORD SILKIN

It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I moved Amendment No. 11 without saying anything more in support of it than I have already said. The Amendment will then be before the Committee and, of course, any member is perfectly free to say what he wishes to say, either in support of the Amendment or against it. I have previously said, in moving Amendment No. 8, what I wish to say in support of Amendment No. 11. Therefore, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt, I beg to move it formally.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 14, leave out first ("to") and insert ("by").—(Lord Silkin.)

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Would it be for the convenience of the Committee to adjourn now and have the discussion afterwards?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

If the Committee wish to divide, we should divide now, but if the Committee wish a considerable discussion on this Amendment, it would be better to wait until after dinner. I understood that it was the wish of the Committee to come to a decision now and then to start after dinner on the important Amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate, which are a matter of some accommodation.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I fear that my noble friend has not understood the point here. The Amendment my noble friend Lord Halifax was talking about was on studios and on the word "use," and it was agreed between the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and my noble friend Lord Halifax that there was no matter of principle between them. But the most reverend Primate on Second Reading invited the Government's attention to a suggestion of a certain kind.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I dealt with that in my speech. Whether I convinced anybody in the Committee I do not know, but I gathered from the general way in which it was received that it completely satisfied the Committee as a full exposition of the Government's view and of the reasons why they could not accept my noble friend's proposal.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I thought—it never occurred to me to the contrary —that when a suggestion was put forward on Second Reading by the most reverend Primate, not at all the same as we were discussing under Amendment No. 7, it was deserving of the courtesy of a separate discussion from the Front Bench, instead of a cursory answer in dealing with a drafting Amendment which stands in my name. This suggestion was put forward in all good faith by the most reverend Primate. It seems to me an astonishing thing that the noble Viscount should now be proposing, from the Government Front Bench, to treat the matter as decided by a few cursory remarks of his own on another Amendment to which it did not relate.

THE EARL OF HALIFAX

I am sure my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House is anxious only to consider the convenience of the Committee, and I am sure, also, that we are also anxious to assist him and the Postmaster General in the conduct of this Bill. But I am bound to agree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham on this matter. For my part, I was astonished at the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that we should treat the Amendment of the most reverend Primate as having, in effect, been discussed on the Amendment to which my noble friend put his name, and which we discussed just now. So far was I from thinking that that discussion covered the Amendment of the most reverend Primate that I, rightly or wrongly, regarded the last Amendment which we were considering as primarily a drafting Amendment, and therefore I did not think it necessary to vote against my noble friend the Postmaster General. But I should certainly vote against the Postmaster General on the Amendment of the most reverend Primate. It is for the Committee to say whether they want more discussion, or not, but I do not want anyone to be under any illusion that the last Amendment and that standing in the name of the most reverend Primate are substantially one and the same thing; they seem to me to be quite different.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

What I was saying was not that the two Amendments were the same. The first three Amendments are drafting ones, but the other is an Amendment of substance—the noble Lord raised it in his opening speech, because the Amendments all stood together. But obviously the Committee had to decide whether they wished to take a separate Division on Amendment No. 11. All I say now is that if the Committee wish to divide on No. 11, but not to debate it, then it would be convenient to take the Division before dinner. But if the Committee wish to have further discussion on that Amendment, before they come to a conclusion, then I would ask them to adjourn now and we can go on with the discussion when we return. I thought I had the sense of the Committee, particularly after my noble friend's own speech, that the Committee would probably wish to vote on Amendment No. 11 now without further discussion. But as to that, I am entirely in the hands of the Committee.

[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at twenty-five minutes before nine.]

LORD SILKIN

I do not propose to say anything in support of this Amendment at this stage. I am content to allow what I said on an earlier Amendment to stand in support of this one. I have already moved my Amendment.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I hope that those of your Lordships who were engaged in the discussion as to procedure which preceded our adjournment did not do amiss in asking that this Amendment should have at any rate a little discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in proposing the previous Amendment (which I confess I personally thought was primarily of drafting importance) dealt with some of the reasons in support of this Amendment, and they were cursorily answered by the Postmaster General. But, with all respect to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, it seemed to me that this Amendment deserved a little more careful consideration than was then given to it. For that reason, I venture to address a word or two to your Lordships on the subject of this Amendment.

It is not often that on the Second Reading of an important Government measure the most reverend Primate indicates that a small alteration would render it less offensive to the great body of opinion which he may not have been officially representing when he spoke, but which was very largely reflected in his speech. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, before we adjourned—I am sorry not to find the noble Viscount in his place —said that this matter was really concluded upon the Second Reading debate. With the greatest respect, there I must part company from him, because I frankly confess that this Amendment represents a compromise which I personally should not have desired to see put into effect had the Second Reading debate not taken place. I do not want an Independent Television Authority at all—I frankly confess it. I do not want, frankly I confess it, advertisement. I frankly confess I do not want competitive television. On these matters many of us made our view quite plain in the Second Reading debate. But surely we are entitled, now that that issue has been determined by Division in this House, to seek to improve the Bill as we find it after Second Reading. This Amendment, which stands in the name of the most reverend Primate, and which he advocated with such skill on Second Reading, one would have thought provided the Government with everything they were asking for.

I think the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in his Second Reading speech Said the issue was between monopoly and no monopoly. Certainly, more than one speaker on the Government side said that. That now has been determined against us. You have monopoly broken by this Amendment. To what purpose is it now argued, as against the most reverend Primate, that the matter was concluded by the Second Reading debate? If that were so, it would mean that the speeches from the Minister who spoke against it on Second Reading were "disingenuous," to quote a word from the noble Marquess who leads the House. Monopoly is broken by this Amendment: the Authority would have their finances, their advertisements, if this Amendment were carried. The thing which they would not have—and the only thing they would not have, as I see it—is a set of programme contractors dependent as to 100 per cent. for their revenue upon advertising and with no statutory authority to enable them to stand up against the advertisers in any policy which the advertisers may press upon them.

On the contrary, you have under this Amendment the very body which the Government themselves desire to set up, the Independent Television Authority—that very body—armed with the powers which the Government propose to give it, fortified by the revenue which the Government propose to give it; this very Authority, responsible for the provision of programmes, provide the programmes out of the revenue derived from advertisement. Of course, this involves a radical change in the Bill—that I would not dispute. What I do dispute is that the matter was concluded anyway by the Second Reading debate. There, it seems to me, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who I am glad to see has returned to his place in the House, was gravely at fault when he strove to pretend the matter was concluded by the Second Reading debate. Of course it was not. He has his monopoly broken, he has his advertisements. All we are asking in this Amendment is an Authority of sufficient power and sufficient prestige to enable it to stand up against advertisers when it comes to a question of carrying out the policy of the Bill; an Authority which derives its own revenue very largely from advertisements under the terms of this Amendment and of the consequential one, and is also fortified by the £750,000 a year which the Government provide.

For the noble Viscount to ride off on the supposition that this is just another Second Reading debate is really too much. I seriously ask the Government, if they wish to give the impression that they are trying to be conciliatory at all, not to treat the various suggestions we make as being actuated simply by the desire to renew the controversies on the Second Reading debate. So far as I am concerned, I am wholly innocent of any such intention, and I am sure the most reverend Primate would be quite innocent of any such intention and would heartily disavow any such oblique motive being attributed to him. We want to ask the Government to be conciliatory about this matter. Of course, I am aware that this involves a radical change in policy, but if it turns out to be acceptable to the great masses of opinion opposed to this Bill, without infringing the desires of the Parliamentary majority which has hitherto supported it, why should not Parliamentary time be granted to give it effect? I ask the noble Viscount or the noble Earl, when they reply, as I hope they will, to say why this Amendment is so contrary to the desires of the Government and the interests which they represent.

8.46 p.m.

VISCOUNT WAVERLEY

I do not desire to add much to what has already fallen from the noble Lords on what has been described as the great issue of principle raised by this Amendment and several which have preceded it. I think that that issue of principle is not nearly so clear-cut as has been suggested in several speeches by noble Lords, and particularly that of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, just before we adjourned. In my view, it is not an issue which divides, on the one hand, those who would like to see all programmes provided by the contracting authorities and, on the other hand, those who would wish to see the programmes provided wholly or mainly by the new Independent Television Authority. I do not like this Bill at all, as I have made clear on more than one occasion. Frankly, I, like my noble friend who has just sat down, should be glad to see the programme contractors eliminated altogether. I say that because it is my honest belief that, if the Bill becomes law in its present form, there will be a real danger that the contracting authorities will be found to be nothing more nor less than collective sponsors.

I have to recognise, like other noble Lords who have opposed this Bill, that the programme contractors are an essential part of the plan. However, I see no reason why, if the programme contractors are public-spirited people, genuinely anxious to give an acceptable public service, they should not give that service under contract with the Authority, receiving payment fom the Authority on a basis appropriately adjusted to take account of the advertisement revenue arising indirectly from their programmes but accruing directly to the Authority. I believe that an Amendment in that sense would go a long way to reconcile the opponents of this Bill, those who oppose it on grounds of principle; and I should very much like to know why Her Majesty's Government are not willing (if I am right in supposing that they are not willing) to consider amending the Bill as would be provided by this and other related Amendments in the sense I have indicated. I had thought, in my innocence, that one of the objects of Her Majesty's Government in providing the Independent Television Authority with an independent source of revenue was to enable just such an arrangement as I have indicated to be carried into effect.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

It must be abundantly clear by now that noble Lords on these Benches, or the great majority of them, are opposed to the whole principle of this Bill: we have made that quite clear on the Second Reading. But since the Government have carried the Second Reading, it is our duty to examine the Bill critically and closely, and to improve it as much as we are able. It is in that spirit that I should like to support this Amendment, which was originally foreshadowed in the very able speech which the most reverend Primate made on Second Reading—he put the arguments for it much more ably than I could. But, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am at a loss to understand why the Government should oppose this Amendment. They must see that the great body of opinion in this country which is opposed to commercial television, and frightened of the results that would follow, would be, to some extent, reassured if this change were made.

After all, the principle to which the Government adhere would surely be kept. In the White Paper they said that such an arrangement, the arrangement in the Bill, had the advantage of offering adequate scope for the participation of private enterprise while, at the same time, ensuring adequate control. On the question of control we differ. We do not think that the control by the Independent Television Authority is adequate, but if they became the employers of the programme contractors that would be quite a different thing. Looked at from the programme contractors' point of view, surely there are many advantages in this. We have been assured, time without number, that these programme companies will be actuated by the highest motives; they are going to raise the standards of entertainment. Surely it will assist them in their job of administering this uplift to the British public if they are relieved of the job of finding advertisements. Their sole job in that case will be to provide popular programmes, and there will be full scope for the motives which we are assured will actuate them. It will be for the Independent Television Authority to secure the revenue from advertisers, and by contracting with the programme companies to provide its programmes it will be in a far stronger position to exercise sanctions in the case of any breach of the conditions laid down. I hope the Government will look at this Amendment in a serious and purely objective way and will take note of the arguments that have been made in favour of it.

EARL DE LA WARR

I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I answer this Amendment with the same brevity which we have come to expect from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. We have discussed this subject a number of times in a number of different forms, but it has always been the same subject. It is quite clear, I think, that these Amendments would completely change the whole structure of the Bill. I know that they are not designed to wreck it—noble Lords have said they do not intend that; they accept the decision of your Lord- ships' House on Second Reading—but (let me put it in a different way) the Amendments, if accepted, would turn the Bill completely inside out. Quite briefly, as has been said many times before this evening, the effect of accepting this Amendment and its associated Amendments would be to create a second B.B.C., controlling the whole of the programme content. Clearly, it would kill any real opportunity for enterprising programme producers, because there would always be this Authority, entirely responsible for the production of the programme.

I was told that I was guilty of an irrelevance—but nothing was said to convince me that the criticism is right—when I suggested on Second Reading that the position would be parallel to a national theatre corporation which had to commission all the players that we were allowed to see, or to a national film corporation which had to commission all the films that we were permitted to see. It

LORD SILKIN

This is one of the sequence of Amendments on which I spoke. I do not think I need say anything further. I beg to move.

is one thing to appoint an Authority of men of public spirit and high standing, whose duty it is to preserve the general quality and standard and balance of programme, and another thing to say that nothing should go on the air except what they themselves plan and commission. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan has said that he simply cannot understand why we cannot accept this Amendment. It is because there is a fundamental difference between us. He believes that no body but a State corporation is fit to be allowed to offer television to the people of this country; and, quite frankly, we on this side of the Committee do not think that is so. I think that is the fundamental difference, and it is fundamental differences that we are discussing at the moment. It is for that reason that we cannot accept the Amendment.

On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29 Not-Contents, 52.

CONTENTS
Wellington, D.	Liverpool, L. Bp.	Milner of Leeds, L.
		Monk Bretton, L.
Halifax, E.	Burden, L. [Teller]	Nathan, L.
Jowitt, E.	Carnock, L.	Ogmore, L.
Listowel, E.	Haden-Guest, L.	Shepherd, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Henderson, L.	Silkin, L.
	Inman, L.	Sinha, L.
Hailsham, V.	Kenswood, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Waverley, V.	Lawson, L.	Strang, L.
	Mathers, L.	Wilmot of Selmeston, L.
Bristol, L. Bp.	Merthyr, L.	Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Winterton, E.	Fraser of North Cape, L.
		Freyberg, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. President.)	Astor, V.	Gilfford, L.
	Bridgeman, V.	Hacking, L.
Northumberland, D.	Buckmaster, V.	Hampton, L.
	FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Hawke, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Goschen, V.	Hore-Belisha, L
Reading, M.	Leathers, V.	Layton, L.
	Swinton, V.	Leconfield, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Woolton, V.	Lloyd, L.
Bessborough, E.		Mancroft, L.
Birkenhead, E. [Teller.]	Baillieu, L.	Melchett, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Remnant, L.
De La Warr, E.	Blackford, L.	Rennell, L.
Lonsdale, E.	Brassey of Apethorpe, L.	Rochdale, L.
Morley, E.	Carrington, L.	Teviot, L.
Munster, E.	De L'Isle and Dudley, L.	Teynham, L.
Onslow, E. [Teller.]	Derwent, L.	Waleran, L.
Radnor, E.	Dovercourt, L.	Wolverton, L.
Selkirk, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 15, leave out ("the right and the duty.")—(Lord Silkin.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I have already given the noble Lord his answer on this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD OGMORE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "which may include advertisements." The noble Lord said: This is much the same. I beg to move this Amendment, which is really a drafting Amendment. The same provision appears in Clause 4. Perhaps it will make for smoother reading of the text, possibly even for better understanding of it.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 16, leave out ("which may include advertisements.")—(Lord Ogmore.)

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I should like to press this Amendment on the noble Earl. There is nothing controversial in it, and I hope that he will not say, "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes." If the noble Earl or the noble Viscount, whichever is to reply, will look at the Bill, I think he will see that the provision for advertisements is already amply dealt with in, I think, Clause 4. That provides entirely for the advertisements, and the purpose of the Amendment is to omit words which do not add anything to the Bill but which, if left in there, like a vestigial organ, might, on occasion, prove dangerous.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I do not profess to compete with the noble Viscount as a lawyer or as a draftsman, but I am advised by the Parliamentary draftsman, whom both he and I knew well when we were once in the Government together and for whom we have great respect, that this clause is right. I would ask the House to rely on the Parliamentary draftsman, who thinks that this is the wiser thing to do.

On Ouestion, Amendment negatived.

9.10 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL moved, in subsection (2), after "advertisements" to insert: except that the Authority shall with the advice and assistance of the committee referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section six of this Act themselves provide or arrange for the provision of the religious services and programmes to be broadcast by the Authority;

The right reverend Prelate said: I move this Amendment with the concurrence of the most reverend Primate who cannot be here himself to-day to speak to it, and, as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, knows, it has also the concurrence and support of the British Council of Churches. I am aware that the suggestion put forward in this Amendment was made in another place and was not accepted, and it might indeed seem that the suggestion has already been answered by the vote on certain previous Amendments, but I believe, myself, that there is a case to be re-heard, and I should like to try to state that case as simply and as shortly as I can. I venture to say that it is common ground among noble Lords on both sides of the House that we desire to see religious television—and may I pause for a moment to say that that means very much more than religious services on Sunday? It means religious plays, religious features, religious programmes, religious talks and discussions—the whole range of television by which the Christian view of man's life is presented to the public. We all desire to see that in adequate quantity and of the highest possible quality. I take it that may be agreed as common ground.

The Government have made it plain that they will allow no advertisement references to be associated with religious programmes, and I am truly grateful. I have another Amendment standing in my name, which I hope the Government may regard with some favour, designed to make it impossible for wealthy, but not always wholly responsible, bodies or individuals to buy religious time in any form. Both those safeguards, I believe, are valuable, but if the second one is agreed to it will mean there will be very little financial inducement to any programme contractor to put on a religious programme at all. He will have to buy time; he will have to provide equipment and staff; he will have to pay to produce it, and he will have to make a profit. I greatly hope that some will be public-spirited enough to accept that sacrifice and produce programmes of good quality, but I do not think it is going too far to suggest that there is a real danger that religious programmes may be unbalanced, and sometimes of poor quality.

I believe that that danger would be largely met if the responsibility of providing, or arranging for the provision of, religious programmes were placed squarely on the Authority. I take it that what it would mean is that they would reserve a certain amount of additional time, in addition to that left to contractors, and pay a contractor the cost of producing, plus fees. This would mean that religious programmes could be planned and placed on their merits. It seems to me that this suggestion is not far out of line with a statement made by the noble Earl in the Second Reading debate (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 188 (No. 86). col. 188): In Clause 2 (2) (a) the Authority are given limited powers to commission, if need be, parts of programmes without advertisements, either to ensure a proper balance of programmes, or to help put on those programmes which should not be associated with advertisements at all—for example, Royal occasions or religious services. I am not asking any inure than seems to me to be implied in that statement from the Government.

There is, however, a further very real and practical reason for this suggestion. Anyone who produces a programme of any kind must have competent and qualified staff. Are all producing companies going to be willing to have on their staffs competent religious advisers, heads of religious broadcasting and religious producers? I confess I am a little doubtful. If they do, are the Authority and the Religious Advisory Committee to spend their time constantly consulting a number of individual members of the staff and the producing officers of these companies? Would it not be a far more convenient and workmanlike plan if the Authority had the real responsibility for religious programmes, appointed their own competent officer, as they well could do, and were advised by the Religious Advisory Committee? I am not suggesting that they should produce them all; and I do not want to enter into the vexed question of whether they should own studios or not. The Amendment says, provide or arrange for the provision of … It would seem to me that sometimes it might be one, and sometimes the other. But the responsibility for the quality of these programmes would rest squarely in the hands of this one body. I confess I feel that that would be a great advantage.

I have only one further thing to say. This is not, as I understand it, a demand for a radical alteration in the Bill, such as those which have just been discussed under Amendments Nos. 7 and 11. As I say, I am no primarily interested in the question whether the Authority own studios, and so on. But I am interested, and vitally so, in ensuring that religious broadcasting is under the direct control of a really responsible body which has no commercial interest whatever. I believe that there is reasonable ground for reconsidering this point. It is aimed at setting a really high standard of religious television; it is, I believe, more economical and efficient in working; and I do not think it is special pleading to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether it does anything more than give to the Authority that special responsibility for certain special functions which, as I understand it, he desires it should have. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 17, after ("advertisements") insert the said words.—(The Lord Bishop of Bristol.)

THE LORD BISHOP OF LIVER-POOL

I should like briefly to support this Amendment. There may be disagreement in this Committee on many points in this Bill, but I take it that there would be complete unity in the desire that, if religion is to be televised at all, it should be done with taste and dignity, and well done. I have had some experience at religious broadcasting—enough, at any rate, to convince me that if religion is to be broadcast well and in a dignified manner those who broadcast need the expert advice of informed opinion to help to produce that televised broadcast. That is not to say that the programme contractors would not be able to provide such advice; but I think it is unlikely that they will be able to do so, especially if there are two or three contractors. If, therefore, the televising of religion were limited to the Authority, who could employ the kind of person who would help to televise religion in the way we should all like to see it televised, then I think it would he highly desirable on that ground. I should like to support the Amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate.

EARL WINTERTON

This is obviously a delicate and difficult subject, and the two right reverend Prelates who have spoken have not dealt with some of the difficulties which surround their Amendment. But, before corning to those difficulties, I should like to answer the point which I understand both of them to have made, that, under the Bill as it stands, there is not adequate provision for religious broadcasts. I think it is giving away no confidences to say that there has been friendly discussion between my noble friend the Postmaster General and the Churches on this subject. When the Postmaster General replies, he will tell us if that is so. I understand that he has met their views to a considerable extent. To deal first of all with the point made by the right reverend Prelates, that the provision at present is inadequate, I would call attention to the fact that a programme contractor cannot broadcast religious programmes except with the approval of the Authority and in accordance with the advice of the Religious Advisory Committee, the setting up of which is mandatory under the Bill. I understood the mover of the Amendment to say that the danger was that some wealthy but not wholly responsible people might indulge in the broadcast; but that would not be so under the Bill as it stands. The real answer to the mover of the Amendment is that the Committee will advise the Authority and not the programme contractors direct, and therefore it is ensured that the Churches will deal directly with the Authority in matters of principle. They will not have to deal with a number of programme contractors, which might well be inconvenient: the Churches have direct access to the Authority.

Now, never having been afraid, either in your Lordships' House or in another place, of dealing with awkward and delicate subjects, I would say that this is a very delicate question. I do not want to criticise the Bill, of which I am a supporter, but there is a rather strange phrase in a later clause—which, of course, we cannot deal with at this moment— in which a reference is made to "the main streams of religious thought." I do not know what "the main streams of religious thought" are, and I suppose that, on a strict terminiological explanation, the term "religious thought" might be taken as referring to all forms of religion. I am not quite clear, for example, whether the Jewish community would have a right to broadcast under the Bill or, for that matter, the Moslem community, which is a small community in this country, though an active one. I know something about that subject because, although I am a member of the Church of England, I was for a short time a trustee of a Mosque in London, by virtue of the fact that the Government of India had at one time supplied money for it. I think we are dealing with a difficult and delicate subject, and I hope we shall hear from the right reverend Prelates a reply to the points which will be made by my noble friend the Postmaster General. Are they in favour of all forms of religious thought being broadcast—Roman Catholics, the various Free Churches and Christian Scientists—or do they refer purely to the Church of England? Perhaps the right reverend Prelate would answer that question now?

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL

I can answer that point straight away. I hope I made it abundantly clear in my speech on Second Reading when I described the nature of the advisory committee which advises the B.B.C. The term "the main stream of Christian thought" derives directly from that.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

It is "Christian," not "religious."

EARL WINTERTON

That is what I want to know.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL

May I go on for a moment? I think I can explain. The Committee which advises the B.B.C. represents the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Scotland and the Free Churches. In addition, special provision is made for representatives of the Jewish faith. Those are all included regularly in religious broadcasting under the B.B.C., and I have every hope and expectation that they will be similarly included under any new Authority. The last thing that I or my noble brother would wish to stand for would be any kind of Anglican monopoly. That has never been the practice of the B.B.C., and I should hope that it will not be the practice of the Authority. I hope that that may clear up the point which the noble Earl raised.

EARL WINTERTON

I am very much obliged to the right reverend Prelate for his intervention. That has cleared up that point. He has answered his own point in the intervention he has just so properly made. This advisory committee which is to be set up under this Bill is in many respects the same, mutatis mutandis as the religious body set up under the B.B.C. As for the issue between the right reverend Prelate and the Government, as to whether the Authority itself should do the broadcasts, or whether they should, having regard to the advice of the advisory committee, make arrangements for them, I should have thought, if you are going to accept the analogy of the B.B.C., the Bill should remain as it is. I hope the Government will not give way on this point.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Perhaps I may say a word about what my noble friend has said. I think he was mistaken in considering that this proposed Amendment has anything to do with the question of religious bodies, responsible or otherwise, buying time. That point, I think, is covered not by this Amendment but by the subsequent Amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, will not allow his views on that subject to influence his decision on this Amendment. It seems to me that the question of the meaning of the phrase "main streams of religious thought," interesting and important as it is, has reference to a later clause in the Bill as my noble friend said. I hope he will not allow his opinions about that to influence his views on the merits or demerits of this Amendment.

I find myself in a little difficulty in following his argument to the Government. This is not designed, as I understand it, as a polemical Amendment: it represents what the British Council of Churches wanted. Everybody. I take it—my noble friend, the Government and everybody else—is agreed that we want a balanced programme in the new television service. That is a proposition which I think would not command any dissent in any quarter of the House. If you want a balanced programme, you must, in practice, want religious programmes. A great number of people do not want religious programmes, just as a great number of people do not want sporting programmes. In point of fact, a balanced programme over a period of time must include a certain number of religious programmes, in order to balance the whale. The Bill already provides, in principle, that where it is necessary to do so, in order to balance the programme, it shall be for the Authority to provide the programme. That, I should have thought again, was a proposition accepted in principle, both by the Government and by those of us who are not in support of the Bill. If a balanced programme is to be provided, it must include religious programmes; and where necessary it must be open to the Authority to provide them. Here I think we are dealing with absolutely uncontroversial matters.

There is one other non-controversial thing about religious programmes under this Bill. Whether they are to be provided by programme contractors or the Authority—which is the point under discussion here—the general principles underlying the provision of religion on the air should be identical with those which have succeeded in the last thirty years. That, I understand, is the purpose of providing a Religious Advisory Committee with more or less mandatory powers, as the Bill does. Let me say in passing, because the right reverend Prelate did not say it for himself—he could not have said it for himself—that the cause of religion in this country owes a great debt to the right reverend Prelate. He has, with almost infinite hard work over a long period of time, done work in the cause of religion, which deserves greater public recognition, than he has received. It is impossible to exaggerate the good work which he has done because, as a matter of fact, the provision of religious programmes on the air might very well—it has not happened, but it might—be a major cause of bringing religion into disrepute rather than the contrary. That would certainly have happened, in my judgment, and I believe in many other people's judgment, if the religious bodies had ever been allowed to come into conflict with one another. I am sure they never desired to do that, but they might very well have done it, even though they did not desire to do so. That they have not done so is largely owing to the work of the body which has the unfortunate pseudonym of "C.R.A.C.", over which the right reverend Prelate so well presides. I think it is common ground that a similar body to that should preside over the destinies of religion in television programmes. There is no difference between us at all on that matter.

The purpose of this Amendment, as I understand it, is almost identical, in every degree, with that of another Amendment to which I added my name—and that is, in principle, simply to ensure that the provision of religious programmes shall be the special responsibility of the I.T.A. With all respect to my noble friend, that does not raise the questions which certainly divide us on other matters and which are raised by other Amendments; because what I think my noble friend has failed to realise is that, on any view, having regard to the policy already announced by the Government, the provision of religious programmes necessary for balancing the programmes is not something which the programme contractor would willingly undertake. He is debarred from deriving advertisement revenue from advertisements in close association with the religious programmes. Therefore, I should have thought it was essentially a matter which was unattractive to him, from the financial point of view. It follows, therefore, that religious programmes are, of their very nature, as a result of the policy announced by the Government, something which stand rather outside the ordinary run of programmes which this Bill envisages.

It so happens that the British Council of Churches has asked that this type of programme should be provided by the I.T.A. Is it really too much that the Government should be asked to consider it seriously on its merits? The British Council of Churches is, in fact—I think I can say without contradiction—the body which represents, most completely and with the greatest degree of clarity, the body of Protestant Christianity in this country.

EARL WINTERTON

May I interrupt my noble friend to ask if he would perhaps enlarge on that? He used the words "Protestant Christianity." Does that include the Roman Catholic Community and the Jewish Community?—because this Amendment refers to religious broadcasts. There is nothing about Christianity.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My noble friend should have attended to what I was saying. I said "Protestant Christianity." By that I did not mean to prejudice any claims of the Church of England. I meant to say that it represents all Christian Churches and does not include the Jewish Community, which is separately represented and whose position has been safeguarded, as the right reverend Prelate has said. The British Council of Churches does represent, as I understand it, all the non-Roman Catholic Churches, and the Roman Catholic Church would be very welcome if they desired to join it. That being so, I hope the Government will consider seriously what they have to do. It is not a partisan move on anybody's part; it is a move to ensure that worthy religious programmes should be accepted. It is one which carries the great body of support which the right reverend Prelate claimed for it. I do therefore ask the Government to consider this matter, and to believe—of course I do not speak for the right reverend Prelate—that those of us who put our names to the other Amendments did so without any desire to press the other more controversial matter.

EARL JOWITT

I hope that I may say this word. We have had the arguments very well put. I think the whole Committee has been deeply impressed by the sincerity of the arguments of the right reverend Prelate. We cannot expect the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, to commit himself here and now, but I believe that it would be in accord with the wishes of the whole House if the noble Earl would say that he will look at this matter carefully. If he says that, I think the right reverend Prelate will not press this Amendment to a Division. If, on the other hand, the right reverend Prelate decides to press this matter to a Division, I shall consider it my duty to support him in the Lobby. But I consider that a much more satisfactory way out of this difficulty—because this is a difficult matter which transcends Party politics altogether—would be for the noble Earl to say that he will look at the point with great care; and we shall not hold it against him if, having looked at it with great care, he tells us that he cannot do anything about it.

LORD HADEN-GUEST

May I ask whether it is intended to use the words "main streams of religion" and exclude Hinduism, Buddhism, Mohammedanism and the other Eastern religions, because it does seem to me that that should be made clear. If it is to be entirely religions based on Christianity, which can have a wide diversity of interpretation, it should be made quite clear.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

If the noble Lord looks at Clause 6, he will see that it refers to the "main streams of Christian religious thought."

A NOBLE LORD

No, it says "main streams of religious opinion."

EARL DE LA WARR

I think we are all agreed with what the noble and learned Earl has just said, that we have had a debate of very great importance, and conducted, if I may say so, in the best sense of the word, in a completely non-controversial strain. We are all anxious to arrive at the proper solution of this really serious problem. The right reverend Prelate was good enough at the beginning of his remarks to thank the Government for the extent to which they have tried to understand and meet the points put to them by the Council of Churches. I, on my part, should certainly like to thank the Council of Churches, and particularly the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Bristol, for the great help that they have given to us in drafting these particular provisions of the Bill.

I think I am right in saying—and I hope that I can carry the right reverend Prelate with me in this—that when we come to analyse the exact and precise provisions of the Bill, we are not really very far apart. Perhaps I may guile shortly go over the safeguards about religious broadcasts which are now in the Bill, and for this purpose I should like to refer to the Amendments of the right reverend Prelates at a later stage. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, suggested that they were separate, but I think they are all part of this great subject, and I particularly want to include them, because I intend to accept those three Amendments of the right reverend Prelate, Amendments Nos. 47, 52 and 74.

The effect of those Amendments, taken with the Bill as it is, makes doubly certain what we as a Government felt that we had already made sure (but certainly I think it makes it more clear): first, that a programme contractor cannot broadcast religious services or propaganda—I quite agree with the right reverend Prelate that it is not sufficient to include just religious services—unless the Authority approve; and in this matter the Authority will normally act in accordance with the advice of the Religious Advisory Committee, which is mandatory under the Bill.

I am happy to be able to say, I think in a more definite form than I have hitherto been able to say, that there is every likelihood that that Committee, which is called the B.B.C. Central Religious Advisory Committee, presided over by the right reverend Prelate, will consider favourably acting on behalf of both broadcasting bodies. Obviously, that is most desirable, first because that Committee has proved itself in practice; and secondly because it would obviously be a great pity to have two Committees, with different standards and different ideas, dealing with the same subject.

Secondly, it is provided in the Bill—and this is a point put to me with particular force by the Council of Churches, and also I think with especial force by the Church of Scotland—that the Committee should advise the Authority and not the programme companies direct. That is the point on which they felt extremely strongly, because they considered it was going to be difficult and undesirable for them to have to deal with possibly a number of different programme contractors. Thirdly—and I think this point has already been mentioned by the right reverend Prelate—if your Lordships will look at the Second Schedule to the Bill, you will find that we have an absolute prohibition against associating advertisements with religious broadcasts. Paragraph 3 contains reference to the intervals that must elapse between any religious services and advertisements.

The first point I should like to underline about those three provisions is that they preclude the buying of time for religious services or propaganda, in the sense that they put the whole subject of religious broadcasting under the control of the Religious Advisory Committee, who will certainly, and rightly, forbid it. I think that both the right reverend Prelates and the noble Viscount, Lord Hail-sham, have said that there was no inducement to programme contractors to provide for religious broadcasting at all.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Or very little.

EARL DE LA WARR

Or very little. I do not think I agree. It is true that they will be faced at the moment with the same difficulty that the B.B.C. finds itself faced with in regard to the televising of religious broadcasts. There is no question but that it is an extremely difficult technique. The B.B.C. themselves, and I think the Religious Advisory Committee, will be among the first to admit that this is a technique that really has not been thoroughly settled. I think it is a fact that on the present B.B.C. programmes only 1 per cent. of the time is given to religious broadcasts—I am talking about television programmes—and it is for that reason. I think they average just under one broadcast in three Sundays. I am speaking from memory. I rather think it is a good deal less than that.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I think it is at least that.

EARL DE LA WARR

But, subject to that point, I believe that the companies will wish to provide for these programmes. To put it at the lowest, it is to their interest to have balanced programmes. They are not going to have the regular body of listeners which it is essential that they should have unless they do have balanced programmes; but if they do not want to balance their programmes then the Independent Television Authority have full power to request them to do so. They have full power and the funds available under Clause 9 of the Bill to allow them to pay for those religious broadcasts. That is really my last point. If you turn to paragraph 2 (a) of Clause 2, you will see that it empowers the Authority to arrange, if they so desire, for the provision of religious services and programmes. The trouble about this Amendment as it stands is that it definitely implies that the Authority must provide these programmes themselves. With the greatest desire to meet the right reverend Prelate and others who have spoken in the same way as he has to-day, I should be very sorry to be asked to go as far as that, because it would mean accepting the implication—more than the implication, the assertion—that in no circumstances, not even under the forms of control envisaged in this Bill, can a private enterprise company who are advised by a religious advisory committee be a fit body to televise a religious service.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl, but I am sure he does not want unintentionally to misrepresent the Amendment put down by the right reverend Prelate. He said the Amendment states that the Authority must provide religious programmes. I think if he reads it carefully he will see it leaves it for the Authority themselves to "provide or arrange for the provision of" religious services and programmes.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am afraid I was quite frankly interpreting the words "provide or arrange for the provision of" as meaning the same thing, in the sense of the Authority being completely responsible for the provision of those programmes. If on a technical basis they ask the company to do it, that would be a matter of using their cameras and so on, but it would be their broadcast.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL

I confess it is a very difficult matter. I doubt whether any single person in your Lordships' House, including myself, knows precisely how these things are going to work; we do not know what the set-up or the machinery will be. We do not know what staff will be available either to the Authority or a company; and until some of those severely practical details are a good deal clearer than they are now, it is extremely difficult to get any wording of any Amendment which exactly fits what we want to do. Might I make the point clear by repeating this question: On whose initiative will religious programmes start? Will it be that the programme-producing company comes to the Authority and its advisory committee and says, "We want to put on religious programmes"? Or will it be the Authority, advised by the Religious Advisory Committee, which says to the programme company, "We think you ought to do rather more in the way of religious broadcasting"? I would hope that there might be at least the possibility of the initiative resting with the Authority. That is one question. The second arises in this way. I wonder whether, unless it is made plain that programme-producing companies are not going to be heavy losers, they will be willing to embark on these broadcasts.

EARL DE LA WARR

I thank the right reverend Prelate for putting that point. My answer definitely is that I envisage the initiative being taken in both ways. I personally take a higher view, I think, of the Activities of programme companies than the right reverend Prelate does. I think that in many cases the companies will want to initiate these programmes themselves, and in that event they will have to go to the Advisory Committee for advice. On the other hand, if the right reverend Prelate's view of the programme companies is right and mine is wrong, it will be for the I.T.A. to initiate the subject by going to the programme company and saying: "It is our duty to ensure a proper balance of the programmes, and you cannot have a properly balanced programme without religious services. Therefore, we ask you to consider this matter and tell us what you are going to do."

Then, of course—and this was where I wanted to close—you get to the position of the I.T.A. being able to say, "In the interest of balance we request you to have these programmes," and then, in fact, actually having funds at their disposal, to say to the programme companies, "We are not giving you permission to associate advertisements with these programmes, and therefore there will be no revenue attached to them." We realise that they will be a source of loss and expense, at any rate in the initial two or three years, when the programme companies may be rather short of money. The Authority will then be in a position to use some of their £750,000 to finance these programmes. When I said at the beginning of my speech that I thought we were only a little way apart I had in mind that the only difference between us was that the right reverend Prelate would like to make it obligatory upon the Authority to provide these programmes, whereas we have already provided that they shall have the power to provide them, and the funds to pay for them if they exercise that power. For that reason, and because we are prepared to accept later Amendments, which I think carry the Bill even further along the right reverend Prelate's way than we have already gone, I would ask him whether he wants to press this matter.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

Before the noble Earl finishes I wonder whether he can tell us this. Assume that a programme company goes to the advisory committee; it receives advice and produces a programme. The advisory committee, perhaps, are not happy about it—in these things everything depends on how it is done. The committee may think it is not quite what is wanted; that the tone is not quite right, the approach wrong. In such a case, whose business is it to see that something better is substituted?

EARL DE LA WARR

The Authority has the last word. There was a point which I did not make. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham who spoke about it, and the right reverend Prelate who suggested that the companies should, themselves, have advisers. I should not have thought that that was so. One has to see how this scheme works out. I should have thought it would be for the I.T.A. to have an adviser whom they could put at the disposal of the programme companies. So generally the programme companies come into the position as the people who have the cameras and the technique. But we are discussing an unreal point. Who provided the Coronation? Not the cinema companies and the B.B.C. The people who are going to provide religious services are the Churches themselves, and it will be they who will have to give permission for entering into churches, and it will be they and the Religious Advisory Committee who will lay down the conditions under which production will take place.

EARL JOWITT

If it is an unreal point and there is nothing much between us, cannot the noble Earl say that he will look into the matter, and then we can get on with the next business?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

May I make a suggestion? It seems to me that there are only three people concerned in this question—the advisory committee, the Authority and the people who are going to provide the programme. One thing which has been a little lost sight of, if the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for saying so, is that the technique—and I use the word advisedly—is in the programme companies. I think you would find that everybody wishes to collaborate in this. We should require the technique of the programme companies first, the advice of the committee and the general direction of the Authority. I venture to suggest that the right reverend Prelate wants to put the whole obligation on the Authority to provide the programme. I think that is wrong.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL

No.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am glad to hear that. What the right reverend Prelate has done is to say that the Authority shall "themselves provide or arrange for the provision of" religious services. If it were put the other way round, and the Amendment said that "it shall be the duty of the Authority to arrange for the provision of programmes or, if need be, themselves to provide them"—because that is how the whole thing will work—we should get a perfectly good arrangement. I am not committing myself, but if the right reverend Prelate would withdraw this Amendment, I think he may find that he will be satisfied with the later Amendment. If not, we can have some discussion on how we can get a tripartite arrangement—first the technique of the programme companies, the only people who know how to do things and who I believe will be genuinely anxious to do it; the supervising power of the Authority and the advice of the Religious Advisory Committee. Then I believe that we should get the right kind of triple plans that we desire. If that is the position, the right reverend Prelate may be able to withdraw this Amendment now and have the matter considered on that basis.

EARL WINTERTON

I hope that the Government will be careful about considering this matter. May I say, in parenthesis—and I hope the noble Viscount will not think it wounding—that I realise that he knows, from experience in another place and in this House, that the simplest way to kill a Bill in an all-night sitting is by long repetitive speeches from the Government Benches. I do not think we have approached that boundary yet, but we have got very near it in some speeches.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Is the noble Earl addressing this to himself or to me?

EARL WINTERTON

Generally to those on the Government Benches who have taken part in the debate. We have reached only Clause 14, and there are 100 Amendments to get through. I hope the Government will not give any promise to the right reverend Prelate or to the Opposition to reconsider this matter; and if they do give this promise, I hope they will consult not only the British Council of Churches but other bodies concerned as well, including the Roman Catholic Church.

10.0 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL

I would just give one assurance, if I may, and it is that, so far as I am in any sense responsible for any aspect of religious broadcasting, the fullest possible consultation will take place with the representatives of all the Christian Churches in this country, and with representatives of the Jewish Faith. And further, I give this guarantee—and anybody who happens to have the list of religious television series in his hands, as I have, will see that it is not an idle guarantee—that there will be opportunities under a Christian administration for representatives of Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism to express their views and beliefs on television. I can assure the Committee that there will be no partisan or exclusive treatment of religion. That I will stand by. If I may say one word—

EARL WINTERTON

I am still in possession of the floor of the Committee. I understood that this was an interruption. Even in this Committee there must be some limit to the length of an interruption, if I may say so with deep respect to the right reverend Prelate. I want to say only one more thing, and then I will conclude and the right reverend Prelate can continue his second speech. We have all heard with the greatest satisfaction what the right reverend Prelate has said, and I may say, in all seriousness, that it is typical of the open-minded manner in which he approaches the subject. But it is not for the right reverend Prelate to consult these bodies, but for the Government to consult them, if they are going to reconsider this matter. I only want to be assured that if there is going to be a reconsideration, and the Bill is going to be altered, there will be the fullest consultation with all the religious bodies to which the right reverend Prelate referred.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am afraid we have got into a rather difficult position here, and perhaps it would be a good thing for me to suggest to the right reverend Prelate that he should withdraw this Amendment. If he did so, I should, of course, have to ask him to withdraw his next Amendment, too. We cannot go on the basis of continually making concessions, and the concessions being eaten up and further Amendments going down asking for more. I do not want to reveal confidences, but the second Amendment was something of an agreement, and the first Amendment is additional. Therefore, I must ask for the whole ground to be cleared, and if the right reverend Prelate will withdraw all Amendments with which he is concerned, then I will agree to a discussion, without any commitment on our side, of course.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL

I confess that this last suggestion of the noble Earl is a wholly new one to me. I had hoped from what he said earlier in the debate that, if this Amendment was not pressed—and I personally had no strong wish to press this Amendment to a Division—he would be happy about the further Amendments standing in my name, Nos. 47 and 74. Personally, if I may express my views, I regard those as more important than this one. I should myself be disposed—I am sorry if I am out of order—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL

I understood the noble Earl to refer to it. I should be perfectly prepared to withdraw this particular Amendment, on the understanding, as I took it from the earlier remarks of the noble Earl, that he would be happy about the later Amendments.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think I have misunderstood the right reverend Prelate. If that course is agreeable to him, it is perfectly agreeable to me. What I thought was the proposal was that this Amendment should be withdrawn to have further consideration, and that then we should agree to Amendment No. 47. If the right reverend Prelate is prepared to withdraw this without insisting upon further consideration, then I willingly agree to numbers 47, 52 and 74.

EARL JOWITT

Would it not be possible for the right reverend Prelate to meet the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, by withdrawing it now, on the understanding that he has been good enough to give with regard to Amendments numbers 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19, because there would be an opportunity for discussion? The noble Earl has not committed himself at all, but he has gone as far as that, and discussion could take place.

EARL DE LA WARR

I thought that the right reverend Prelate and I had come to complete agreement—that he was prepared to withdraw this Amendment, not asking for reconsideration, subject to my agreeing to Amendments Nos. 47, 52 and 74. All I said was that if there was reconsideration the whole question should be reconsidered. I would rather that the right reverend Prelate did what I think he said he would be prepared to do—withdraw this Amendment, and that I should agree at a later stage to accept Amendments Nos. 47, 52 and 74.

THE EARL, OF HALIFAX

It is not for me to intervene in this argument from the point of view of offering any criticism of the course that is apparently likely to be acceptable to the right reverend Prelate. I make only this observation. It seems to me a rather strange proceeding that we have just witnessed. The point had been reached in this debate where the noble Viscount, who is assisting the noble Earl in the passage of this Bill, made a proposition that to many of us seemed perfectly reasonable. The debate had been conducted upon whether or not this particular Amendment that the right reverend Prelate has offered should or should not be judged acceptable, as a result of which debate the noble Viscount suggested that he might withdraw it temporarily and that further consideration should be given to it between now and the Report stage. At that point, my noble friend below me (for whom I have the greatest admiration, and who brings to our debates a form of virile independence and fraternity that is most refreshing) made a speech that was intimidating to the Government, exhorting them not to give way to any sinister pressure, whether it came from the Episcopal Bench or elsewhere. Those who have known my noble friend for as long as I have, know that that is the sort of thing he says all the time. It does not mean anything at all. I was amazed that the noble Viscount should have been taken in by it and should have been fobbed off what was a perfectly reasonable course by such an intervention. It is not for me to complain of anything the right reverend Prelate may decide to accept, but I do beg Her Majesty's Government not to be intimidated too easily by such interventions.

LORD MATHERS

May I ask for the attention of the right reverend Prelate? Do I gather that the Minister understands that in dealing with the right reverend Prelate he is dealing with the British Council of Churches, or with the Anglican Church only?

EARL DE LA WARR

I saw the whole Council of Churches, including the Church of Scotland. I had a special interview with the Church of Scotland, and all these points were discussed in detail with them.

LORD MATHERS

May I ask if the Church of Scotland—the Church of which I am a member—was given complete satisfaction by the Minister?

EARL DE LA WARR

I certainly understood so at the time. It was made quite clear to me that in all these discussions, when the representatives of the Churches said that they approved certain arrangements, they were in no way committing themselves to saying that they liked the Bill. But I certainly understood that the provisions I am suggesting were agreeable to them.

LORD MATHERS

I am trying to stake a claim for making a further intervention into this discussion, lest among the rather puzzling interchanges that have taken place I find that the point of view of the Church of Scotland is being in any way let down.

EARL DE LA WARR

Certainly not.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL

I must apologise if my ignorance has led to a waste of your Lordships' time. I put forward these two Amendments which stand in my name, one about handing responsibility to the Authority and the other attempting to secure safeguards against buying time on the air. Both, I believe, are important—the second I regard as far more important, spiritually, than the first. I am therefore disposed, if I consult my own personal judgment, to say that I should be prepared to let this one go, though I hope that it may be considered further. I should be prepared to let the first one go, but I should fight to the last ditch for the second. That is my own personal judgment. I do not know whether I can leave it to the Committee.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Cannot the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, be generous? He spoke in unequivocal terms when he made the suggestion—and we all heard him do it that if this Amendment were withdrawn, without prejudice to the position of either side, the matter could be reconsidered on Report, without the Government being in any way committed. We all heard the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, make a rather different proposition, that that could be done only on a reconsideration of the concessions already made, apparently by the Government, in some private conversation to which this House is certainly not a party, and that the Amendments should be withdrawn and the matter be considered de novo. Cannot the Government stand by what the noble Viscount has said without qualification? There is such a thing as good faith in negotiation, and the noble Viscount has made an absolutely unequivocal suggestion. Cannot he stick to it, as the Postmaster General has done?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

There is no need to get "hot under the collar" about this; there is no question of going back on anything. I made an intervention which I thought led to general agreement. I made no commitments. It may be that the Bill as it stands is in the best possible form. On the other hand, I think it is worth a moment's thought as to whether we are really all in complete agreement that it is necessary to have all three bodies in this work: the right reverend Prelate's Committee (which, let me assure the House, has for a decade or more given complete satisfaction to every religious trend of thought in this country, and upon which we can rely as representing all religious trends in this country); the Authority, which is ito have some responsibility in this matter of setting a balance and ensuring that the programmes are right; and the programme contractors, who are the only people who can do these things technically and, I believe, would be extremely anxious to do them properly, not only from the highest motives (I believe they have high motives) but also from ordinary business motives. I believe that you can get that sort of result by a very slight interchange of words, and exactly the kind of partnership which I think is right. Nobody is in the least going back on that, and I am not in the habit of being intimidated by anybody, whether friend or foe. I stand by that.

Nor can we in the least make it a condition of the right reverend Prelate's withdrawing this Amendment. It is possible to defeat it, but I do not want to defeat it. I want to look at it a little more closely. He shall have whatever is right in regard to his later Amendments, with no sort of commitment on this. I am not asking him to make a moral compromise with his conscience about it. In saying that, I do not want to commit the Government to make any alteration in this matter. If we think that what we have now is the best thing, then I shall tell the right reverend Prelate: "No, we are not going to put it down," and in that case, we should not waste two minutes of time on Report.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL

I venture to thank the noble Viscount warmly for his last remarks and, on that understanding. I gladly beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.16 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

May I ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House what his intention is to-night? We have been trying to help. On the other hand, we have a job of work to do, and we must do it thoroughly. I cannot, so far as noble Lords of my Party are concerned, keep them here after 11 o'clock. If the noble Marquess insists on going on, we shall have to go on and we shall not be able to do our work. Is it not possible that we might, by sitting to-morrow and Wednesday, render a late sitting to-night unnecessary? It is undesirable. My difficulty is that, though even the best Governments need some sort of Opposition. I cannot ask my members to go on indefinitely. Could the noble Marquess give some sort of indication as to what he thinks is right?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Naturaly, I have considered this most carefully and I think we must try to get to Amendment No. 60 to-night.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble and learned Earl says that he cannot keep his Party here, but there are many noble Lords who have come great distances to attend the debate to-day. Some, on account of their duties, will not be able to attend so easily on further days. I do not think it is asking a great deal of your Lordships. During the time that this Government have been in office, I do not believe that on any occasion we have sat after 11 o'clock. Not on one occasion have I asked your Lordships to sit as late as that. I do so now only because of the unusual circumstances of the occasion. I should regret it greatly if noble Lords opposite felt that they would have to withdraw their co-operation in this debate. Frankly, I do not think that it would be a justifiable step for them to take. The position which they appear to adopt is that they discuss any Amendment as long as ever they wish—which is right, if they so desire—but that directly they find the time has come when they ought to withdraw from this House, then the debate must automatically come to an end. I could not accept that position.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

As the Leader of the House, as the noble and learned Earl knows, having been in a similar position himself, I have a difficult job in trying to arrange matters to satisfy your Lordships. As I say, it has been my utmost effort all the time—and it is now, I think, twelve years that I have been in charge either of the Government or of the Opposition in this House—to try to meet the other side. On this particular occasion, in view of the arrangements that have been made and the other obligations that fall upon members of my own Party, who have, I know, been most anxious to help in any way they can in consideration of this Bill, I hope the noble and learned Earl will understand if, On this particular occasion, we have to sit late.

EARL JOWITT

If we had had notice of this we could have made arrangements. No one has had notice. I thought when I came here that we were going to sit until eleven o'clock. I do not say that there was an agreement; I am sure there was not. It is a different proposition to make us sit up until one or two in the morning, when people have made no arrangements at all. It would have been quite a different proposition if this had been announced for to-morrow or Wednesday. We have not done it before—neither this Government nor the last Government. It places us in a position of great difficulty. We have not been wasting time, we have tried to do our best; I have tried to help to get some of these Amendments shortened.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

When we originally discussed this matter the plan was to have two days for the Committee stage. It became evident fairly early in the proceedings that it would be difficult in any circumstances to complete the Committee stage in two days. I felt that we ought to provide further time, and we have now reserved the time after the Naval debate on Wednesday as an additional period; but at the pace at which the debate has been going to-night I think it is very doubtful how soon we shall get through. There are many noble Lords here who have come great distances and are very anxious to take part in this debate. It is not only members of the Opposition who want to take part but members of the Government side as well. I think they would have serious cause for complaint if we denied them that right. There is really no written law that when we come to this House we must always rise at a certain hour. Fortunately we are skilful and rapid in our progress: our differences are seldom acute, and we get through. But compared with what happens in some other places, I think it could be said that our hours are extremely reasonable. I do hope, therefore, in view of the special circumstances of the case, that noble Lords will understand if on this occasion we are obliged to ask them to sit later than we normally do.

10.20 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

I beg to move this Amendment. The principle has been argued. I need not say more than that.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 18, after ("a") insert ("provide or").—(Earl Jowitt.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This matter has been fully discussed. I gather that what the noble and learned Earl desires is to put the Amendment and have it negatived.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

It was designed as a compromise. Your Lordships will no doubt know that when the Bill was originally printed it contained the words which are now proposed, and an Amendment was passed in another place providing that the words "arrange for the provision of" were to be inserted. It was thought, as a compromise between the two extreme points of view, that both sets of words should be included—both the words originally proposed by the Government and the words afterwards accepted by way of Amendment by the Government. In that way it was thought that the two divergent points of view might find their place in the Bill when it became an Act. I am very anxious not to take up a great deal of time, and the noble Viscount is anxious to get on, and so is the House; but really it is asking too much to write off an Amendment proposed by way of compromise and say if has been fully discussed.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

It is not a compromise at all. The Government proposed one thing and the noble Lords said, in complete opposition, that the Opposition wanted something else. Therefore we were asked to have an indeterminate thing which does not meet one or the other. We have heard a very full debate, and the noble Lord who moved this series of Amendments said that the whole object of the Amendments—and it is the main bone of contention between us—was to provide for the Authority to do the thing instead of the programme companies doing it. I am quite happy to divide if the noble Lord wants to divide, but in justice to the House, I really cannot go on making the same speech over and over again.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

It is not a question of dividing. This was put forward sincerely as a compromise. It was put forward as a compromise because it contained the very words which the Government originally put in the Bill. They are not my words, they are not the noble and learned Earl's words; they are the Government's words. The Government took them out and put in something else. I cannot for the life of me see why it is wrong to insert both—both "provide or" and "arrange for the provision of … programmes." They both mean different things but there is a place for both in the Bill. There is nothing wrong in inserting in the Bill a provision to the effect that the Independent Television Authority should provide the programmes in the circumstances envisaged, and that they should arrange the provision of the programmes in the circumstances envisaged. It really is a little discourteous of the noble Viscount to say that this is done simply because there is a profound difference between us. He must take it from me that there is a sincere desire to meet both points of view in this Amendment.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I have been in this House rather a long time; very often I have led it in Opposition, and from these Benches, and this I think is the first time I have been accused of discourtesy to the House. The noble Viscount can maintain his own point of view, but I and the Government do not consider this a reasonable compromise. Then the noble Viscount says. "Let the Authority and the programme companies have an equal chance of providing"; but that is really the whole issue between us. I am not guilty of being discourteous if I do not make ten speeches in order to show that we attach vital importance to programme companies providing the programme and the Authority coming in only in case of need.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOLhad given notice of his intention to move in subsection (2) (a), after the first "programmes" to insert ",other than religious services and programmes,". The right Reverend Prelate said: I believe that Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 are all consequential on my earlier Amendment. That Amendment having lapsed, I think these Amendments should lapse also. I hope that that may save the Committee some time. I do not move this Amendment.

10.27 p.m.

LORD KENSWOOD moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (a): in particular (and so that such items shall not be provided by programme contractors) items dealing with matters of political or industrial controversy relating to current public policy; and.

The noble Lord said: I propose this Amendment, not merely for the protection of the people of this country but for the protection of the programme contractors themselves. That may seem strange, but I base that contention on the following arguments. The Committee will remember that it is only in recent years that the B.B.C. have been able to broadcast controversial political and religious matter. In fact, the B.B.C. have for the last seven and a half years been feeling their way very cautiously towards a satisfactory presentation of political, industrial and religious controversy. The problem is a delicate and intricate one. The B.B.C. have had great difficulty in coming to their conclusions.

Now who are these programme contractors? Nobody knows; we have not been told. What we do know is that Her Majesty's Government are themselves not too sure about who they are. If noble Lords will refer to Clause 2, they will find, somewhere around line 29, that it is made amply clear that Her Majesty's Government are not at all sure that they will be able to find suitable or willing persons to act as programme contractors. That is a very feeble basis upon which to work. Suppose Her Majesty's Government are not able to find these suitable persons who are willing and able to act as programme contractors—what then? Are they compelled to take a person of inferior quality? It is quite possible that they will have to do that. I can see these programme contractors only as businessmen who have a flair for show business—and when I say "show business." I mean that not in a disparaging way at all, but in a wide sense. These people, probably, as we all know, have little feeing for political, religious or industrial issues. The immediate consequence will be that they will put forward possibly inferior programmes of political and industrial controversy.

The right reverend Prelate has already touched on the religious issue. Politicians are never satisfied with the amount of broadcasting they get, or its presentation, so I will leave politicians out also. But what of trade unionists? They are highly sensitive as to the way their problems are spoken about over the air. Is it fair to put the responsibility for taking vital decisions of this sort on the shoulders of people really not titled for such decisions—the programme contractors? I do not say that in any derogatory sense. It must be the responsibility of the Authority itself, which I believe will probably be chosen from men and women of all political Parties and with, I hope, a great deal of industrial experience, so that they will not have these pitfalls to avoid. Supposing we have these programme contractors and they put on as programmes particularly inferior discussions. The natural result will be that they will not get enough listeners or viewers to make it worth while for advertisers deliberately to associate themselves with these programmes, because (it is no use blinking the fact) if their advertisements come in immediate proximity to the broadcasts, they will be, whatever one says, associated with their products. They are not going to pay their money in order to get fewer listeners and viewers than they think they ought to have. The result, again, will be a strong tendency for programme contractors to drop such broadcasts, because it is incumbent upon them to make the whole scheme work somehow or other.

I am quite prepared to believe that programme contractors are a race imbued, with the highest integrity. But they are men and women, and as men and women they have predilections. They have a bias, and people with a bias or predilections will interpret things in their particular way, without necessarily debasing their consciencies. What will happen? The manufacturers or advertisers want to sell their goods; they want to get the biggest audiences, and they will, of course, bring all sorts of pressures, insidious pressures possibly, on programme contractors to see that their advertisements come into close proximity with popular items. The consequence, again, is that these broadcasts on political and industrial matters will be dropped or will get a very thin time. That is what we are anxious to avoid. I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider this from possibly a new angle and come to the conclusion that it is better to leave these broadcasts to the more mature and more experienced choice of the Authority than to "the unknown quantity," the unknown choice of programme contractors. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Kenswood.)

10.35 p.m.

THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)

I am sure that we all appreciate the deep sincerity with which the noble Lord has moved this Amendment, and the anxiety which he personally feels in regard to it. But I think that in the course of our discussions it has now become abundantly clear that the I.T.A. is not intended to be a broadcasting organisation at all. It is a regulatory organisation, a regulatory organisation set up to handle the programme contractors. The provisions in the Bill are quite clear. It is only in exceptional circumstances that the I.T.A. will, in fact, be responsible for programmes, or any part of programmes, which are broadcast. That is the general structure, and in order to ensure its being carried out, as the noble Lord is aware, there are strict provisions, particularly in regard to the matter with which this particular Amendment is concerned—that is, items dealing with matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy. That is clearly laid down in Clause 3 (1) (g).

The noble Lord made one assumption in the course of his remarks which I think is not justified. It was with reference to something which admittedly we do not yet know about. He has assumed that the programme contractors will be unfitted for their jobs. I say at once that no one can say whether they will be fitted for them or not, but one is wrong to assume from the beginning that they will not.

LORD KENSWOOD

I think the noble Earl has misunderstood me. I have only assumed the possibility—or I will go so far as to say the probability—that they will not be able to cope with this problem.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Lord really said that it was not fair for them to have to shoulder burdens for which they were not fitted, and he went on to speak about experienced people—as if the members of the I.T.A. were experienced. With respect, the Authority has no experience. It cannot have, for it does not exist. Therefore, in both cases there is no particular experience. The assumption behind this Amendment, and behind the next, which stands in the names of the noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is that in any public matter it is wrong for anything to be said unless it is under the authority of some body appointed by the Government. I must make it clear that that is an authoritarian doctrine which I cannot accept, and which the Government cannot accept. I think that the noble Lord, after a moment's reflection—and. as I have indicated, this comment applies also to the Amendment with which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel is associated—will agree that we are served in this country with extraordinarily good newspapers. Taking it by and large we are very fortunate to have such good privately-run newspapers in this country. They have widely different views and different outlooks, but I think that on the whole we are lretty lucky in then.

May I take another and perhaps more relevant example? It is perhaps not quite fair to put it to the noble Lord, and I apologise to him for making the allusion. The example I mean is the Pathé Gazette in the cinemas. That is, I think, an extraordinarily good presentation which is very greatly appreciated. I ask the noble Lord another question. How is this to be paid for? Is it all to come out of the £750,000, or how is it to be paid for? I see that some noble Lords are going to move that the sum I have just mentioned should be taken out altogether. Then how is this going to be paid for? I suggest, with respect, that there is no reason for anxiety as to the way in which this news will be presented, and that there is ample provision by which a regulatory authority, in the form of the I.T.A., can control what we all agree is necessary—that is, the impartial presentation of controversial news or of other controversial matters. We agree to that, and I suggest that there is ample power to do it. Very often bodies who are not directly, concerned in presentation can take a more objective and dispassionate view, and are better able to judge the presentation. A regulatory body is more distantly connected, and for that reason can take a fairer view of the way in which another body does its work. We feel just as keenly as the noble Lord that these matters should be handled tactfully and impartially. For all those reasons, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LAYTON

Some of us have a greatly different impression of the programme contractors from that which is implied in this Amendment and the one which follows. I am not going to take up any time to-night in discussing the point at length, but I should like to add one further point to what the noble Earl has said. This Amendment makes it clear that programme contracting companies must not mention religious questions, must not speak about politics, must give nothing but news. What on earth are the programme contracting companies going to do, if they seriously desire to build up their position and gain a large audience, for which they must try to secure balance in their programme? Are they to be left merely with rubbish? I cannot see any sort of useful second programme if we are going to try to get this sort of marriage, in which the Authority does all the political and religious discussions and nothing but light entertainment is left to the programme companies. It seems to me that that is a quite impossible marriage.

LORD KENSWOOD

I ask permission to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.43 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (a): in particular (and so that such items shall not be provided by programme contractors) items of current news; and".

The noble Earl said: The Government Front Bench appears to be one down. I do not know how far we shall be through the Front Bench before we conclude, but we are just as happy to deal with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, or anyone else the Government may select to put their case. The noble Earl said that my noble friend Lord Kenswood and I were authoritarians because we wanted to put certain matters under the Television Authority. That surely is a somewhat exaggerated argument, which I think on reflection the noble Earl would regret. Surely he would not claim that all the people who prefer the public service to commercial broadcasting are authoritarians. Surely he would not regard the Liberal Party as authoritarians—those of them, at any rate, who are in favour of the Authority. He may call the Liberals libertarians, hut not authoritarians. What about the noble Earl, Lord Halifax—is he an authoritarian? But I do not want to make debating points on a matter which I consider to be worthy of serious consideration on its merits. I regard certain measures as more satisfactorily handled by the Authority than by the programme companies. That was the view of the right reverend Prelates about religious broadcasting, and of my noble friend about the broadcasting of political and Industrial topics; and it is my view in the handling of news.

I should like to give the noble Earl my reasons for thinking that a public authority is in a better position than a commericial company to handle news. I thing we shall all agree that the essential thing about a first-rate news service is accuracy and impartially. Further, I think we shall all agree that the B.B.C. has achieved a standard in both these respects, the excellence of which is acknowledged and respected all over the world. The B.B.C. is a public service. Its Governors are appointed by the Government, much as the noble Earl may regret it. It is surely more likely that the spirit of public service, which has built up this high standard in the B.B.C., will be present in a public authority than in commercial companies. Commercial companies are bound to be more concerned with the popularity of their programmes than with a high standard in the presentation of news.

LORD LAYTON

I question that.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

Perhaps I may develop my argument. The noble Lord may disagree with this part, but I have other arguments, and I may be able to command his support as I go on.

There are, in my view, two other dangers, in addition to this one, which will arise if we have a commercial news service. The first is a difference in the choice of news items. Of course, most of the items on the news bulletin of the B.B.C. are chosen because of their intrinsic importance in world affairs, or in the affairs of our own country. But the main concern of the commercial company will be to provide news to attract the largest number of Viewers. It will be in the same position as newspapers which want the largest possible circulation. When the Press wish to widen their circulation they give more prominence to what is sensational, snobbish or trivial in current events—indeed, it is almost true to say that the reliability of the Press varies in inverse proportion to the circulation of a particular daily or weekly news-paper. I believe that there is a real danger that the choice of news will depend, in the case of a commercial news service, more on the sensational character of news items, and their popular appeal, and less on the intrinsic importance of current events in our national life and of the world.

There is another danger to which I should like to refer, and it is this. There is, I feel, a risk that a commercial news service will become too parochial. We must not forget that each programme Company will be broadcasting for a comparatively small area of, say, forty or fifty miles in radius. It will, therefore, be broadcasting essentially a local Programme and not a national, or even a regional, programme like the B.B.C. There is, therefore, a risk that local events will crowd out other news, and that the content of the news bulletin of a programme company will be much more like the content of the local Press. I should like to remind your Lordships, as a final consideration, of a conclusion in the Beveridge Report about the importance of the part played by news in broadcasting as an influence on the mind. It is quite a short passage and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to read it. It says: News talks, discussions and readings occupy a relatively small Proportion of the total time devoted to broadcasting, but it is true that in the main broadcasting can be an organ for information and education. Surely educational and informative functions of broadcasting are of little less importance than the spiritual function of broadcasting in relation to religious matters; and surely, at a moment when we are setting up a new organisation to deal with television, there should be the same safeguards. It is because I most sincerely believe that the news is such a vital element in the contribution that broadcasting can make to education, in the broadest sense and, in particular, to education in citizenship, that, in my view, it should be controlled by a public authority. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 24, at end insert the said words. —(The Earl of Listowel.)

LORD LAYTON

I regret to say that the noble Earl who has just spoken did not produce any further arguments which affect the argument he met just now. A large part of the case for the independent "hook-up" would disappear if the whole of the news were produced by a Government body and in fact it would duplicate closely the bulletins of the B.B.C. The noble Earl might quite well have suggested that the Authority should, in fact, be limited to duplicating those bulletins. I fail to see why not if he would like to apply the tests that apply to the B.B.C. at present. I can assure the noble Earl that the tests which he describes are far from those tests which are applied by the Press generally, and I sincerely hope that this Amendment will be treated like the previous Amendment. I should like to emphasise the point that I made in that connection. If you bar this Authority from one series of things after another, including news, discussions, debates and interviews, and including everything except variety and light music, then you will have a complete failure of the whole scheme.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Layton. I do not want to repeat what I said befoee, but the structure of this is really clear. The I.T.A. is not intended to broadcast; it is intended to regularise—it is a regulatory organisation, with ample powers in the Act to see that it is done. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, resented, as I rather suspected he would, being called authoritarian. I am not surprised, but there is nothing in this debate which has astonished me more than to find the leader of the Liberal Party, for whom I have such deep regard, in such astonishing company. The noble Lord talks about discretion, accuracy and impartiality. There are various examples of occasions when a Government have undertaken the presentation of news. One is the British Gazette. I wonder if the noble Lord remembers the British Gazette. It was certainly a presentation from a Government. May I take more interesting examples? There is Tass, the Russian agency; and some noble Lords may remember the Volkische Beobachter,the paper that was used in Germany before the war. Were these examples of accuracy and impartiality? They are the very qualities which the noble Earl is putting forward as showing what a Government publication can do.

There is one thing which the noble Earl has missed in all this—there is what my noble friend Lord Swinton called the question of technique.

LORD KENSWOOD

I hope the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting, but I feel strongly about this matter. Both the noble Earl, and the noble Lord, Lord Layton, have alluded to the B.B.C. as if it were a Government organ. It is not; and if the I.T.A. is set up it will not be a Government organisation: I hope that it will be independent.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I appreciate the point. I have not referred to the B.B.C. one way or the other, but I agree that I had assumed that it was authoritarian in this sense: that news was to come from one source, instead of more—and that, I think, is in some measure authoritarian. I was making the point about the technique, and I think it is important that companies should have it. What I think is interesting is this. The noble Earl said that all the news will be "popular." If the information I have is correct, probably the most popular item of the B.B.C. is its news programme. That is the answer to the noble Earl who thinks that popular things are necessarily sensational, inferior, and degrading, which, after all, is the burden of what is constantly being said. That is what the noble Earl said: that it will be sensational and cheap. Yet we have the B.B.C. bulletins, one of the most popular of all the items which the B.B.C. present. He also said that the news will be parochial. If it is parochial it will not be popular, so that is a contradiction in terms. I really do not think there is any reason to believe that it will fall below the high level of the newspapers in this country. I feel that within the structure of this body itself, he should have no anxiety that there will not be a high standard of impartiality. I believe that a regulating authority can deal with this better than the operating authority itself. I beg him to withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I have listened to the noble Earl's case against the Amendment. I do not feel that it is any stronger in answer to what I said than was the reply to the case made out by my noble friend Lord Kenswood. I feel equally unconvinced by his answer in

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

11.0 p.m.

THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (2) (b), to leave out "temporary." The noble Earl said: This Amendment can be very simply explained. It goes with the two following Amendments. The sense of them all is that the power of the Authority to intervene is considerably restricted under the Bill. In Amendment No. 22 we propose to delete the word "temporary." If the Authority are empowered to step in because there is a temporary lack of persons capable of taking on the programme contractors' work, why should they not be allowed to continue if there is a permanent lack? There seems no logic in permitting them to cope with only a temporary emergency when in fact there may be, for all any of us know, at some time or other a permanent lack of people willing to come forward. After all, none of us knows what this service will bring, what conditions will apply. We know that by the nature of it the programme contractors will be willing to

reply to the noble Lord, Lord Layton, who spoke for the Liberal Party.

On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS
Jowitt, E.	Henderson, L.	Nathan, L.
Listowel, E.	Kenswood, L.	Ogmore, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Mathers, L.	Pakenham, L.
	Merthyr, L.	Silkin, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Milner of Leeds, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Haden-Guest, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Winterton, E.	Dovercourt, L.
		Fairfax of Cameron, L
Salisbury, M. (L. President.)	Astor, V.	Fraser of North Cape, L.
	Bridgeman, V.	Freyberg, L.
Northumberland, D.	Buckmaster, V.	Gifford, L.
Wellington, D.	Davidson, V.	Hacking, L.
	FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Hampton, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Furness, V.	Hawke, L.
Reading, M.	Goschen, V.	Hore-Belisha, L.
	Hudson, V.	Layton, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Swinton, V.	Leconfield, L.
Bessborough, E.	Woolton, V.	Lloyd, L.
Birkenhead, E. [Teller.]		Mancroft, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Melchett, L.
De La Warr, E.	Blackford, L.	Rennell, L.
Lonsdale, E.	Brassey of Apethorpe, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Morley, E.	Carrington, L.
Onslow, E. [Teller]	De L'Isle and Dudley, L.	Teviot, L.
Radnor, E.	Derwent, L.	Teynham, L.
Selkirk, E.	Digby, L.	Waleran, L.
		Wolverton, L.

take on these contracts only if they can make a profit on them. If it should turn out that the profit is not up to expectations or is non-existent, clearly there will be a falling off in the number of persons or bodies who come forward to take contracts as programme contractors.

Perhaps I may, to save the time of the House, speak to the two following Amendments at the same time. They are to substitute for the word "and" the word "or." Persons may become programme contractors, but they may not continue to be. They may desire to give up their contracts or they may, in the second case, fail to perform their obligations. In all those cases it seems only logical, if the public are to get the service that Her Majesty's Government promise them, that the Authority should be empowered to step in. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 29, leave out ("temporary").—(The Earl of Lucan.)

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I wonder if, before the noble Earl replies, he would allow me to add a word in support of this Amendment. I thought the word "temporary" had been retained by inadvertence. If the noble Earl will allow me to remind him, as the Bill was originally drafted it contained, unless I am mistaken, the words "temporary or permanent." Then apparently the word "permanent" was left out, less because it was not required than because some people objected that this was taking too pessimistic a view of the prospects that the Authority had of attracting programme contractors to do the business for them. That left the word "temporary" in. I cannot help thinking, and I am sure the noble Earl will forgive me for saying so, that that word has been retained less in order to achieve any legislative effect than to express some sort of optimistic opinion that any lack of suitable persons could never be permanent.

I ask your Lordships to consider the effect of removing the word "temporary." Surely the only effect is to make the clause clearer and more workable. What I think both the Government and we want to achieve is to provide that where there are not any programme contractors, or for any reason enough programme contractors cannot be found, the Authority can themselves arrange for the provision of the programmes. I think that is common to both sides and it seems to me to be a laudable plan. But how can the Authority, at the time when they are conscious of a lack of programme contractors, tell in advance whether that lack is likely to be temporary or permanent? All they know is that at any given moment of time they have not got any, and that is the state of circumstances in which I think all of us would desire that the Independent Television Authority should exercise their emergency powers. Therefore I wonder whether, on seeing this Amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will realise, on reflection, that it is not moved in any desire to achieve some object of principle which necessarily divides him from those of us who do not like the Bill; it is desired simply to give effect to what some of us at any rate imagine to be the common purpose of us all.

I do not at this late hour wish to speak to the other two Amendments. It is always most difficult in drafting to know for sure when to say "and" and when to say "or." Some bad draftsmen on the slightest provocation put the phrase "and/or." But I should have thought, with the noble Earl who has just spoken, that "or" was what was really meant here. If I am told that the Parliamentary draftsmen take another view, I shall be the last to put forward my view as the correct one. In respect of the first of the three Amendments, regarding the omission of the word "temporary," I venture to think that, from that point of view the Bill would be a better Bill without it.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am very happy to take the three Amendments together, though I do not see any particular connection between them; but it makes no difference. I do not think it would make a great deal of difference to the Bill if we took out the word "temporary." But let us be quite frank. As has been said, it is really a question of principle. We do not intend the I.T.A, to be used as a programme company; it is not intended to be so. That is why the Bill is drafted in this way. Originally the Bill said "lack or temporary lack." The word "lack" was taken out in another place, to make it perfectly clear that it was not intended that the I.T.A. should be a permanent programme forming company, and its task as a regulatory company could be more usefully fulfilled. That is why the words are not there. I will not argue it further. I think it should be quite clear that that is the point. If I might deal for one moment with the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in regard to pessimism, I would point out that if this fails completely, no doubt we shall have to do something else, but we are fairly confident that it will not fail. The other two Amendments are really purely drafting. I am glad to accept the first one, but I cannot accept the second one. I hope that will satisfy the noble Earl.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

It is a reasonable compromise.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

11.14 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

Before we move on to the next Amendment, may I again ask the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, what the position is? What I can do to help him is this. As he will remember, Wednesday is reserved for a debate on the Navy. We must keep a sense of proportion in this House. Her Majesty's Navy is an important subject, and perhaps even television must give way to Her Majesty's Navy. I am speaking without having been able to communicate with my noble friend Lord Hall, whose Motion it is, and of course I have no right to speak for him; but what I should hope is this—and I think this will do: if we can make that Naval debate short, I think we could start our discussion on television at, say, five o'clock or something like that; then I should be prepared to give the undertaking, so far as I can (I am not speaking for everybody in the House, but I think everybody would co-operate with me), that we would let the noble Earl have his Bill through the Committee stage by Wednesday evening, sitting late if necessary. After all, with to-night's arrangement we were given no sort of warning that this might happen. If, by any chance, it means that we must be up all night Wednesday at least we shall have had warning, and that makes a great difference. That is as far as I can say, and I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, will agree that we will let the noble Lord have his Committee stage completed on Wednesday night. I cannot absolutely pledge the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, to do any more than I have said, but I will certainly communicate with him and tell him what has been said, and he will see what has been done.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not think I can accept that position. The House has been asked to sit later than usual to-night. The noble and learned Earl said that he had no warning at all. I think he knew as well as we did the wording which was given to our supporters, and therefore if he was not correctly and entirely informed, he was just as informed as noble Lords on this side of the House—or he should have been. The difficulty of his proposal for Wednesday is that I can see no certainty that we shall get the Bill through until a very late hour on Wednesday. The noble Earl said that that would suit him better, but it would not suit noble Lords on this side of the House nearly so well. They would just as well go on to-night. If we do not go on beyond a certain hour to-night it is purely to make things easier for the Opposition. I should like to make it clear, therefore, that we should, in view of what noble Lords opposite have said, be prepared to stop to-night at, say, half past eleven; but in that case we must have the Bill as first Order on Wednesday. I do not think that is lacking a sense of courtesy to the Opposition. We should be stopping now entirely to suit their convenience. I hope very much that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, would agree to that. He has always been so courteous and understanding, and I am sure that if he realises the difficulties with which the Committee is faced he will be willing to take that course. Of course, we do not know: we may make more rapid progress tomorrow: it may be that proceedings on Wednesday would be a very short affair indeed. But I think I must say quite clearly that if we stop at half past eleven to-night we must have the Bill as first order on Wednesday.

EARL JOWITT

I am afraid that it is not within my power to agree to that—I wish I could. Of course, the noble Marquess can put down a Motion—that would be for the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, to consider, and he is always cooperative. But it would be quite wrong for me to agree, without asking the noble Viscount about his Motion on the Navy Estimates. I cannot pledge myself on this. I can only say that I will ask him.

LORD MATHERS

I think we are bound, in duty to our colleague, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, to go on now.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

We are only too ready to go on now, if that is the view of noble Lords opposite. We shall be happy to take that course. The last thing I would wish to do is to interfere unnecessarily with the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in his Motion on the Navy. I am taking this step with great preoccupation, in order to meet the wishes of the Opposition. Am I to understand that noble Lords opposite are not united in that view? We must get the Bill, and I do not see why we should sit very late on Wednesday night, merely because that is more convenient to the Opposition, and that they should refuse to sit late on Monday night, although that is more convenient to us.

EARL JOWITT

Then we should have had warning. Members of this House are not so young as they used to be: and they are paid absolutely nothing, and it is very difficult to get people to stay in these circumstances, without any sort of warning.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Noble Lords did know that we were to sit very late after dinner. Are we to be obliged to give warning of the exact hours of this House? We do meet the convenience of noble Lords opposite in every way we can, but we must get Government business done. I have taken every step that I can to-night to meet the wishes of the Opposition, when they said they did not want to sit late. I have been through every possible alternative. Now I have offered an alternative which would enable them to get to bed to-night, and which would enable the Committee stage of the Bill to be completed on Wednesday. It might involve curtailment of the naval debate. Now I understand that noble Lords opposite are not in agreement. I must make it clear that if we do not sit late to-night—if that is the view that is taken—we must have this Bill as first Order on Wednesday. There is no alternative.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 30, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(The Earl of Lucan.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I now move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 31, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(The Earl of Lucan.)

On Question, Amendment negatived.

11.21 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (b): or in order to enable the Authority to comply with any of their obligations under this Act where such provision is required in order to enable them to do so.

The noble Lord said: I shall be very brief in my remarks on this Amendment. It is really an attempt to help the Government with the drafting of this clause. This subsection specifies certain detailed conditions under which the Authority may broadcast whole programmes, or parts of programmes. For example in subsection 2 (b) it speaks of the interval between the end of one contract and the beginning of others. That is one set of circumstances in which the Authority may put out a programme. There may be other circumstances, which the Government may or may not be able to foresee at the moment, in which the Authority will be unable to carry out its obligations by securing programme companies to do these television broadcasts, and whenever there is no one else to do these services clearly it ought to be the responsibility of the Authority. This Amendment merely puts the matter in more general terms. It would enable the Authority to do its job in default of the commercial companies whenever it was unable to fulfil its obligations to provide an alternative programme under the Bill in any other way. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 35, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

May I say a word in support of this Amendment? It seems to me that there is some danger here that the Government, in their anxiety to prevent the Independent Television Authority from becoming a permanent provider of programmes, are curtailing the genuine powers which it requires for the discharge of its duties. It occurs to me that if, for instance, the clause were left unamended, the default power might leave the Independent Television Authority without the ability to carry out even the duties which the Bill imposes. It is the purpose of this Amendment to supply any want of authority that there might be. If we look, for example, at subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 7 we see clearly that my noble friend Lord De La Warr has power to require the Television. Authority to extend the time served by the broadcasts or to extend the areas served by the broadcasts. I know it is arguable that a default power is sufficient to cover that, but the object of the Amendment is to put it beyond the range of argument. I cannot think that the Government, in their anxiety to erect the I.T.A. as a permanent programme provider, would be well advised to resist an Amendment the sole object of which is to enable the I.T.A. in case of need—and this is limited to such cases—to discharge the functions imposed upon it by the Government.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think the Bill as it stands is perfectly clear. The Authority is given power to put on programmes, under subsection (2) (a) to ensure balance and to encourage programmes which would be more suitable without advertisements, and under subsection (2) (b) to cover what we call a gap in the proceedings. The Government intend the Authority to have power to provide or arrange for the provision of programmes for these two purposes; and in our view that is quite adequate. I cannot see that it is necessary to have these rather vague words in addition. They may be carried a very long way. I would ask noble Lords not to accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I do not want to press the Amendment if the noble Earl does not consider that it will be of service to the Authority to carry out their obligations under the Bill. That was the purpose of the Amendment. I am glad to have the noble Earl's reason for saying that the Amendment will not carry out this purpose. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.28 p.m.

EARL JOWITT had given notice of his intention to move, in Clause 2, after subsection (2) to insert: (3) Religious programmes broadcast by the Authority shall be provided by the Authority or where after consultation with the Religious Advisory Committee the Authority deems it suitable the Authority may arrange for the provision of such programmes. The noble and learned Earl said: I think this matter is covered by the arrangements made about religious broadcasting and I shall not move the Amendment.

LORD MATHERS

It is not moved? Then I will move it.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I do not know whether I can raise a point of Order, but if the noble and learned Earl, in whose name the Amendment is down on the Order Paper, says he does not move it, is it in order for another noble Lord to move it?

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The Amendment is also down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers.

EARL JOWITT

I apologise. I was only doing what I could to save time, and as we have had some discussion on this matter I thought I would let it go. But I am very glad my noble friend is moving it.

LORD MATHERS

I will be very brief. I intervened for a moment or two previously when matters of religious broadcasting were being dealt with, and I realise how it may be thought that what took place then may cover this Amendment as well. Here is the position on this Amendment as I understand it. The position of the Church of Scotland is stated quite definitely. The question of religious programmes is one of such supreme importance that the Church of Scotland believe that they can be dealt with adequately and satisfactorily only by the Authority themselves and by no substitute for that Authority. As is provided for in this Amendment, if the Authority deem it suitable, they may arrange for the provision of such programmes. That still leaves the supreme control of this important matter with the Authority, and that is what is desired most earnestly and emphatically by the Church of Scotland. I wanted to make that position absolutely clear, and that is why I have taken the opportunity, out of turn, of moving this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 41, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mothers.)

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I should like to ask the noble Lord who has just moved this Amendment a question about it. As I understand it, the purpose of this Amendment, which stands in my name as well as his, is almost identical with that of the right reverend Prelate, except perhaps for purely verbal differences. I entirely share the point of view which the noble Lord has expressed, although in my case it is only a personal point of view and is not, as in the case of the noble Lord, one which has the authority of a great religious community behind it. As I understand what passed from the Government in our previous discussion, it was that we should all be quite unprejudiced on the Report stage if the other Amendment were withdrawn. I feel that it might prejudice both the discussion which is now to take place on the other Amendment, and the freedom which we should have on the Report stage, if this Amendment were not, in fact, withdrawn—if, for instance, it were negatived. I feel that we should have a greater freedom if the Amendment were withdrawn, now that the noble Lord has made his position clear. Inasmuch as my name appears over this Amendment, too, I wonder whether the noble Lord would not consider withdrawing the Amendment, on the understanding which I have from the Government that we shall all be quite unprejudiced at a later stage if we desire to put our views forward in full.

LORD MATHERS

I should be better satisfied with something from the Government.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am afraid that I have nothing further to say. We had a fairly full discussion, and I think we agreed on a certain line in regard to the matter. I should have thought that it was better to stick to that. I had discussions whit the Church of Scotland, and I have told the noble Lord all I can tell him about them. I am not going to repeat them. He can accept my assurance, or not, as he chooses—I gather that he does not.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL

I feel that it would be only honest for me to say that I have had from the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury correspondence saying that he had heard front the legal representative of the Church of Scotland, subsequent to their interview with the noble Earl, to say that, in view of Amendment No. 47, which they regard as quite vital, they attach rather less importance to the earlier Amendment. I would not say that they would necessarily agree to its withdrawal, but the most reverend Primate assures me that he has that assurance from the legal adviser to the Church of Scotland. I think that does, to some extent, modify the position.

LORD MATHERS

I feel that I have sufficient justification to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL JOWITT moved to add to subsection (2): Provided that at any time the Postmaster General, with the approval of the Treasury and after consultation with the Authority, may by order made in the form of a statutory instrument direct the Authority to, and the Authority thereupon shall—

1. (a) determine within such time as may be prescribed by the order and on such terms as in default of agreement may be decided by arbitration all outstanding contracts between the Authority and programme contractors;
2. (b) after the date of the order make no contracts with programme contractors other than such contracts as may be required to give effect to the last foregoing paragraph of this proviso; and
3. (c) as soon as may be, having regard to the provisions of the two last foregoing paragraphs, themselves provide the programmes broadcast by them;

so however, that no order shall be made under this proviso until a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

The noble and learned Earl said: This Amendment is intended as a half-way house, hoping that there may be some sort of meeting of minds; but it does not seem to me that we are getting that at all, and I doubt whether anything we do here is of the slightest value. The Government are plainly of the opinion that it is for the programme contractors to provide the programmes, and that the Authority are not to provide programmes, save in cases of emergency. The situation might arise when it was shown that the programmes were not satisfactory. I want to provide for that in this Bill. This Amendment merely confers a power on the Postmaster General. I provide that the Postmaster General, with the approval of the Treasury and after consultation with the Authority"— so that all the "big noises" are there—can, by a statutory instrument, which is to have Parliamentary approval (there are all sorts of safeguards) require the Authority to put an end to their agreements, subject, of course, to arbitration as to any hardship or injustice suffered by the contractors. After the date of any order made the Authority shall make no contracts with programme contractors, and shall themselves provide the programmes.

The point of this Amendment is that it is a power in reserve. It is a power of the Postmaster General, with the approval of the Treasury, after discussing it with the Authority, and after getting the approval of Parliament (that is essential) to make an alteration by statutory instrument. Even the most competent of us sometimes realise that we are wrong. The scheme which the Government have may work well, and I am willing enough to admit that I may be quite wrong in thinking that it will not. On the other hand, the Government may conceivably be wrong in thinking that it will work perfectly well. In those circumstances, they may be glad of a short and simple power to turn the thing round the other way, and by a statutory instrument they may do what they think is the right thing in dealing with this matter. That is the proposal. It does not interfere with the Government's intention. It merely gives them a power which may prove useful, and accordingly I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 41, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Jowitt.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am surprised that the noble and learned Earl has lent his name to this strange proposal. I thought that, if there was anything which had drawn us together in recent years, it was a common dislike that statutory instruments should take the place of Acts of Parliament. That, at any rate, I thought we were united upon. The noble Earl has proposed this to the House, if I may say so, in very queer terms that this is just a convenient little instrument— to do what? To abolish the Act of Parliament. That is what it comes to. We have argued in very long debates whether we are to have programme contractors or whether we are to have the Authority. We have debated that long enough, and in several Divisions the Committee have asserted firmly that the whole purpose of the Act is to have programme contractors. Now the noble and learned Earl says: we have decided that that is the whole purpose and structure of the Bill, but now let us have a nice, little, simple, convenient clause which will enable the Postmaster General to abolish this by an Order in Council—of course to be laid before Parliament, and, if necessary, to have an Affirmative Resolution. I think I have only to state it in those terms for your Lordships to reject this wholly unconstitutional procedure. In all the odd legislation that I have seen in the thirty or forty years of my political experience, I have never seen quite such a power, based on an Act of Parliament which may be abolished by an Order in Council. I am sure that the noble and learned Earl will not wish to press the Amendment.

EARL JOWITT

And I have never listened, if one can do so, to such a barefaced argument—at any rate, I have never listened to a worse argument. "Abolish the Act of Parliament!" What utter nonsense! We were told on Second Reading that what divided the two sides of this House was whether we are to have a monopoly or not. Incidentally, that was quite untrue, but that is what we were told. This Act of Parliament breaks the monopoly. Is that a matter of no importance? There is nothing in my Amendment to alter that by Order in Council. Then the next thing was revenue out of advertisements, instead of viewers having to pay more. That is established by this Act of Parliament. There is nothing in this Order in Council which would abolish that. Is that a matter of no importance? How can the noble Viscount, without any attempt at accuracy, suggest that this Order in Council would abolish the Act of Parliament? I invite his correction. It seems to me one of those observations which are made at this late hour of the night when his brain is not quite so acute as it normally is. He could not have said that in the afternoon. I am astounded by such an argument from such a keen mind as the noble Viscount.

Under this Act of Parliament he has got the competition he has longed for for many years, groaning under the tyranny of the B.B.C. He has got all this money which is going to be poured out from advertisements. We are reconstructing this Bill, as suggested by the right reverend Prelate's Amendment, but instead of doing it at once we propose that the power be reserved to the Government, after taking counsel of all the people named and getting Parliamentary approval. That is really not the essence of the Bill at all, and I do not in the least apologise for putting down this excellent Amendment which has been so sadly misunderstood by the noble Viscount. I regret that he does not seem at all well-disposed towards it. In the circumstances I shall not press it to a Division.

On Question, Amendment negatived

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

General provisions as to programmes and publications of Authority

3. —(l) It shall be the duty of the Authority to satisfy themselves that, so far as possible, the programmes broadcast by the Authority comply with the following requirements, that is to say— (a) that the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British:

11.42 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), after "Authority", where that word first occurs, to insert: and in relation to any programme or part of a programme provided by a programme contractor, it shall also be the duty of that programme contractor".

The noble Earl said: I hope this is an Amendment which the Government will see their way to accept, because all it does is to impose on the programme contractors the same obligations as are imposed by the Bill on the Authority in relation to the standard of television programmes. Your Lordships will notice that the principles governing the standard of television are all laid down, one after the other, in the first part of Clause 3. They are admirable principles and we all agree that the Authority, and presumably the contractors also, will do their best to carry them out. If that is the intention of the Government, and the purpose of the contractors, why should they not be put under the same legal obligation as the Authority to carry out these basic requirements for a high standard of television?

Of course these contractors will provide in many cases the whole programme; at the worst, if they do not do what the noble Lords opposite want, they will provide a very large part of the programmes. And in view of this essential part which contractors are going to play in the provision of programmes, and in determining the conditions under which programmes shall be put on, they surely should be placed under the legal obligation to satisfy these minimum requirements. That is why I put down this Amendment, and I beg to move it.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 31, after ("Authority") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

EARL DE LA WARR

This is an Amendment that I had firmly intended to accept, because when I read it the first time it seemed to me perfectly justified. Then it was pointed out to me—I did not realise it at first; possibly the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, also did not —that it really runs in completely the opposite direction to the one he would wish, because it would weaken very considerably the position of the Authority itself. In fact, if the noble Earl studies what the Amendment does, he will see that it puts the prograrnme contractors on equal terms in relation to duties that have to be carried out under Clause 3 (1). One has only to single out one or two of the duties to see what that I means. It would mean that, equally with the I.T.A., the programme contractors would have a right to consider what, in fact, was a proper balance. Then there is the subject-matter and general standard or, if one turns to paragraph (e), the job of deciding what is a proper proportion of British films Obviously, if the Bill places a responsibility on two bodies like that, in fact the responsibility becomes neither's, and one gets a state of chaos. The purpose of the Bill, in order to give effect to the responsibility, is to define it, and, in this case, we have placed the responsibility on the shoulders of the I.T.A. I am sure that these things happen and I believe that, on second thoughts, the noble Earl may agree with me that the Bill is best left as it is.

EARL JOWITT

I really do not agree at all with that argument. The Bill places a responsibility on "A" and now it is proposed to place a similar responsibility on "B." Is it to be argued that the fact that it is placed on "B" weakens the responsibility on "A"? Why? I wish the noble Earl opposite would elucidate that point. I hope he has followed what mean. The obligation is placed on the Authority, which we call the I.T.A. We want to put the obligation also on the programme contractor, but we do not want to take it away from the Authority. We want it to be imposed on both. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, for some reason that I am utterly unable to understand, says that, because you impose a like duty upon the programme contractor, therefore, in some way which I do not understand, you weaken the duty imposed on the Authority. Why? For the life of me, I do not understand what the noble Earl means.

EARL DE LA WARR

Of course if "A" and "B" were two quite separate entities, with no connection between them, then placing the responsibility on both "A" and "B" would not weaken the responsibility on either party; but here we put the responsibility on the I.T.A. to ensure, by putting it in the contract under Clause 5 (5), that the companies carry out certain duties. In fact, the I.T.A. are the supervising body. I suggest to the noble and learned Earl that for this purpose it is very much better to leave that duty in the hands of one body. If the noble and learned Earl does not accept my interpretation, I am perfectly prepared to discuss the matter. I do not profess to be a lawyer, but this has been put very strongly to me by my legal advisers. If the noble and learned Earl will withdraw the Amendment, we can talk about it between now and Report. But my advice is perfectly clear on this matter.

EARL JOWITT

I gladly accept that offer because I am trying to help on this matter. I will not press this Amendment now. We will discuss the point between now and Report, but I ask the noble Earl to believe that I am absolutely sincere in my conviction that, by placing the obligation on two people, even if they are father and son, or twin brothers (so long as they are not Siamese twins, which might be rather difficult), you do not weaken the obligation placed on one if you place it equally on the other. It is one thing to have a mere contractual obligation to do a thing, and it is a very different thing to have a statutory obligation. When I come to some duties which are very important—for instance that of ensuring, that due impartiality is preserved on the part of the persons providing the programmes and many things of that sort, then, obviously, that is a duty which is imposed by Statute on the Authority and should be imposed by Statute on the programme contractor. However, as it is, it is imposed merely by a contract, if it is imposed at all. I gladly accept the noble Earl's offer and we will discuss this matter between now and Report.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am bitterly disappointed at not being able to accept this Amendment. It always makes the task of a Minister easier to throw a bone to the dog, but in this case I was advised not to.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his offer. I think our object is exactly the same. We want the commercial companies to maintain high standards in their television programmes. I am quite certain that in the course of talks between now and the Report stage we can work out something that is perhaps nearer an agreed solution than we have been able to come to in the course of the Committee's discussions. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.51 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "so far as possible." I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This Amendment is rather more than a drafting Amendment. The Committee will see that Clause 3 provides that the Authority shall satisfy themselves about a number of matters on the programmes. The first is "that the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British." and there are some eight or nine conditions that they have to satisfy. If the clause read that it shall be the duty of the Authority merely to satisfy themselves on these matters there would be no objection, but it is qualified by the words "so far as possible." I would agree that in one or two of these conditions it might even be appropriate to say "so far as possible," but if your Lordships will look at these conditions you will see that at any rate in a good many of them it is wrong to say "so far as possible." The Authority must be satisfied without any qualification at all.

Let me take paragraph (b), that nothing is included in the programmes which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder and so on. Is it really right to qualify the obligation of the Authority by saying they must satisfy themselves about these things "so far as possible"? If one takes the next paragraph, that the programmes maintain a proper balance in their subject-matter and a high general standard of quality one finds there are a good many of these conditions with which it is right that the Authority should have to comply, without any qualification or limitation whatever. For that reason I am moving this Amendment. This is not a matter of high principle, but I think that the clause would be better for it. I think it would be wiser to put an absolute obligation upon the Authority to satisfy themselves in these respects. Once you qualify it by saying "so far as possible" it gives them an opportunity of making excuses and finding justifications, and so on, which is a thing that we do not want to do.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 32, leave out ("so far as possible").—(Lord Silkin.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I think that on consideration your Lordships will agree that these words are extremely desirable, indeed I would almost say necessary, words to insert. You will observe in the first place that the executive, operative duty is not upon the Authority but upon the programme contractors. The people who must observe good taste and all the rest of it are the programme contractors. What the Authority have to do is to try and see that the programme contractors do it. Therefore I should say that anybody, in common sense, would agree that the duty put upon the Authority is "so far as possible" to see that these things are carried out. I would go further and say that you are not putting upon them an exact obligation even if they were the executive authority and not the supervising authority; this is not a mathematical proposition you are putting to them. As to matters of good taste—well, people have different ideas of good taste, and it would really be impossible to put an absolute obligation upon the supervisory authority to ensure that somebody else was never guilty of a lapse of taste. The B.B.C. is an admirable institution in other ways, although sometimes some of us think that it is a little dull. But I have heard people, not merely members of the Bench of Bishops, but other persons of cruder taste like myself, sometimes criticise the B.B.C. for occasional lapses of taste. That sort of thing is bound to happen. There may be occasional lapses of that kind. Therefore, I think your Lordships will agree that we should put upon the Authority a duty which they can in reason carry out. I do not believe they could carry out an absolute duty in this matter, but with the words "so far as possible" I think they can.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

Before the noble Viscount sits down may I put this point to him. He was speaking as if the duty of the Authority under the Bill ware to see that no offence was committed against these later paragraphs. In fact, the wording is that they shall "satisfy themselves." Surely, it is easy for them to satisfy themselves without putting in the qualifying words "so far as possible."

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Surely, in saying what he has said, the noble Viscount has misread the Bill. He has said. "Do not put into the Bill words which impose on the supervisory Authority an unqualified obligation. Let us keep the words which do impose a qualified obligation upon the Authority." If he will look at the Bill he will see that the opposite is what the Bill achieves. The obligation on the Authority is absolute: it is to satisfy themselves—not "so far as possible" to satisfy themselves. That is not the way the words come into it. In his speech he inadvertently misquoted the Bill by putting the words in at that place. I venture to paint out to him that they do not come in at that place. What he is doing is to put a qualified obligation upon the programme contractor; he is not securing that the Authority has a qualified obligation, he is securing that the programme contractor has a qualified obligation. That is the opposite of what he says he is doing. What he says is that he wants to see that the Authority satisfy themselves so far as possible. What the Bill says is that the Authority must satisfy themselves, but that the programmes broadcast by the Authority shall so far as possible comply—in other words it is there that the degree of possibility is relevant.

If the noble Viscount will do me another favour and look at some of the obligations he has imposed in this qualified way upon the programme contractors, he will see that he has put in a double qualification. He is not saying that the programmes have got to comply so far as possible. There are in each of the obligations except two qualifying words which say it again to a greater degree. It is not that they must maintain an absolute balance in their subject matter, but only that they should maintain a proper balance. It is not that they must maintain absolute impartiality, but only that they should show due accuracy and impartiality. It is not that the proportion of films must be absolute, but only that a proper proportion of films should be so. One would have thought that real craftsmanship required that the obligation on the part of the I.T.A. was an absolute one, to see that the programme contractors complied with their obligations. With the greatest respect, I should have thought it followed as a corollary from what the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said in answer to the last Amendment, because if, in fact, it is the policy of the Bill to cast this obligation under Clause 3 on the I.T.A. as distinct from the programme contractor, it is ill-performed and discharged by putting the obligation on the I.T.A. to secure that the programme contractor does it only "so far as possible." There is a story one is always told in hospital about "so far as possible," and that leads to the supposition that these words have an unsatisfactory connotation which leads to omissions on the part of those who insist upon their insertion in an inapposite place. I would ask the Government, with respect, to think again.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The last criticism of the noble Viscount has, I think, left no doubt as to what the intention is. It may be that the words "so far as possible" would better have been placed in front. That point I am prepared to look at. But I have no doubt at all that the intention is what I have stated it to be. I must, at any rate, know what the intention of the Government is. If we have not carried out the intention of the Government correctly in drafting, I will transpose the words on the Report stage to make it clearer.

EARL JOWITT

That would not be of any great help. We will assume that you are a reasonable person. You must judge what satisfies yourself; but to say you have satisfied yourself "so far as possible" seems to suggest that you are the sort of person who cannot be satisfied in any circumstances whatever. Surely that is really inapt—more inapt than the singularly inapt phraseology of the Bill as drafted to-day.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

If the noble and learned Earl thinks that, let us leave it as it is. What I am quite certain is that what we are not going to do is to put an absolute obligation on somebody in matters of taste which are not mathematical propositions. We are quite happy with it as it stands. One noble Lord likes it as it stands, and one does not. So let us take the happy mean and leave it as it is.

LORD SILKIN

It surely will not do as it stands. It wants some alteration. I am prepared to concede that there is something in what the noble Viscount says about imposing an absolute obligation. On the other hand, this will not do, and I suggest, for the sake of peace and good will, that I withdraw this Amendment if the noble Viscount will look at it again. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.4 a.m.

EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble and learned Earl said: This is a remarkable passage in the Bill. I think it was Dr. Johnson who said that patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel, and I suppose it was sloppy sentiment of the sort here expressed which he had in mind. What on earth does this paragraph mean: That the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British"? Lord Silkin wants to add a word to improve it: "that the contents, tone and style are predominantly British." That has a little more meaning. But what is "predominantly British"? Can the noble Lord in any way define what those words mean? A joke like the French bean—not too French—is that what is meant? One must consider this requirement in connection with all the other matters: nothing in the programme is to offend against good taste or encourage crime; programmes are to maintain a proper balance in their subject matter; news must be given with impartiality; the proper proportion of films recorded in the programme are to be of British origin (I am quite in favour of that); programmes broadcast are to contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal especially to the taste and outlook of persons served by the station; there is to be due impartiality; and no matter designed to serve the interests of any political Party is to be included in the programme. Those are all admirable sentiments. Then I am told, in addition to all that, "that the tone and style of the programme is to be predominantly British." I can only say I have not the vaguest idea what those words mean. If I were giving some famous translation from the French or Greek or Roman, would that be "predominantly British"?

If you are going to use words in an Act of Parliament, you must remember that people have to look at that Act of Parliament. It is going to be their vade mecum. They have to comply with it. You must not use vague words which you cannot define. I shall, perhaps—at any rate, I sincerely hope so—be going to bed before very long, and I shall do so perfectly contented and happy and shall sleep like a child if the noble Earl will tell me what "predominantly British" means. How can I tell what is predominantly British and what is not? I shall be grateful if the noble Earl will kindly enlighten me. I gather now that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is going to do it; that is better still; it will be very nice. We shall all, I am sure, be glad to hear what this means. But really, speaking as I feel at the present moment, I do not think that I have ever seen anything of this kind more vaguely expressed. No doubt the sentiment is admirable, but the wording is so utterly vague as to be quite unfit to be put in an Act of Parliament, for no one can know for certain what it means. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 35, leave out paragraph (a).—(Earl Jowitt.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Noble Lords are very difficult to satisfy. When we do not specify anything they say: "Why have you not put it in?" When we try to express in reasonable language what must be a general attribute or atmosphere they say: "We should like to have that out." The odd thing is that there are these two great lawyers sitting side by, side, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and while Lord Jowitt wants to have the paragraph out, in the next Amendment, which Lord Silkin is to move, the proposal is to insert the word "content," before the words "tone and style of the programmes." The noble Lord wishes to ensure that the content as well as the tone and style of the programmes shall be predominantly British. Tone and style alone are not enough for Lord Silkin; he wants to put in "content" as well.

EARL JOWITT

Why not? If this has any meaning with regard to tone and style presumably it has some meaning with regard to content. Let us be hung for a sheep as well as for a lamb; let us have "content" in too.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, must not try to make trouble between my noble and learned leader and myself when no trouble really exists. I am in favour of this Amendment. I should like this paragraph struck out, in which case my Amendment will fall to the ground.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I should hate to try to make trouble between any two members of the Labour Party. There is, I understand, enough trouble in that quarter already, without my doing anything to add to it. I think, as a matter of fact, that these are pretty good words. I am certain that if we had not got them in, noble Lords would have put down about twenty Amendments to try and make us approve something of the same kind. There would be great variety of language, and probably we should come to a compromise on words of this kind if they were not already in, I know what would be said. It would be: "There are floods of American films produced on the other side of the Atlantic; they have all earned a great deal of money in booming pink pills or something of that kind, and now they are all ready to be sent over here to be shown on television. Really you must see that the British way of life is kept up." Noble Lords are aware that £3 million a year is spent on the British Council. I am not going to discuss now whether it is a good thing or a bad thing to spend £3 million on the British Council. But what does the Council exist for? Apparently, it exists to tell people about the British way of life, about things which are "predominantly British." I think these are good words.

The noble and learned Earl, when he comes off his legalistic, critical attitude and when you get him away from the atmosphere of leading a rather dis-united Opposition, becomes the human, pleasant companion he so often is. He knows what a "predominantly British" programme is, and I think we all know what something "predominantly British" is. Therefore, we wish to have these words in. We wish these programmes to be predominantly British. It is not an exact science; on the other hand, we know what it is when we see it. Commonsense people will give the direction and common-sense people will carry it out. They will not have much difficulty in knowing whether a programme is predominantly British. I know I have not.

EARL JOWITT

The noble Viscount gave as an illustration an American film. I should have thought that this was a film prepared in the United States which was typically British. If we are dealing with tone and style, that seems to be a wholly different thing from the origin, which we come to presently.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I was not talking about the origin—the noble and learned Earl knows that. I have said over and over again that we might have the whole system flooded with American films which do not reflect the British way of life. It is exactly in order to prevent that sort of thing that these words are put in the Bill.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I would say, with respect to the noble Viscount, that these words are extremely difficult to construe. I am convinced in my own mind, and even at this late hour I would ask noble Lords to share this view, that this reflects a lamentable tendency on the part of the Government which is wholly out of accord with the professed desire of the Government to see an element of freedom in our television programmes. I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor come into the Committee, because I remember the noble words which he used on Second Reading: "Who are you," your Lordships heard him say with pontifical assurance, "to tell people what they ought to see or hear?" That is exactly what your Lordships are being asked to do by the Government tonight, and that in a philistine and lamentable way. What in fact we are being asked to do is to have the Independent Television Authority to tell the programme contractors what they have to show and what they have not to show. This is censorship in its most acute form. All the professions of the Government that it is wrong to tell people what they ought to see or like, all the professions of Second Reading, are thrown overboard in favour of a sort of xenophobia, which apparently has no basis which can be understood in terms of words. Apparently it is not to be enough to tell the programme contractors that they have to broadcast in good taste, that they have to be impartial or must represent both sides—but that is the British way of life. The British way of life depends on objective standards and not on nationalistic slogans. If there is a sphere in which the nationalistic slogan is wholly inappropriate it is in the sphere of art and entertainment.

On Second Reading I ventured to give your Lordships the example of Father Christmas. Is it true that Father Christmas is "predominantly British"? The noble Viscount says he knows. If he pretends that he knows, all I can say is that he has no idea of European culture. Are the great musical programmes we are going to be given to be confined to Benjamin Britten, whose style is predominantly British, with perhaps Delius included? What about Bach, Mendelssohn, Handel, Beethoven—are they to be treated as "predominantly British"? Are Gilbert Murray's translations of Euripides to be regarded as "predominantly British"? It is an insult to him if the translations are excluded. Is Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado to be included or excluded under this rubric? These words are meaningless and undesirable. They reflect, if I may say so, the complete abandonment by the Government of their proposed standards of freedom in matters of entertainment. I should like to emphasise these last words of mine, because, quite apart from the other merits of the Bill, I sincerely believe them to be true. Our way of life and culture, and the things we all wish to see, our freedom, do not depend upon imposing on programme contractors or the like that they are to show only what is in tone and style "predominantly British"; they depend genuinely on freedom. Our culture which we desire to defend is a European and Christian, and not primarily a British, culture. It is because Britain represents, as I believe, and most of us believe, the flower of all culture, that we, on the whole, prefer not to see words in the Bill confining it in this way to a meaningless parochialism. I appeal to the Government to stand by their principles.

LORD GIFFORD

I am astonished that noble Lords should wish to strike out these words from the Bill. I have been approached by many technicians and script writers who feel the danger that programmes put on by the Independent Television Authority will be swamped by American recorded programmes. They feel that that is a real danger. I believe that these words form a good protection for the workers and the script writers concerned in this industry. I think it is quite clear what the words mean, in spite of what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has said, and I am sure they are desirable and necessary to protect the people who will be employed in television.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Before my noble friend sits down, does he not agree that paragraph (e) covers the anxieties of his friends about the proper proportion of films and other recorded matter being of British origin?

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

I would suggest that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has done the Committee one good turn, in that he has effectively disposed of an absurd Amendment which we are coming to shortly in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, which suggests that the "content" of the programme should be "predominantly British." I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will be satisfied with the condemnation he has had from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and so shorten our proceedings.

EARL JOWITT

May we not have an answer from somebody on the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham? I ask only to be informed—I do want to go to bed happy. Would a programme of the music of Bach or Beethoven be permitted?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Of course, it would be. That is why I am going to refuse the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin: it would make it impossible to put on any musical programme unless we had Benjamin Britten performed by a Britisher; and if you had Yehudi Menuhin performing Brahms, that would be cut out by the Amendment. A British atmosphere does not mean that everything has got to be British. We do not have to be lectured in this House by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, to understand that the British way of life does not mean that you are not to have anything that is not written by a Britisher about Britain. Our culture is far wider than that. But we do know the British way of doing things, and the British atmosphere which you get in a theatre, or the British atmosphere which generally you get in a British Parliament.

12.19 a.m.

EARL JOWITT

This is more mysterious than ever. We have now got so far that you are allowed to have a programme of Beethoven. To say that you must not have that would be all wrong. If you had the word "content" in, you might not have that. Style and tone! Will the noble Viscount now tell me how I am to know, when next I hear Beethoven performed, whether or not the style is British? If I can get Arturo Toscanini over here, what about that? We were fortunate enough to have a famous pianist over here, Mr. Rubinstein. Was the tone and style of that performance British, or not? How do I know?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

It is the style and programme, as the noble and learned Earl well knows.

EARL JOWITT

The unfortunate programme contractors have got to consider whether they can get Arturo Toscanini and Mr. Rubinstein over, and whether they would or would not offend against the statutory prohibition by so doing. The Bill says the tone and style of the programmes must be predominantly British. It is one thing to say that "content" is not there, but I do not know what the words "tone and style" mean. May the contractors exhibit, for instance, the Post-Impressionist, paintings and, maybe, have lectures on them?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

If they do not offend against taste.

EARL JOWITT

They may or may not, but I do not know whether their "tone and style" are "predominantly British." I suggest that these words mean absolutely nothing. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is concerned, may I tell him that I have the greatest sympathy with him about his grievance, which is dealt with in paragraph (e). I would support and strengthen that provision, because I feel the same danger as he does; and I object to using in an Act of Parliament "half-baked" words to conceal the lack of ideas which the framers of this Bill have had in putting in this clause.

LORD OGMORE

I think that everyone who has listened to this short debate must feel that the Government have made no case at all, and that the points put forward with such clarity and force by my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, have not been answered. They call for an answer. The word "British" can be used only with regard to nationality. If you want to talk of the British race there are precious few people who are entitled to be called British.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

The Welsh.

LORD OGMORE

Yes, the Welsh are entitled to be called British, but if you try to extend it any further you will get in difficult waters. I am happy to say that the noble Marquess would probably come under the definition, and possibly I should. The investigations of Mr. Pine recently showed that there are a large number of people in this country who have claimed, without any right, Norman descent. It seems that they wished to claim Norman descent—there was some reason why they believed that claiming Norman descent was a good thing to do. It was thought that to be of Norman descent was better than Welsh, British or Anglo-Saxon descent. It so happens that, according to Mr. Pine, few of these claims can be substantiated. But the fact is significant that they were made; and they have appeared in the reference books for many years. Why anybody should wish to be descended from the Normans I cannot understand. It appears, therefore, that the claim to be of British race has not been a popular claim in certain circles of this country heretofore. Therefore, we are left merely with the definition of "British" which is really the only definition in law—that of British nationality.

If you are going to take British nationality it means that you are going to widen the scope of "British" to make this clause meaningless. The culture of the Sinhalese is a first-class culture. The noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, has no doubt heard of it.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Yes, I have been there.

LORD OGMORE

The French Canadian trapper and the Boer farmer farming on the veldt in South Africa are no doubt also known to the noble Viscount. All these people have excellent cultures, which we should not normally regard as being British, yet the people are of British nationality. Mr. Bernard Shaw was a citizen of Eire, so we come to this extraordinary position: that under this clause we could have a very popular thing in Ceylon known as a shadow picture. That may be performed. But Pygmalion may not, because Mr. Bernard Shaw was not a British subject. Similarly, the works of many of the Irish writers will not in future be able to be performed because they are not British.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON)

What about the word "predominantly."

LORD OGMORE

A person cannot be "predominantly" British. The programmes must be "predominantly British "—that is to say, normally it will be permissible to have figure shows from Ceylon, works from the Boer farmers, songs of the French Canadian trappers, and, perhaps once in six months or so, a programme from some Irish composer, or dramatist like Bernard Shaw. I put the dilemma which will face the Committee if we pass this as it stands, because really there is now no such thing as a British race. There is only British nationality, and we have quite properly extended British nationality to cover such a multiplicity of people that, artistically or culturally, the word means nothing at all.

LORD COLERAINE

I would ask my noble friend Lord Swinton whether he will not reconsider this matter. After all, there is no great vital principle involved, and there seems to me little argument for retaining paragraph (a). My noble friend has put forward two arguments. The first was that if the provision had not been in, noble Lords opposite would have pressed for it. That does not seem to me to be a very valid argument. Secondly, he said that nobody reading these words would realise that Yehudi Menuhin, playing Brahms, was clearly "predominantly British." But I do not think that either of these argument is fair. Though it is not a main principle of the Bill I submit that it is a matter of the greatest importance. It is important because it shows a conscious nationalism, the kind of thing that National Socialist Germany did before the war: there was no music unless it was German; no humour was humour unless it was German, nor art art nor history history unless it was German. I see what he means when he says that we want programmes that appeal to our sense of the proprieties and what we believe in, and so on. But surely all that is covered by the other paragraphs in Clause 3. I would ask him to consider this again, because the paragraph is meaningless as it stands. It is an impossible definition, and, in so far as it means anything, it is the expression of a national inferiority complex.

VISCOUNT WAVERLEY

Although my name is appended to this Amendment I have not so far made any contribution. There has been an interesting discussion, but I venture to support the plea from the noble Lord who has just spoken. I do not agree with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and my noble friend who have said that this would be meaningless; I think it would be mischievous. Let me illustrate. The clause, as it stands, requires that, so far as is possible, the tone and style of the programmes shall be predominantly British. Would not that mean this: that if The Ring were broadcast, it would have to be broadcast in an English translation and sung entirely by British singers. Is that not sufficient to show how absurd these words in the Bill are? I would urge my noble friend to accept this Amendment, without prejudice to the possibility of finding on Report words more apt to convey the no doubt admirable purpose which the draftsmen had in including the words that are now in tine Bill.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My noble friend is quite wrong. If it were really true that it would be wrong to broadcast The Ring in German, conducted by one of the great German conductors, I should entirely agree; but I am told that it is not so at all. I am not pretending to be a lawyer, and I am not sure that my noble friend is a very good one either; but we both mean exactly the same thing. We want to have the very best programmes that we can. We want them to be British in character, and the least thing the British character is is exclusively nationalist. I was briefed that all this—this catholicity of good taste—which is exactly what we want, is included in this provision. I am quite prepared to look at the paragraph again, and if it really bears the exclusive character that has been suggested, then I will see whether it can come out. I know what I mean, and I want the security that, without having what I may call an exclusive, nationalist idea about this matter—which would be absolutely loathsome to me—the programmes will be British in the best sense. I am not in the least wedded to this particular form of words, and if, by leaving them out or by putting in some other words, we can get what we want, then I will have a look at it; but I should rather not accept this Amendment now and then strike it out later and put something else in.

EARL JOWITT

Humpty-Dumpty said to Alice, I think: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean"; and, added, when Alice protested, "The question is, Whether you or words are master." The noble Viscount can use words in any way he likes, but the people who have to construe the Act of Parliament have to find some specific meaning for the words. I am not prepared to say that any specific meaning has yet reached what I suppose to be my intelligence. I could not define these words. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that some aspects of them might be exceedingly dangerous. Take, for example, something with which he has identified himself, to the great good of us all—the ballet. In that case, what part of the ballet can be said to be "predominantly British"? Could the same be said of the opera that we saw the other night, when the King of Sweden was here? Is that "predominantly British"? I just do not know what is meant by "tone and style of the programmes." I should be grateful to the noble Earl. He said that he would take this matter to heart and look at it again carefully to see if he can find some words which express more clearly than these words what is, no doubt, the wholly admirable sentiment which he has in mind.

LORD DERWENT

May I suggest that what Her Majesty's Government really mean is that the tone and style of these programmes shall not be predominantly foreign?

EARL JOWITT

On that understanding, I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL JOWITT

I do not know whether the noble Marquess has any further statement to make to us?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I take it that by that the noble and learned Earl means that he would like to go home. If that is what he means, I think that we really have worked pretty hard to-night and that it would be the general wish of the House to meet his wish in that respect. What I would suggest is that to-morrow night we should do as much as we can, with, perhaps we will say, more notice—though, personally, I think we attempted to give notice to-day, but apparently it was not understood. But about to-morrow there will be no doubt; to-morrow night we shall go as far as we can, with propriety; and then I hope that there will not be very much needed for Wednesday. The less needed for Wednesday, the better for all concerned.

EARL JOWITT

If we work on with propriety, let us hope that our standards will be "predominantly British"!

House resumed.