Lords Sitting of 13 July 1954

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock. The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  REBATES FOR CREAM MANUFACTURE
  2.35 p.m.
  Viscount ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the injustice operating against the farmers producing cream under the terms of the scheme inaugurated by the Ministry of Food; whether under that scheme farmers are denied the equivalent of the rebate granted to large producers on the price of milk sold for the production of cream, unless such farmers are dealing with not less than 200 gallons of milk for cream daily and handling not less than a total of 500 gallons of milk daily; and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to put such farmers upon a basis of equality with these large concerns in the production and sale of cream.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, during the six weeks before April 1, 1954, the Ministry of Food, in consultation with the Milk Marketing Board, operated on a short-term basis a system of rebates on milk sold for the manufacture of cream. This system was similar to the one used by the Board before the war. Since its powers were restored on April 1, the Board has operated a scheme for rebates on milk sold by it for cream manufacture, broadly as described by the noble Viscount. I understand that as a result of representations at its annual general meeting, the Board has again given most careful consideration to the possibility of providing rebates for farmers manufacturing cream and has decided that it is impracticable to do so.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of this fact? I went with one of my neighbours, a farmer, to the annual meeting of the Milk Marketing Board—I went there to help him; I myself do not produce cream. I asked whether the Milk Marketing Board was consulted by the Ministry of Food with regard to this scheme. The answer of the chairman of the Board to me was that it was informed but not consulted. Therefore, I am a little anxious about the phrase in the Parliamentary Secretary's Answer on that point. I may come back to that in a moment.
  LORD CARRINGTON: I have most carefully checked that point, and I am informed that, there was consultation between the Milk Marketing Board and the Ministry of Food.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware of the great unfairness of this decision to individual farmers, who came into the cream business as long as two years ago, as soon as they were able to do so, and who have now been placed in a position in which it is impossible for them to compete? The fact that a rebate is being given to the largest distributors of cream in the country, virtually creates a small group of large people with a monopoly, and interferes with the individual rights of the farmer.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course we all have great sympathy with the difficulties in which these small cream producers find themselves; but the reason why the Milk Marketing Board does not find it possible to give this rebate is primarily because of the administrative difficulties which would result. It would be almost impossible in these cases to check the amount of cream which was sold and also the amount of milk which was used by these small men, because there is no way of doing it, and even if it were possible it would entail an enormous staff.
  There is, of course, another point which I think one ought to bear in mind when one considers this matter—namely, that if it did what the noble Viscount is suggesting, the Milk Marketing Board would be granting a rebate on milk which, in point of fact, it had never bought and

  827
  which the owner had never sold as milk; and in effect the result would be that the producers would be asking for a special subsidy to be paid to them in respect of milk which they had kept back for their own purposes, although the 1947 Act does no more than guarantee a price for milk sold off the farm. Bearing in mind both the administrative difficulties and what I have just said, the Milk Marketing Board has come to the conclusion that, much as it would like to, it finds that it cannot help.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether or not it is a fact that these milk producers for cream manufacture are perfectly willing to devote the whole of their milk off their farms for this purpose; that it would therefore be perfectly easy to give them the rebate, since they also are subject to milk recording and cannot "fiddle about" with the figures? They are quite prepared to give proper commercial invoices and to have their accounts audited by a chartered accountant. What difficulty really exists in such circumstances? Would the noble Lord also bear in mind that, whereas 60,000 gallons of skimmed milk at a time are being poured down a coal mine because it cannot be distributed, every one of these farmers has a market in the neighbourhood for his skim?
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, all these things have been borne in mind, but what the noble Viscount has said does not alter the fact that the administrative difficulties of granting a rebate to the cream producer are such that the Milk Marketing Board cannot at the moment see any way over them.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I propose to raise this matter at greater length on another occasion.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whether he is aware of the inconvenience which is caused to consumers by this monopolistic arrangement, and that in many areas of the country it is now extremely difficult for a consumer adjacent to a farm to get any fresh milk at all?
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that that has much to do
  828
  with the subject; but, with great respect to the noble Lord, I think he is quite wrong. I do not think anybody has the slightest difficulty in getting fresh milk when he wants it.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I may be wrong, but I think it is a fact that no one can like a scheme whereby a rebate is granted to the big man and not to the little man—I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary as much as any of us would dislike that. I would suggest that he devotes his great talents, and those of his Ministry, to trying to find some way out of these administrative difficulties. "Where there's a will," there is very often a way.
  LORD CARRINGTON: Of course, everybody would pay great attention to what is said by the noble and learned Earl, but I would point out that this is the responsibility of the Milk Marketing Board, which is itself a producer-controlled Board. It is run by the producers, and all these cream producers are themselves registered with the Milk Marketing Board. They have their own remedies under the Agricultural Marketing. Acts.

ELECTRICITY REORGANISATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with an Amendment.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (HOLLAND HOUSE) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

HIRE-PURCHASE BILL
2.41 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (ANAESTHETICS) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
POST OFFICE (SITE AND RAIL WAY) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MARRIAGE ACT, 1949 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

TELEVISION BILL
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD SHEPHERD: I wish to intervene in order to get the voting records of yesterday corrected. If noble Lords will look at Division Lists Nos. 2 and 3 they will find that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is recorded as having voted both ways. I do not think this is a fault on the part of the noble Lord. I rather think there has been some confusion with the Clerks, who mistook my noble friend Lord Darwen for Lord Derwent. I hope, therefore, that the necessary correction can be made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 3:
General provisions as to programmes and publications of Authority.
3.—(1) 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;

830

(e) that a proper proportion of the films and other recorded matter included in the programmes is of British origin;

(h) subject as hereinafter provided in this subsection, that no matter designed to serve the interests of any political party is included in the programmes:

Provided that nothing in paragraph (h) of this subsection shall prevent—
(ii) the inclusion in the programmes of properly balanced discussions or debates where the persons taking part express opinions and put forward arguments of a political character.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure the exclusion from any publications which they may issue and, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, from the programmes broadcast by them, of all expressions of their own opinion as to any of the matters referred to in paragraph (g) of the said subsection (1), or of the opinion as to any such matters of any of their members or officers, or of the opinion as to any such matters of any programme contractor or, in the case of a programme contractor which is a firm, of any partner therein or, in the case of a programme contractor which is a body corporate, of any director or officer thereof or person having control thereof.
(3) Nothing shall be included in any programme broadcast by the Authority, whether in an advertisement or not, which offers any prize of significant value, whether competed for or not, or any gift of significant value, being a prize or gift which is available only to persons receiving that programme, or in relation to which any advantage is given to such persons.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had given notice of an Amendment, in subsection (1) (a), after the first "the" to insert "content." The noble Lord said: On the occasion of an Amendment earlier this morning, some play was made of the fact that my noble friend Lord Listowel moved the deletion of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Clause 3 and that I had down a subsequent Amendment to the same paragraph; it was thought that there was some inconsistency. There is nothing inconsistent about wanting a clause or a paragraph deleted, and, if that fails, in trying to improve the relevant passage. I had put down my Amendment on the assumption that noble Lords would be unreasonable and would not be prepared to accept deletion or amendment of paragraph (a), and that therefore I should be entitled to try to improve its language. Early this morning better counsel seems to have prevailed and noble Lords have taken back this clause for reconsideration.

831
In those circumstances, my Amendment would be inappropriate. I am not therefore arguing or moving the Amendment, but I thought I ought to make this explanation.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) to insert:
"(b) In the ease of any programmes transmitted from a transmitter situated in Wales, a proper proportion alike of advertisements and programmes shall be in the Welsh language."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order paper. We are not tied to the actual wording of the Amendment—indeed, I think some words ought to be added to show that it is not merely transmitters situated in Wales with which we are concerned but also transmitters serving Wales; in fact any programmes which are normally received by the Welsh people in Wales should come under the objects of this Amendment. I am sure the Government will not tie us to the actual wording, and will understand that that is what we mean. If, as I hope, they will accept the principle enshrined in the Amendment, no doubt we can easily, with their skilled Parliamentary draftsmen, arrive at correct wording.
I make no claim that this Amendment will in any way affect the 300,000 or 400,000 Welsh people living in London, or the large numbers of Welsh people working and living outside of London, in England or Scotland. This is intended to assist, and to be an act of elementary justice for, Welsh people living in Wales. As I mentioned on another Amendment yesterday, there are roughly 2,500,000 people living in Wales and Monmouthshire and a little over one-half—something over a million of the people in Wales without Monmouthshire—living in Glamorgan. I would point out that my Amendment includes advertisements, as well as programmes, and it is therefore intended that such benefit as there may be, or even such defects, or anything else, shall equally apply to those who speak Welsh as to those who speak English. We do not ask for any more favourable treatment for those who speak Welsh than we ask for those who speak English. We want them to be treated exactly alike, and that is the object of this Amendment.
Television in Wales is a vital question affecting culture and language. Your Lordships will remember that early this morning, on the last Amendment, we had a sprightly debate, considering the time, on the meaning of the word "British" and there was considerable diversity of opinion as to what "British" meant. The Government themselves were not clear and did not know whether "British," in this context, would include Sinhalese and exclude the Irish living in Eire; but it is quite certain that the meaning of "British," however one interprets the word, whether by nationality or race, applies to the people of Wales. If the Government are anxious, as they appear to be, to ensure that the tone and style of programmes are "predominantly British," they can certainly achieve that object by seeing that the original language of this country—the original, ancient British language—shall be used, in the manner suggested, by the new transmitters which are to be set up.
It is a very important point for us in Wales, because Welsh culture is to a very large extent tied to the language. It is a living language, a growing language, one rooted in the past, and it has a tremendous effect on the present. Every week in London, in a Welsh Club, we have a poetry reading at which the works of Welsh poets and Anglo-Welsh poets are featured. Poems, old and new, are recited by the young people. Only a fortnight or so ago I was at one of these poetry gatherings, and I was very much struck by the resemblance which the poetry of Dafydd Ap Gwilym, the Welsh poet who lived about 500 years ago, bore to that of Mr. Dylan Thomas, who died only last year—it really was extraordinary. There were alternate recitations of the works of these two poets, and if you had not known which was which it would have been a very difficult thing to say, of your own judgment, which poems were the work of the poet who lived 500 years ago and which were the work of the one who lived until a year ago. I am only seeking to show how important it is that the ancient Welsh tongue should be retained, and what a great effect it has on the life of Wales in these days.
There is no doubt that in the past the little country of Wales has been shamelessly exploited by people from other countries—and also, I regret to say, by some people in our own country. It was

833
deserted and betrayed by its own leaders who should have stuck to it. The culture and language of Wales were not retained in any way at all by the great people of the land; they were retained by the peasants. They were retained, very often, under great difficulties. The language was banned, sometimes by Act of Parliament—indeed I think an Act banning it is still on the Statute Book. Certainly the ban was upheld, by people in Church and State who should have been concerned to preserve the language. As I say, the language was the language of the peasants, just as the culture has always been the culture of the peasants. It is one of the most surprising features in the life of this island that the culture and the language of Wales have survived at all. But they have survived, and they are very strong. In spite of all opposition, the culture and the language of Wales are still powerful influences. In fact, there are now twice as many people speaking Welsh as were comprised in the total population of Wales before the Industrial Revolution. From a percentage point of view far fewer speak Welsh, but in actual numbers twice as many do.
In these days, any small people—small numerically, that is—is under very great pressure: pressure from the Press, pressure from the radio, pressure fom literature; and now, most of all, from television. A number of those countries, some of them countries on the Continent, are finding that their own idiosyncrasies are largely being submerged by the enormous wealth of propaganda and wealth of information that is being poured out by other and larger countries. With all the improved media of propaganda and information it is difficult for them to stand up to the flood, so to speak; and if they are not careful they go downstream, instead of being able to stand up to it. Therefore it is extremely important that in television, the greatest medium of all time of instruction, persuasion, entertainment and propaganda, a reasonable proportion, a proper proportion, of the material that is transmitted from this new station should be in the Welsh language. That applies, as I have said, not only to the programmes but also to the advertisements. It is vital to Wales I feel, for if we lose this language and lose this culture it means that something that can never be replaced will have gone from our national life.
Here—and English people take very little interest in it, I regret to say—is the language of the Ancient Britons, the language of the early people of this country. If it were spoken in any other country than Wales, people would go thousands of miles to hear the language. They would want to see the people; but because it is an easy journey from London to Wales, no one bothers. I repeat that if this culture and this language are lost, something that will never be replaced will have gone out of our national life. Therefore, without labouring the point, I ask the Committee to agree to the Amendment. I might say, with regard to the advertisers, that even to-day there are some who do advertise in the Welsh language. Quite recently, I saw a number of buses running in mid-Wales and in North Wales carrying on the rear panels advertisements in the Welsh language for football pools. People were being invited to send their coupons to Liverpool. So this is not a fantastic suggestion at all, because, in fact, even at the present day advertisers do advertise in the Welsh language. I think the case for this Amendment is a very strong one. I believe that this is a vital matter for the Welsh people, and I ask for the sympathetic consideration of the Government and the Committee of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 36, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Ogmore.)
2.56 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): I am sure that the whole Committee has been moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said in support of his Amendment, and I think it will be agreed that we could not have had a more agreeable or informative overture than he account which the noble Lord has given us of Welsh history and Welsh culture. I am sure that it moved us all. The songs of Wales we can understand, whatever our nationality or our language. The noble Lord, I believe, used to sit for an English constituency—no doubt he can speak Welsh.
LORD OGMORE: I do not speak it nearly so well as I should like to do.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Of course, we were greatly moved by the story of all

835
the betrayals which have taken place in Welsh history, from the earliest times down to Mr. Lloyd George's record with the Liberal Party. All that has moved us. As Nurse Cavell said on a famous occasion:
"Patriotism is not enough,"
and it would also seem that patriotism, admirable virtue that it is, may be carried a little too far. I am sure that on consideration the noble Lord will see that it would not be wise to put in the Amendment which he proposes, that a proper proportion of advertisements and programmes should be in the Welsh language. As a matter of fact, though it has never been done over the ordinary broadcasting radio, it would be much easier to do this over the ordinary broadcasting system—that is, it would be much easier to put over the Welsh language, to have a proportion of features in the Welsh tongue, features in which people speak in Welsh. Acting is a different matter and, as we agreed last night, it is much more international in its scope. It may even be that some people, loving their own language and their own traditions, may want to see and hear actors who are not able to act, alas! in the Welsh language. I may observe that no such direction has been given to the B.B.C. as is proposed here, and I have never heard any complaints that the B.B.C. does not give reasonable consideration to Wales.
The noble Lord will see that we have, in fact, adopted what I think is a practical way of doing this. We all want to get a start with Welsh stations; and presently I hope television will extend into Wales. If the noble Lord looks at paragraph (f) of the clause we are discussing he will see there a provision which requires:
"that the programmes broadcast from any station or stations contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal specially to the tastes and outlook of persons served by the station or stations;"
That is intended, in a sensible and flexible way, to make sure that local tastes are properly catered for. When it comes to advertisements, if the noble Lord would look at paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule, he will see that it says:
"If, in the case of any of the television broacasting stations used by the Authority, there appears to the Authority to be a sufficient
836
local demand to justify that course, provision shall be made for a reasonable allocation of time for local advertisements, of which a suitable proportion shall be short local advertisements."
The general purpose that the noble Lord has in mind was very much in our minds when we prepared the Bill, and I venture to think that we have dealt with it in just the spirit he would wish to see but in a more flexible and practical manner than the direct order he prefers to insert in the Bill. Indeed, when he moved the Amendment he said he did not care about the words but wanted to know that there was reasonable provision in the Bill for Welsh interests and local events. I think I have referred to provisions which will surely satisfy him that the Bill is all right as it stands.
LORD WINSTER: I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I deplore the wave of standardisation which is passing over our country, blotting out local traditions. The Welsh are a great people, with distinctive characteristics, habits and customs, who have made a great contribution to the history of this country, and I should like to see their feelings of nationality and their pride in their language and distinctive habits recognised by the introduction into this Bill of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
LORD OGMORE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, for his support. It shows that he has the root of the matter in him. I entirely agree with what he said. I was impressed not only by the matter, but also by the manner, of the noble Viscount's speech. I feel there is not much between us: I hope he agrees with that. What I am trying to achieve, perhaps rather bluntly put down in this Amendment, he is trying to do in another way. I see that paragraph (f) may cover it, but it is in such broad terms that also it may not. If the Government could give me an assurance on this matter, I should be satisfied and should not press my Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I left out one thing I ought to have said. I think it is actually provided in the Bill that on the board (if that is the correct term) of the Authority, there is to be one member who is specially concerned with Wales. I think that is important.
LORD OGMORE: I agree that is important; but after all, he is only one and he may be outweighed.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: Do you want a Welsh majority?
LORD OGMORE: Oh, no, I do not want a majority. I want an undertaking from the Government that they will act in accordance with the spirit of this Amendment. If they can give me this undertaking, I will accept it, because I know they will keep it. Then we shall be quite sure that the one solitary nightingale on the Authority will not be drowned by the more mellow and fuller tones of the other birds. It is within your Lordships' knowledge that when Wenvoe station was being set up, I raised the same point. If your Lordships were to look at my intervention then (which I am sure you will not bother to do) you would see that I made the same plea. The Postmaster General was most sympathetic and it had a good deal of effect, because what is said in your Lordships' House has a great deal of effect. Since then we have had two or three times a week, indeed almost daily, Welsh programmes from Wenvoe. The B.B.C. have played the game. And my noble fried Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who is chairman, has been keeping a careful eye on the situation as well. I think that that intervention in this House, with the support of the Postmaster General, had a great deal of effect, and that is why I want today to put on record that the principle enshrined in my Amendment, which I now will not press, is going to have the support of the Gov ernment and will be observed by them. If I get that assurance I shall be quite happy and I am sure the people of Wales will be grateful to the Government for what they are doing for the preservation of Welsh culture.
EARL DE LA WARR: When one sees the provisions in a Bill, they look cold and soulless, but let me say to the Committee that, as the Minister responsible for the administration of this Bill, I give the noble Lord the firm assurance that paragraph (f) is a provision I have deeply at heart. I think it is vital to all broadcasting in this country that there should be a strong regional bias to a great deal of what goes out on the air. Therefore, I assure the noble Lord that the provisions
838
of the Bill are definitely meant to be realities. I hope that some of these programmes, even though not in Welsh (and the same applies to Scotland and other regions) will be Welsh in "tone and style"—whatever we said about that phrase when we discussed it yesterday.
LORD OGMORE: In view of that handsome assurance, for which I am grateful to the noble Earl and other members of the Government, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1) (e), to leave out "proper" and insert "prescribed." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I ask the noble Lord one thing? Obviously, Amendment No. 88 goes with this. Would it be convenient if we discussed the question of whether or not there should be a prescribed quota on this Amendment?
LORD SILKIN: I was going to mention Amendment No. 88.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: And No. 40?
LORD SILKIN: I will refer to it; I had it in mind. This is an Amendment to Clause 3 (1) (e), which provides that the Authority have to be satisfied so far as possible that a proper proportion of films and other recorded matter included in programmes is of British origin. My Amendment provides that instead of "proper" proportion, it should be "prescribed" proportion, and (the noble Viscount is quite right) later on, Amendment No. 88 defines what is meant by "prescribed" it is prescribed by the Postmaster General by statutory instrument, which is subject to a Negative Resolution by the House. The first point is that the principle is laid down in paragraph (e) that a proportion of the films included in programmes should be of British origin, and there will be no dispute about the desirability of that from any part of the Committee. The question is: Is the word "proper" adequate to ensure what we all desire to do? The word "proper" is a vague word. What the noble Earl may regard as proper may be regarded by many on this side of the Committee, and even on the other side, as quite inadequate. There is no provision for defining what "proper" means and, as it stands, it is

839
entirely within the discretion of the Authority, who may be satisfied, so far as possible, on flimsy grounds, or on good grounds, as to what is a proper proportion.
I put this forward as an important Amendment. It is not merely a change of word, but a change of character, the issue being as to whether it should be left in this vague and, in my view, unsatisfactory way, to ensure that you get films and other material of British origin, or whether you lay down a specific proportion. Of course, we are not laying down any proportion in the Bill, and the Amendment does not suggest one. What the Amendment suggests is that the Postmaster General should be empowered to decide from time to time what is a proper proportion of films and other recorded matter of British origin to be included in the programmes.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: Does the noble Lord adhere to his definition of "proper" in Amendment No. 40? Is that his idea of "proper"?
LORD SILKIN: I know that the noble Lord is trying to trip me up.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: No.
LORD SILKIN: When we get to Amendment No. 40, then it will be quite appropriate to ask me about it, but I would rather deal with this Amendment for the time being—"Sufficient unto the day.…"
LORD HORE-BELISHA: Quite sufficient.
LORD SILKIN: I think I should command general agreement to this Amendment, if it were considered practicable, but I imagine that the Postmaster General is going to say that it is not practicable, and has not been found practicable, to prescribe a specific percentage. I imagine that he is going to quote the experience of the Cinematograph Films Acts, where a quota has been laid down with which it has not always been possible for the operators to comply. I should like to distinguish between the case of a quota for television purposes and the quota laid down in the Cinematograph Films Acts. As the Committee will appreciate, the quota in the Cinematograph Films Acts provides that each individual hall or theatre showing
840
films should show the prescribed percentage of British films. There are thousands of halls, cinemas and so on all over the country, of various types and characters: those of the large circuits; the West End pre-release houses; the provincial and non-circuit cinemas, coming down to the village hall. Each of them has its own particular characteristics and its own difficulties; what is possible for one may not be possible for another. Some cinemas are under American influence, America dictating the policy to a considerable extent. All these things make it exceedingly difficult for the Board of Trade to ensure that the quota provisions are complied with. It is possible to secure partial exemption from compliance with the quota. Any cinema may make application, possibly providing good grounds for being granted partial exemption from The quota; and generally one can see why the quota provisions in the Cinematograph Films Acts have not been entirely successful.
I concede the fact that we started off with a much higher quota than is in operation to-day, and that most of the movements of the quota have had to be in a downward direction. Let me make these concessions, because I think it is right that the Committee should be in possession of all the facts; that your Lordships should not hear them merely from the other side but from me, in presenting my case. I face up to all that, and I recognise that, so far as cinemas are concerned, the quota provisions have not been so successful as to encourage us to make similar provisions in this Bill. However, as I say, I draw a distinction between the two, and it is this: that instead of dealing with thousands of different types of cinemas and halls, and hundreds of different types of proprietors, all of whom have to be catered for, and all of whom have different conditions to satisfy, we are dealing here with one, two or three different programme authorities. It is much easier for this limited number of programme authorities to comply with the requirements of a quota than it is in the case of this large number of different proprietors; and, of course, it is much easier for the Postmaster General to keep in touch with them, to discuss with them what is a reasonable proportion to prescribe from time to time, and certainly to ensure that it is successful. In fact,

841
putting it in a sentence, in my view the difficulties which have led to the lack of success in enforcing the quota, so far as the ordinary cinema and hall is concerned, would not obtain in the case of the limited number of television programmes, and it would be relatively simple for the Postmaster General to provide a quota in the case of these programmes.
Furthermore, the governing words, "so far as possible," still remain in Clause 3 (1). Whether the actual position of that will remain, or will be changed, is not relevant. I imagine that the Government will want to make the duty of the Authority not absolute, but qualified by some such words as "so far as possible." They would, in fact, govern the quota provisions, so that the duty of the statutory Authority would be restricted by what is practicable; there would not be an absolute obligation. But it would have immense advantages from the point of view of all those who are concerned with the industry (I want to say rather more about that on a later Amendment) that everybody should know that we are out to provide a certain fixed proportion of films and other matter of British origin, though the proportion may be varied from time to time. I do not think I need elaborate on this matter, because the issue is sufficiently clear. I have given the Committee my reasons for believing that the difficulties which might obtain in connection with films are not valid in connection with these programmes. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this Amendment, and will do what they can to meet what is a popular and important body of opinion among people concerned with the industry in this country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, leave out ("proper") and insert ("prescribed").—(Lord Silkin.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I agree that this is an extremely important Amendment, and it is one which the House should consider carefully. I also regard it as an Amendment with no Party political significance at all. I do not say that I speak with authority on this subject, but at any rate I do speak about film quotas with some knowledge, because I invented the film quota. Certainly no one will accuse me of not wanting to do the best I possibly can for the British film industry, because I think I can
842
claim to have rescued the film industry from death by introducing the Act of 1927. That Act was greatly opposed at the time, not so much by the Labour Party as by the Liberal Party, who divided 150 times against me when the Bill was going through Committee. Ten years later it was accepted unanimously, with agreed Amendments in both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, was piloting the next renewal, and I, in Opposition, was glad to act as his lieutenant in support. Therefore, it is common ground between us that we want to do the best we can for the film industry.
I should like to tell the House quite sincerely—and we have given a tremendous amount of consideration to this matter—why the Government came to the conclusion that it would be unwise to try to lay down a quota, at any rate in the first instance. The noble Lord has put his case, if I may say so, very fairly. It is true that an enormous number of exceptions have had to be made in the quota legislation about films—this and that cinema in different parts of the country have had to be exempted. I think the noble Lord was also right, up to a point, when he said that it might be difficult for a cinema house in Galashiels to do that which would not be difficult for the Odeon in Leicester Square. We are dealing not only with hundreds of cinemas owned by one authority, but also with individual people. Here we are dealing with three or four programme contractors.
I should like to put this point to the noble Lord. If we put in a compulsory quota, we must put it fairly low. That was my experience, and the noble Lord will bear me out. I remember that we both tried to raise it, and we had to bring it down, because, although a man might be genuinely trying to show as many British films as he could, it might also be that he was able to show no more than 50 per cent.—and it had to be remembered that it was to be a statutory obligation and, indeed, that it was a criminal offence not to show the prescribed quota. So inevitably the quota had to be fixed rather low—you always do that when you have compulsory control legislation. I am not arguing whether statutory control is a good thing or not. It does not apply only when you put on a quota on a thing

843
like films. It applies when you fix prices. That is one reason why I do not like control, because you always have to fix the price, not at what the efficient man can sell at but, in theory, at a price at which a sort of middle-grade man can sell, though it often becomes, where guarantees are being given, what the least efficient man can do. When you fix a price, it is apt to be the price at which the biggest "dud" can sell without going out of business. That is why I do not like that sort of control. In all this control legislation, where it is statutory with a penalty, you tend to go pretty low, because everybody has to comply with it.
I believe that if you put in a statutory quota in the first instance—and it does not matter whether it is prescribed by the Postmaster General in an order; it would be just the same as if you put a long detailed Schedule into an Act of Parliament—Parliament would probably insist on seeing it, and even if there were variations they would insist on seeing the variations. I am sure the Committee will agree with that, because it is proposed here to put a statutory obligation upon somebody, and possibly make it a criminal offence if he does not comply with it. It will certainly be an offence, because at least he would be breaking his contract, and he might, on the third offence, be liable to have his whole contract rescinded. Parliament would certainly insist on having the quota laid down either in an Act of Parliament or in an order which could not be varied. The one thing needed in this scheme is flexibility. When the Authority are making a start on this scheme they do not want to be tied to something which might be either too high or too low.
I am most anxious to see the maximum opportunity given to British films. If I had to administer this scheme and make sure that the programme contractors showed the maximum number of British films, I would much rather have the provision in this Bill under which I could talk to the Authority and the Authority could talk to the programme contractors, both when they make a contract and afterwards. Therefore, with an experience which is, at any rate, as large in these matters as that of anybody in this Committee on something which certainly is
844
not a political matter, I would most strongly counsel the Committee to leave this paragraph as it is. Of course, if we imposed this quota we should also have to impose it on the B.B.C.—that obviously would be right, and I am sure the noble Lord will agree with that. If we are going to impose a quota on one set of people, we must also impose it on the other. As a matter of fact, the B.B.C. have been in television now for a good long time, and whatever views may be held about the quality of their television, I do not think there has been a complaint that the Governors and the officials of the B.B.C. have not been able to give British performers and British film-makers a fair chance. I see no reason why the same should not apply here. From such contact as I have had with the people who are likely to be engaged in this matter, I know that they are extremely anxious to show these films. I know that there is a feeling: "Well, you might get a flood of American stuff in, very cheap." I am quite certain that we can safeguard against that by all the directions we give here, and I am also quite sure that that is not what these people want to do.
When it comes down to definitions, they are not too easy, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, will remember from our discussions on the Films Act. We had to define what was a British film. It would have to be completely Commonwealth. A film is a pretty large undertaking, and even there we had to take a power to exempt—I think we had a power to exempt. The basis adopted was that 80 per cent. of the cast should be British, or that 80 per cent. of the cost of the cast should be spent on British actors; and you took into account whether the script writer was included. Then you had to put in an extra provision that one or two "stars" might be foreign. It was not an easy thing to define who constituted a "British" film, and I believe it would be found that with television, which is also using live shows, the problem would be still more difficult. The noble Lord was quite right when he said that the words are "films and other recorded matter"—which technically, I suppose, would be the film. But what happens then? When you make a film to be shown in a cinema there is the film, but in a great many instances here there will be a live performance

845
which may be shown straight on to the screen in the first instance, but which is being recorded at the same time so that there can be repetitions afterwards. The Comédie Francaise may give a performance. The first one might be live, straight on to the screen. Records are taken and those may be shown three or four times more. Would such a performance be British or foreign?
May I say just one other thing which is worth remembering—the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will no doubt regard it as very good Free Trade doctrine, coming from me. I am anxious that we should be able to send our stuff all over the world. I was greatly impressed when I visited a studio near London the other day to see these half-hour films being made, essentially British in character, with British script writers and British actors. There were some very distinguished actors and I may say there was a highly moral tone. I saw Cautionary Tale which was both entertaining and of the highest moral purpose. The whole of these were to be sold in America, which is interesting. They are very good. I was delighted with them. Anybody would be delighted to see them on a screen here.
That is going all right. But suppose we lay down in this legislation a specific quota of what is to be British. You will get reciprocal action. It is not happening at the present time because the legislation has not been brought in. We all know it has not been too easy, though these films are going on all right; but suppose we put a kind of quota restriction upon these things at home. We might easily get retaliation and find that we were not going to get our films accepted abroad. For all these reasons (which I have dealt with in detail because the whole issue is raised here) I would say to your Lordships that we should be well advised not to give directions to the Postmaster General or to the I.T.A. and to lay down a lot of hard and fast rules. But let us go forward in the spirit—as the Government and, I know, the I.T.A. will do, and I am sure the programme companies will want to do—to give the maximum opportunity to these films. I think that is the better way. As was said in another place and, as the Postmaster General has said, if it does not work and legislation is actually necessary to give protection (and if it was not
846
improper to bet in this House I would offer to bet that it will not be necessary to introduce legislation) that legislation can always be introduced and we shall not hesitate to introduce it. I beg the House to leave the Bill in its present form.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I had been waiting rather impatiently for the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to say a word about this Amendment. I should like to ask one or two questions. First, everything is to be "British" or "prescribed." My noble friend does not like the word "proper" which is an ambiguous word; he likes the words "prescribed proportion." What is British? I should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, this question. Suppose they are showing a scene from the film of the climbing of Mount Everest: is that British? You can show Ludgate Hill—that is British, unquestionably—but you must not show apparently the last scenes of The Conquest of Everest. Supposing, for example, their Majesties are visiting Ceylon. Can you show a picture of that? That, certainly, is not British, because we do not have a "British Commonwealth"; we have the "Commonwealth and Empire."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is the noble Viscount referring to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, or to the clause as a whole? Everything he says is relevant to the clause as a whole, because it says that a "proper proportion of the films" should be "of British origin."
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Exactly. The two hang together. I shall not repeat the few words I have to say for the substantive Amendment. They hang together in the same argument. It is a question whether we should have a proper proportion of British, and we get "British" by excluding things that we do not call British. We exclude scenes representing the vast majority of the inhabitants of our Commonwealth, an extraordinary thing to do. The second thing I want to ask, for I am convinced by the partnership between the two Front Benches, is this: could not this rule of having things which are wholly British or a "proper proportion" British be extended? Could not a committee be appointed to go to the National Gallery? There are a great many pictures in the National Gallery that are not British at

847
all. Could not a committee be appointed to see that the different concerts at the Albert Hall are all British? And you might extend the quota to the Harringay Stadium. My few words are merely in protest against the type of thing which is really the greatest enemy of the growth, power and influence of our Commonwealth. Originally, we were "Norman and Saxon and Dane," as the Poet Laureate has said. We are an amalgam of many races, and our influence in the world exists because we are an amalgam of many races, able to 'understand and comprehend other peoples' point of view. This aspect of "proper proportion" or "prescribed proportion" is something which is seriously inimical to the future greatness of our country.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I had not intended to speak in this debate and I was loth to interrupt the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, but, since he and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, have mentioned my name, I feel impelled to say a few words. Indeed, I was much tempted to interrupt the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, when he was speaking, because I was delighted to hear one passage in his speech in which he pointed out that the effect of quotas and tariffs is to protect the inefficient at the expense of the more efficient, and that your standard has to be put very low in order to keep people in business, otherwise your tariff is ineffective. Furthermore, towards the end of his speech he pointed out again that to impose a tariff is only to provoke retaliation against your own goods. There is hope even for the most unregenerate; and that the day should have come—with he and I both getting well on into middle age—when he should have confessed to be preaching free trade doctrine, is indeed a memorable occasion. I agree on the whole with what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has said. I feel very sceptical about all these proposals—for example, that Beethoven was really, if one properly understood it, a British composer; that Shakespeare, according to the Nazi doctrine, was a German and the Japanese honorary Aryans. We have heard all those doctrines preached in recent years. I think that all this discussion, to a great extent, is futile, and that the Bill will have little effect in this direction. If the general public, the Government,
848
the programme producers and the Authority are all anxious to secure that there shall not be an ordinary, commonplace American broadcasting of television films in this country, they will not be broadcast; and if, on the other hand, they do not care about it, they certainly will be. As for us, we seem to me to be to a great extent wasting our time this afternoon, to which I shall not further contribute.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount that this is an important Amendment, but at the same time I agree with him that it is one which should be resisted. I think the position would be very difficult indeed if this Amendment were passed, because the Postmaster General would be too far separated, surely, from the day-to-day conditions under which the Television Authority will be working. There would be bound to be lack of flexibility. With regard to Viscount Stansgate's remarks, paragraph (e), about which we are talking, deals with films. Surely a film is of British origin if it is made in Britain, whether it is a film of Everest or one about a Beethoven sonata.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Can the noble Lord explain—he is a technician—how and when you can have a film of Everest in Britain.
LORD GIFFORD: The film is edited and produced in Britain.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: You make a mock-up of Everest and photograph that and call it British.
LORD GIFFORD: I take it we are all concerned about the possibility of the dumping of cheap American or other programmes, and I should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, one question. The word "proper" is, of course, rather a vague word. I presume, therefore, he would visualise that the Independent Television Authority, when making its contracts with the programme companies, would, in accordance with the conditions at the time, make some provision in the contract, possibly by quota or other means, to see that what the Authority considered at that time a reasonable proportion of British films was included, and that would be protected by contract and not just left rather vague.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I make one point to the Committee before

849
we pass from this Amendment? It is that we have now been approximately one hour and five minutes on two Amendments. We have been something like three-quarters of an hour on this present Amendment. Important as it is, I do suggest that there are many noble Lords who might like to make some contribution but are imposing upon themselves a self-denying ordinance. If we go on at the present rate and have the length of speech which seems to be necessary to develop the case from one Front Bench and refute it front the other, we Shall be here till the early hours of the morning, occupying a lot of our time on matters which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said are somewhat irrelevant to the particular debate and not particularly important at the moment. I would suggest with great respect, as a Back Bencher—and I hope I have the support of the Committee—that those who are primarily responsible for the conduct of this Bill through the proceedings of the Committee should impose upon themselves something of the same restraint that other noble Lords are doing.
LORD SILKEN: That is an extraordinary statement to make. This is a most important Amendment and I feel that those who are responsible for it are entitled to put their case adequately, I hope not with redundance, and to have an adequate answer.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Half an hour answer.
LORD SILKIN: I can assure the noble Lord it will not all take that time. This Amendment raises an issue which is probably amongst the most important in the Bill. I refuse to be intimidated or influenced in any way in putting forward a proper case for discussion. May I say that I have no complaint about the way in which the noble Viscount has dealt with it. I sometimes have a complaint about the way in which he deals with Amendments, but I have no complaint at all about this one. I think that there have been a certain number of irrelevancies, but they have come from my noble friend behind me who has stabbed me in the back, and from the noble Lord at my side, who took the opportunity of embarking on one of those dead issues which can never be revived. I am impressed
850
with what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said, and I certainly have no desire to force a matter which is non-Party and to which I know the Government have given careful consideration, to a Division, or even to try to divide the House into sheep and goats. I am going to withdraw this Amendment and to leave it to Her Majesty's Government to do as they please about it. But we are not really very much at issue. The noble Viscount has said, if I understood his speech correctly, that he agrees that we should get the maximum amount of British films shown in television. He agrees to that. Whether it can best be done by means of prescribing a percentage or whether it can best be done by other means is a matter which is capable of a difference of opinion, and a genuine one. I think prescribing is right, but I am not going to force it, the Government having considered it. I would ask two things. One is, would they look again at this word "proper" which really is much too vague? I do not ask them to commit themselves in any way; but to talk of a "proper" proportion does not give very much guidance to the Authority.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I can say at once that we did consider a large number of alternatives and we came to the conclusion that "proper" was much the best word to use.
LORD SILKIN: I am sorry to hear that. I think if they had one more look, perhaps it would be possible to find a better word which would more clearly indicate what we all have in mind; that is, that it has to be a substantial proportion. The other thing is that it may be that means can be devised for securing what we want by administrative methods. But suppose they are not successful. Would it not be worth considering whether the Postmaster General should not take powers in this Bill, if at any time he thought it right, to provide for what I am seeking to do now in this Amendment? Before the noble Viscount says "No" to that, I would merely ask him to give consideration to it. Of course, there is another stage and one can have another word about it. May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that it will not be at this length. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.49 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (e) to insert:
"(f) That there shall be no transmission of any film or other recorded programme which has been publicly exhibited at home or abroad at any time before the date of the first public transmission from any station under the control of the Authority; provided that the Authority may except material from the provisions of this paragraph on cultural or educational grounds."
The noble Lord said: I am sorry to inflict myself again on the Committee, but I regard this also as a very important Amendment. It is one which I have been asked to move by a large number of organisations representing the whole of the entertainment industry in this country, including the British Actors' Equity Association, musicians, composers, authors, dramatists, screenwriters, technicians, variety artistes, and concert artistes. They are all very anxious that an Amendment of this kind should be put before the Committee. It provides that there should be no transmission of any film or other recorded matter which has already been publicly shown, but there is an exception that where matter which has been shown previously has a cultural or educational value, then the Authority may except it from this embargo.
I need hardly elaborate the reasons why these various organisations are so concerned about this matter. As the Committee know, there is a large—indeed abnormal—amount of unemployment in the entertainment industry. In the case of actors, I am told that 50 per cent. of them are unemployed, and in the case of other members of the different sections of the industry the proportion is almost as high. They are naturally very concerned that they should be able to play their part in the new television programmes. I am told that the various organisations are not necessarily opposed to commercial television—they are divided, as we are in this House, and not at all on a political basis; some are in favour, some are not. But they are all worried about what they regard as the overriding danger which threatens them through this new medium—that is, the importation of films and recorded programmes which have already been used abroad, mostly on American television; which have already been paid for out of receipts in America and other
852
places, and which can therefore be brought into this country at very low cost.
This operation used to be called "dumping." The producer had received profits already in the home market and was able to export at a cost which was, so far as the producer in this country was concerned, one which could not possibly be competed with. That will be the position with a large number of films and recorded matter that will be brought into this country. There are no safeguards in the Bill against this "dumping," and I would submit that it is necessary for the protection of those who are engaged in the industry. The Amendment recognises that certain films and recorded matter are worth repeating or reproducing and, as I have already indicated, the terms of the Amendment provide for those cases. What we are mainly concerned with in this Amendment is to preserve and safeguard the livelihood of the many thousands of people who are engaged in the entertainment industry, an object with which I am sure noble Lords in all parts of the House will agree. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment, or something like it, will be acceptable to the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I hope that we shall not spend as much time on this "important" Amendment as we did on the last "important" Amendment. There is really no case to be made for this Amendment, because, if there were a parallel case, it would equally be applicable to the B.B.C. This is not a Bill for helping artistes, but for amusing, entertaining, educating and instructing viewers. Macaulay, in a well-known passage, said that the Puritans objected to bear-baiting, not because it was cruel to the bears but because it amused the spectators. In this Bill we ought to have regard to the benefits which are to be conferred on the viewers. The Bill takes nothing whatever away from artistes or musicians—no injury is inflicted upon them at all. Their opportunities are increased; they will have more work than ever before, and it would be an unreasonable price to pay, that the viewer should be told that he is to have only inferior programmes because

853
the object of the Bill is to keep persons in work or to provide persons with work, quite regardless of their competence.
I think that the decisive argument, however, is that these proposed restrictions, whether they are jingoistic or protectionistic—because we are having to meet one after another—are not applicable to the Authority set up under this Bill unless they are also to be applied to the B.B.C. It is really imposing too great a strain upon the patience of the Committee to impose e number of conditions upon this new Authority which will not be equally imposed upon its competitor. One can quite understand the motives of the noble Lord; they are sincere and genuine, on behalf of persons who doubtless desire to get employment, or to secure themselves in employment. But, after all, that is not the purpose of this Bill. I therefore hope that we may get to Amendments which really do go to the root of the matter.
LORD LAYTON: We have had it on the authority of the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury that everything that is televised is educational; if so, this Amendment will exclude nothing. But if we take a more restricted view, then I hope that it will be rejected. In the course of the Second Reading debate I mentioned what I thought was one of the most important television programmes that have been shown in recent times—namely, the two programmes concerned with McCarthyism, the first an attack on McCarthy by Ed Murrow and secondly McCarthy's defence. If this Amendment had been in the Bill it would have been impossible to make those broadcasts in this country.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I certainly could not possibly accept this Amendment. As we discussed on the other Amendment, the real safeguard is to be found in paragraph (e), and that is really the right way of putting the safeguard. It is also reinforced in paragraph (a), if we should decide to retain paragraph (a) in the Bill. That is the way to keep out a flood of cheap second-hand stuff; it is the only effective way of doing it. This Amendment would have the effect of preventing anybody from seeing a revival—and after all, revivals are pretty popular in this country; some of them have been most successful. One of the best things that I have seen on the B.B.C.
854
was Tovarich. That was a quite admirable performance some weeks ago. But Tovarich had been performed twenty years before, and I was amused when I saw it in those days. So far as I can make out, this Amendment would prevent any revival, from Shakespeare to modern times, and I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to press it. Moreover, if any restriction were to be put on at all, I entirely agree that it must be imposed on the B.B.C., as well as on this Authority.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is a very important point. Do I understand that if it turns out that in this Bill, when it becomes an Act, certain restrictions have been put upon the Television Authority, then, in the same way, those restrictions will be transferred to the B.B.C.?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No. The noble Viscount is quite able to understand when he wants to understand. What I said was that if we were to accept an Amendment in this Bill to impose a particular obligation or restriction upon the programme contractors, we should at the same time and by the same token have to impose it upon the B.B.C.
LORD SILKIN: My reply to the answer to this Amendment is the same as on the previous one. I felt it my duty to put this matter before the Committee; the Committee are not disposed to accept it, and I will not press it. I would only say to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that he is not doing the Amendment complete justice when he says that it would prevent Shakespeare from being shown or any film of the kind he mentioned from being revived. We have specifically provided for that by the last words of the Amendment, which would bring such things within the exception. But I agree that the principle is very much the same as in the last Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: After the last Amendment, and the decision taken, I do not propose to press this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had given notice, in subsection (1), after paragraph (e), to insert:
"(f) that no film or other recorded matter which has been exhibited, shown or broadcast

855
at home or abroad otherwise than in the programmes shall be included in the programmes without the consent of the Authority."
The noble Earl said: My heart has been so moved by the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and my intentions so paralysed by the arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Hore-Belisha and Lord Swinton on the preceding Amendment, that I shall ask your Lordships' permission not to move this Amendment.
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and" at the end of paragraph (g). The noble Lord said: I want to get to what is beyond "and." The next Amendment provides that on Sundays, Good Friday and Christmas Day certain hours shall be devoted to religious services. A suggestion is made as to the time that should be devoted to these services, one hour between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. and one hour between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. I do not think that this is too much to ask of this new Authority, an Authority which, so far from being independent, is being created, sponsored and financially supported by the Government and those whose support the Government can command; I mean the taxpayers. This is a reasonable request to make of anyone wielding the powers given by this Bill. It will be in the interests of those who will be in charge of this great machine of publicity, who will be desirous of achieving balanced programmes, to make provision for religious services on Sundays. This is reputed to be a Christian country. Perhaps not a majority are formally committed to the Christian faith, even in this so-called Christian country; but any instrument of this kind should be used for what I consider to be the greatest cause put before mankind. I make no apology at all for putting forward these Amendments here this afternoon and asking for support. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 12, leave out ("and") at end of paragraph (g).—(Lord Mothers.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord need offer no apology for an Amendment of this character; I think its sole object is one which would receive the sympathy of every part of this House. But I must ask whether this is really the best,
856
or indeed a possible or desirable way of doing it. The noble Lord has laid down pretty stringent regulations that there should on these days be one hour's religious service in the morning and one hour at night. Up to the present time the technique of presenting a religious service on television is undeveloped country. It is very difficult to do; and, if we judge, as we must, by the experience of the B.B.C., we find that they have the same difficulty in knowing how best it can be done. After all, a religious service is conducted for those who are present and not for someone who is watching; and the B.B.C. have in the past put such services on very rarely. I think I am correct in saying they have, according to recent figures, only about one a month at the present time.
I believe there is a positive danger in putting a statutory obligation of this character upon the Authority, because religious services should not and cannot be judged by their quantity; they must be judged by their quality. I see the possibility that if there were a statutory obligation to put on services it would be formally fulfilled without, perhaps, a great deal of merit. On those grounds I would ask the noble Lord to think again as to whether this is the best way of achieving what he has in mind. One hour in the morning and one hour in the evening is quite a lot. I assume the noble Lord means that one service shall go on for an hour, and it is going to be difficult to get a religious service of such sustained character as to last for a whole hour as a reasonable televised programme. I do not know whether what I am saying is agreed to by the right reverend Prelate, but I believe it would be rather difficult to do. There are other points. I think it is right to ask who is going to pay for this. Does the noble Lord intend that it shall be paid for by the taxpayer? Because at a later stage he rather objects to advertisements on Sundays. It is difficult to see who is going to pay, and I would suggest that the noble Lord should withdraw his Amendment and that it must be for the I.T.A. to give such emphasis as they think proper to Sunday. If I may express my personal view (with which you may not agree), I have always believed that the noble Lord, Lord Reith, was right in having a distinctive tone in B.B.C. broadcasts on Sundays. That has been

857
somewhat whittled away and most people are more pleased with what happens now, though I personally preferred it as it was. I think this Amendment carries the matter too far and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
LORD MATHERS: The noble Earl frightens me with his reply—that if anything of this kind were done, it would be done in such a slipshod way that it would not be worth having: that, in fact, is what he says. Yet we left things alone last evening in order that arrangements might be made for the position of the Churches and of religion to be properly considered and properly safeguarded. He has made a terrible admission. I hope that what he has said is not going to be carried out. I am asked who is going to pay for this. I have already said that the Authority is being created by the Government in the name of the people of this country. It is being supported by advertisers and others and is being sponsored by the Government. Without what is being done here in the name of the people of this country, this Authority would not exist to carry on its purpose of making profits out of advertising. My noble friend, Lord Rochester, has indicated to me his regret at his absence because he has been advised by his doctor not to come here to-day. I greatly regret his absence, for I feel sure he would have added great force to what I have endeavoured, very crudely, to put. I made no provision for financing what is called for in this Amendment. Indeed, I did not think it was necessary. I thought that a proposition of this kind would commend itself to those who will be in charge of this great machine of publicity. I do not know whether any other noble Lord wishes to add to what I have said. I do not feel that there is much more that I can say in urging the desirability of putting something of this kind in the Bill.
4.10 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: Since direct reference has been made to me, I feel that I ought to say one word. I confess that I find myself in a real difficulty in giving my judgment on this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, will recognise, without my saying it, that of course I agree with his intention. Any idea that Good Friday, Christmas Day or Sundays should pass
858
without some religious observance is abhorrent to me. At the same time, I am bound to say that I thought there was real force in part of the reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to the effect that quality matters more than quantity; that the path of religious television is as yet only rather rudimentary; and that to enforce a quota of religious services might be not the best way of doing things. What I should like to say is this—and I hope it may carry some reassurance to the noble Lord who has just spoken. A quota of this kind has never been enforced on the B.B.C. There is no regulation of this kind governing the B.B.C. I think it is fair to say that the B.B.C. has never failed in observing the spirit of a proposal of this kind, and in so far as I might in future have any responsibility for helping to advise the new Authority, I would give a guarantee that we would use our best influence to ensure that this sort of observance was recognised.
May I add two other points—one quite small—just to illustrate the difficulty of laying down a strict regulation of this kind? In my own Church, the Church of England, there is a very well-known service on Good Friday—a three-hour service which lasts from twelve noon wail three o'clock. The last two hours of that service would be excluded by this regulation. That shows that we have to be a little careful how we try to regulate exact times. The second point I regard as a point of very great importance and, indeed, of the utmost gravity. The noble Earl who replied for the Government asked: Who is going to pay for these services? Does that question apply to all religious broadcasts on television? We were, I thought, assured in a statement made by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that the £750,000 was, at least in part, provided for that purpose. We know that there is no revenue from advertisers and we hope that there will be no revenue from buying time. If we are then told that, of course, there will be no religious broadcasts, because no one will pay for them, it seems to be that we are faced with a very serious situation indeed.
EARL JOWITT: I do not want to enter into this controversy, except in order to stress the last point which the right reverend Prelate has made. I must say

859
that I was shocked by the observation of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, "Who is going to pay?"
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If I may interrupt the noble and learned Earl, I would point out that in speaking of this Amendment proposed by Lord Mathers, I pointed out to him that if there were no advertising on Sunday there would be no revenue from advertisements. Advertisements are not connected with the individual programme items, though obviously one part of the whole programme falls in with the other.
EARL JOWITT: Do I understand that it is contemplated that religious services will be paid for out of advertisements on Sunday?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: They will be paid for out of such revenue as is available. Overheads would, obviously, have to be paid for, and to some extent they would be paid for out of the revenue derived from advertisements.
EARL JOWITT: It seems to me a most extraordinary idea that religious services and advertising on Sunday should be mixed up together, one giving a kind of quid pro quo to the other. I leave it at that, but I think it is the most deplorable feature of the Bill that I have heard of yet.
EARL DE LA WARR: There ought to be an end to the sort of misrepresentation from which we on this side are suffering. I remember hearing it said in debates in another place—and, indeed, hearing it said here—that this £750,000 was a monstrous part of the scheme; that the programme companies ought to be compelled to carry out of their general revenue the cost of such items as religious broadcasts and so on. It was merely that possibility to which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was referring. He said nothing else. I should like to refer to what the right reverend Prelate said. Of course I informed him perfectly correctly that this £750,000 was available for this purpose—I made that perfectly clear. I also said that I thought it would be more likely to be used for this purpose in the first two or three years of the operation of the scheme, before the companies had got on to a profit-earning basis, and that later on they would pay for such things.
EARL JOWITT: I am very glad to hear that. I have not consciously made any misrepresentation, but I was surprised when the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is usually so careful of his language, put the question, "Who is going to pay?" I say quite frankly that I had assumed that the money would come out of the £750,000. Though there are strong arguments against the £750,000, a strong point in favour of it is that it is there for this sort of purpose; and religious broadcasts, clearly, should have no sort of connection with any sort of advertisement. I have always assumed that it is the intention of the Government to use the £750,000 to pay for, amongst other things, such items as religious broadcasts. I devoutly hope that that is so. If I have been wrong in what I said, I gladly withdraw. The reason I said what I did was because, as a result of the noble Earl's question, I began to doubt whether it was the Government's intention to use part of the £750,000 in this way.
LORD MATHERS: I am conscious of the fact that this Amendment puts things crudely and that my language in submitting it has also been crude. That is due to a defect in me, yet it is one that I am not terribly worried about, because I feel that I would rather be a blunt-spoken Scotsman than an over-eloquent speaker of any other nationality. I have a much greater regard for the noble Earl, as a man, as a personality, than I have for him as a spokesman, from time to time, for the Government; and I felt there was a certain amount of sympathy with the idea put forward in this Amendment. I am now going to leave the matter, having ventilated it; and having elicited the contribution which we have heard from the right reverend Prelate on the subject I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MATHERS: I hope that the Record will show the next Amendment and that it will not appear as if we have simply been speaking on the first one.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Move it then.
LORD MATHERS: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name, in order to have it set down on the Record.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 15, at end insert—
("and
(i) that on Sundays, Good Friday and Christmas Day certain hours shall be devoted to religious services, that is to say, one hour between nine o'clock a.m. and one o'clock p.m. and one hour between five o'clock p.m. and ten o'clock p.m.:").—(Lord Mathers.)
LORD MATHERS: That having been placed on the Record, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.
LORD KENSWOOD LORD KENSWOOD moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (h) to insert:
"and
(i) in consultation with the British Broadcasting Corporation to ensure as far as possible that the programmes broadcast at any one moment by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Authority should so far as possible offer a reasonably effective choice:"
The noble Lord said: A number of noble Lords have been at pains to impress upon the Government that they think this Bill is an outrageous effort. It is bad in its conception and it is bad in its implementation. I have an idea that noble Lords sitting on the Government Front Bench have realised our attitude, and that makes it easy for me to make a very short speech. The object of this Amendment is in some measure to palliate the evils of the Bill. We hope it may be possible for viewers to get some value out of the television situation. We hope that there will be consultation between the commercial Authority and what is the really independent television authority—the B.B.C. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for stressing that, but there still seems to be a misconception about the way the B.B.C. is independent of the Government. It is my conviction that the two authorities will have to consult with one another. I hope this period may be short, because I dislike anarchy on the air as much as I dislike it in other spheres. I hope these two corporations will not be at one another's throats. It is far better for them to come together and see what arrangements they cart make, for the benefit not only of their purses but also of those who have to look at the programmes which are put out from their stations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Kenswood.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think we realise the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, in this matter, so I will not labour it. I find myself very much in agreement with what he said, but I would ask him whether this is the best way of I doing it. Is it really desirable to impose compulsory consultation on both these bodies? The noble Lord must realise that compulsory consultation will operate on both: it will act just as much on the B.B.C. as on the I.T.A. Therefore, he is insisting that the B.B.C. regulate their programmes, at least in some measure, in relation to the I.T.A. I agree with him entirely that they will have a lot to examine together and a lot to consider together, but I would say that we should not go so far as to lay down what might be described in different circles as a cartel between the two broadcasting organisations to work together, possibly to their own advantage and not to that of other people. We have deliberately set out here to provide for a certain amount of competition. We should not like to see two organisations getting together to divide audiences between them and putting on only the bare necessities. I am not suggesting for a moment that that would happen, but it is a possibility. With compulsory consultation, the corporations might feel that Parliament had commanded them to consult together, and that if they consult together it does not matter what they do. If we laid down compulsorily the need for consultation it might possibly seem unnecessary to the B.B.C. to fulfil the duty of providing a second programme. For all these reasons, I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment. I hope, as the noble Lord said, that the two corporations will not be at each other's throat and that friendly and cordial relations will exist between them, but I think it is going too far to have statutory consultation.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: As my noble friend Lord Hailsham is not here, I should like to say one word about this Amendment. I hope the Government have not said their last word on this subject. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, throughout the Bill the importance of effective competition has been stressed. Therefore, I think it is important, following out that principle, that there should be co-ordination between the B.B.C. and the new Authority

863
on the times and the nature of the programmes to be transmitted. Unless there is such co-ordination it seems to me that in the end the effect may be that the times of viewing will be stretched out unduly and that, instead of having a really effective choice and real competition, there will be a wholly unnecessary and undesirable extension of the hours during which television will be available to the public or to particular sections of the public. This is a matter dealt with in a later Amendment, so I cannot develop the point. It seems to me that the principle of co-ordination ought in some way to be indicated, and indeed emphasised, in the Bill itself. For that reason I think that the principle of the Amendment is well worthy of sympathetic consideration. There cannot be a really effective competition, which is the desire of the Government, unless there is open to the viewers a really effective choice at particular times of transmission. Therefore, I venture to support the Amendment.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I have sat next to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, throughout these discussions and have managed to disagree with him in complete amity. On this occasion I appeal to his sense of consistency. He is supporting an Amendment which invites the Authority
"in consultation with the British Broadcasting Corporation to ensure as far as possible that the programmes broadcast at any one moment by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Authority should so far as possible offer a reasonably effective choice:"
I recall to your Lordships that last night we had a long discussion on an Amendment, with which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, were associated, which sought to delete the words "so far as possible" from Clause 3 (1) of the Bill. The burden of their case was that if a direction is put into a Bill, it should be precise and definite, and that it is not possible to imagine the Authority satisfying themselves "so far as possible"; they will either satisfy themselves or they will not. And the Government were brought under considerable criticism for the looseness of that drafting. Now the noble Viscount comes to-day, without any apology and without any apparent sense of inconsistency, and supports an Amendment in which "as far as pos-
864
sible" occurs not once, but twice. So that on the mere ground of drafting, the Amendment fails to satisfy the noble Viscount's own standard.
With regard to the principle underlying the Bill, of course there would be consultation wherever it would conduce to the improvement of programmes. That goes without saying. All great business corporations consult when it is to the general advantage to do so. But there is no need to put in a direction to that effect in the Bill. In fact, it is derogatory to the intelligence of the members of the Authority. If it were to be put in, it should be put in the first clause, which defines the position under which the corporation should act. They are to provide programmes of high quality, in addition to that of the B.B.C., not in co-operation with them. The real test must be the quality of the programme, and the person to whom we should have regard throughout is the viewer. It is not a question of getting a patched-up arrangement between the B.B.C. and the Authority at the expense of the viewer; it is a question of directing this Authority to have regard to the high quality of the programmes. For that purpose they have all reasonable powers and should be trusted to exercise them. In all the circumstances, I trust that, both on the ground of drafting and on the ground of lack of necessity, the Amendment will not be pursued, sincere as were the motives of those who have supported it.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: I should be sorry to infringe on the principle enunciated by my noble friend, that propinquity in this House should imply agreement or, at any rate, amity. But as the noble Lord has referred to what passed on an earlier Amendment, I must point out to him, in the interests of accuracy, that what we emphasised, in the first instance, there—and emphasised with some effect—was the misplacing of the phrase "so far as possible." We further said that it was quite ridiculous to use the words "so far as possible" in relation, for example, to the elimination of indecency, which is what the earlier Amendment dealt with.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: How do you act "as far as possible" in offering "a reasonably effective choice"?
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: I see no difficulty at all in doing certain things

865
"as far as possible." There is no analogy, in my submission, between the matter which arises here and the matter which arose on the earlier Amendment.
EARL JOWITT: We had a mild rebuke from one part of the House a short time ago about wasting time, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, joined in and added his patronage to the remark.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: No.
EARL JOWITT: The noble Lord did join in, as he will see if he reads what he said: he sometimes makes observations without quite knowing what they are, I think. I do not think I have ever heard such utter waste of time as all this talk about the drafting of this Amendment. If I may tell the noble Lord so, we do not do that in this Committee, as he will appreciate when he has been, here a little longer. There is here an important point of principle. For the benefit of the viewer, we want the greatest possible alternative offered—and I know that the Postmaster General agrees with that to the full. The only problem is, how we are to get that. In saying that every company will do it to improve their programme, the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, only shows how little he understands of this matter.
The difficulty is that it may sometimes be necessary deliberately to select the worse of two alternatives. I gave an illustration the other day (I do not know whether it is a good one), the Wimbledon tennis finals. Suppose that they have the biggest appeal, and that a large number of people want to see the tennis finals. If the tennis finals are being shown both on the B.B.C. and on the I.T.A., then both of them will be showing that which is most popular; and the net result will be that a considerable number of viewers who are "bored stiff" by the tennis finals will have no alternative. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the problem from the point of view not simply of putting on the best programme but of doing something which, from the point of view of making money, may be altruistic, but which will give the viewer the benefit of a choice. That is the problem, and I know that the Postmaster General is fully alive to it.
I have said before that I dislike the second Authority just because I am
866
frightened that, by reason of having a second Independent Authority, it may not be possible to get this alternative. But we have now agreed what is to be done. I believe that it would be a pity to let this Bill go without some statement in it that this is the objective. I should have thought that there might quite well be meetings of representatives of the two authorities—convened, if you will, under the chairmanship of the Postmaster General, or some official of his—to see whether they can work things out. It may be that on one day one Authority should be able to insist on their right to have the most popular programme, and that on another day the other Authority ought to have it. This is typically something which we ought to try to arrange, by relying on the Minister, who ultimately is in charge of the whole scheme, to bring these two bodies together.
I do not want to press this particul1ar Amendment, but I am going to make this appeal to the Postmaster General. There are a large number of people who are concerned about this important question of a true alternative. I hope that he has not said his last word on this matter. I shall be content if he tells us that, although he has considered this matter before—I quite realise that—he will look at it again, to see, from the point of the interests of the viewers, whether he cannot devise some scheme and put something in the Bill to make sure that the viewers, who are the people that matter, will have a real alternative. I beg him to do that—and I believe that it is his desire to do it. I think that at the moment he is in some difficulty about knowing quite how to do it, and I can sympathise with him in that. All I ask is that he should look at it again to see whether he cannot give us some hope that he may be able, as a result of discussion, to find some means of securing that these two bodies will consult together, not in order that each of them may have the most attractive programme but in order that the viewer may have a fair alternative.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should like briefly to suggest to the Government that there is a simple way of implementing the proposal that has just been made by my noble and learned friend. The noble Earl has said that consultations between the Authority and the B.B.C.

867
will be necessary. Would the Government be prepared to ask the B.B.C., and the Authority, when it is set up, to discuss the content of their programmes in advance, with a view to avoid overlapping, so far as possible. If the Government were prepared to say that they would ask the two Authorities to consult in this way, and the Authorities agreed to do it, then clearly the statutory obligation implied in this Amendment would be unnecessary. I think the next step, if I might suggest it, that of putting this idea to the B.B.C., and, later on, putting it to the I.T.A., and their saying that they were willing to do it, would go a long way towards achieving what my noble and learned friend has just asked.
4.39 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: It seems to me that we have got at slight cross-purposes, but on the whole I think we mean the same thing. It is really a question of how best to deal with the matter. Obviously, in the most highly competitive industries you have a getting together of the heads of the industries for what I would call common-sense purposes. I am quite sure that on this and many other points there will have to be discussions between those responsible for the B.B.C. and those responsible for the I.T.A. I would go further and say that I believe there is room both for economy and increased efficiency if they will collaborate on many technical matters. I can well see that there are many useful points on which they should be asked to get together. I have used the words "should be asked." Naturally, I am prepared to give the Committee an assurance that I will ask them. I make only this qualification. I believe that when noble Lords see the type of men who will be responsible for the I.T.A. they will be satisfied that they will comprise the sort of body which will naturally take a responsible view of its position and collaborate with the B.B.C., just as I am sure the B.B.C. will want to collaborate with the new Authority. All I can do is to give your Lordships an assurance that, in so far as my intervening and bringing to bear any influence that I may have may be necessary—I sincerely hope that it will not be, because I think they ought to get together on their own—I certainly undertake to do that, with the object of ensuring the maximum of
868
collaboration and co-operation between these two bodies for all constructive purposes.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: May I suggest that this is not really a technical matter at all? I am sure that the B.B.C. will be ready to colloque with the I.T.A. on such questions as using their wireless masts, and other things of that sort, in common. No doubt they are already preparing to do that, and other similar things. But this is a purely financial matter. The programme companies depend on getting a large advertisement revenue. The most valuable hours that they can secure for their public are the hours before or after, let us say, the Cup Final or other things in which the whole or a large part of the population is interested. They will not give up their advertisement to the B.B.C. and say, "The B.B.C. can have the Cup Final this year, and we will have it next year." If they are going to pay, the programme companies are solely concerned, while observing the provisions of the Act of Parliament, in collecting a clientele, a viewing public, which will be remunerative to their paymasters, the advertisers.
The B.B.C. is doing at the present time the very thing that these two bodies are now to be called upon to co-operate in. Every day the B.B.C. is allocating subjects between the Home Service Programme, the Light Programme and the Third Programme, or between the central corporation and the regional. Within the organisation, that is a matter of incessant conversation, regulation and distribution. But now this Bill throws the whole subject into confusion, and quite deliberately is creating a separate competing outside authority; and the two are left to struggle together over which is to have the programmes that are most likely to attract the whole population. Are we to suppose that one or other is going to televise a ceremony like the Coronation and that the other shall not do so? It is an impossibility, and this is just another example of the complete confusion into which this Bill is throwing the whole undertaking of television.
LORD KENSWOOD: I thank the noble Earl the Postmaster General for his assurances. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The next Amendment is No. 39: page 6, line 24, leave out ("political") and insert ("controversial").
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: It is not moved.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I think it would be a pity if this Amendment were not even brought to the notice of the Committee, because it seems to me that important points are involved in it. Your Lordships will observe that the proviso on page 6, which this Amendment seeks to amend, provides that nothing in the previous paragraph shall prevent
"the inclusion in the programmes of relays of the whole … of a series of the British Broadcasting Corporation's party political broadcasts."
The second sub-paragraph provides for
"the inclusion in the programmes of properly balanced discussions or debates where the persons taking part express opinions and put forward arguments of a political character."
It is surely highly desirable that upon this programme which, for some time at any rate—we fear for all too long a time—may be the only alternative programme, there should be live, controversial discussion about matters of public interest, and no doubt that was the intention of the drafters of the Bill. But, unfortunately, they have limited it to discussions of a political character, if I understand the clause right. There are wide ranges of controversy suitable for debate on television which are not political subjects, and the purpose of this Amendment as I read it—though I am not one of its sponsors—is to widen the possibility of controversial discussion to include other than political subjects. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, leave out ("political") and insert ("controversial").—(Lord Wilmot of Selmeston.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think there is a misunderstanding here, and I daresay that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who has read the Bill more thoroughly, was careful not to move the Amendment. This deals only with paragraph (h) on page 6, and the noble Lord will see that paragraph (h) deals only with the interests of any political Party. Accordingly, it is not necessary to insert the word "controversial," because the only subject in the proviso is "political." If the noble Lord
870
is anxious that these will not be enough controversy in political discussion, I think his anxiety could be allayed.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) (a) It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that not less than an average of 80 per cent. of the transmission time of any station over each period of thirteen weeks shall be occupied by British programmes. This percentage shall be applied separately to peak and off-peak periods as defined by the Authority from time to time.

(b) A programme shall for the purposes of this subsection be deemed to be British if and only if—

(i) The originator of the programme is a British subject ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or a British company carrying on business in the United Kingdom and having its principal place of business therein; and

(ii) The place of origin of the programme in within the United Kingdom; and

(iii) The whole of the labour costs of the programme subject to the provisions of subparagraph (b) (iv) have been paid or are payable in respect of the labour or services of British subjects ordinarily resident in, or persons domiciled in, the United Kingdom;

(iv) When the provisions of sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) are satisfied and those of sub-paragraph (iii) are only partly satisfied the programme shall be deemed to occupy a proportion of its actual transmitting time equivalent to the percentage of labour costs attributable to the labour or services of British subjects as defined in subparagraph (iii), provided that not less than 50 per cent. of the labour costs is so attributable.

(c) For the purposes of this subsection "labour costs" in relation to a programme means the total sums paid or payable in respect of the labour or services of persons directly engaged in the production of the programme in so far as such payments are attributable to the programme:

Provided that where no specific sum is paid or payable or where it appears to the Authority that any sum paid or payable is so great or so small as not to be a bona fide payment by way of remuneration for the labour or services in question, then for the purposes of this subsection there shall be deemed to be paid or payable a sum assessed by the Authority as the value of such labour or services in the light of sums currently payable it respect of labour or services of a similar character.
(d) For the purposes of this subsection—

(i) Fees paid or payable for the use of copyright material shall be deemed to be part of the labour costs of the programme;

871

(ii) The author adaptor translator and editor of the script of a programme shall be deemed to be persons directly engaged on the production of the programme;

(iii) A person shall not be deemed to be directly engaged on the production of a programme by reason only that he is financially interested in the production of the programme or is engaged in an administrative or clerical capacity as an officer or servant of an undertaking concerned with the production of the programme; or that he supplies goods used in the production of the programme or is in the employment of persons who supply such goods; or that he is engaged in the processing of a recorded programme."

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which seeks to put upon the Authority the duty to secure a quota of transmission time of any station over which television is being provided. It is rather wider than Amendment No. 33 which I moved previously, and it is an attempt to set out in considerable detail the manner in which this quota would be exercised by defining carefully what is British, what are labour costs and so on. I must recognise that the feeling of the Committee, if not the votes, are not entirely sympathetic this afternoon to the idea of a quota. Therefore, I do not propose either to explain this rather lengthy Amendment, or even try to argue the case, because it is based entirely on the contention that a quota is a desirable thing. But underlying it is the point which I argued before, and which I think was conceded very largely by the noble Viscount Lord Swinton who replied: that it was desirable that, to as considerable an extent as possible, the contents of the programmes—and in the case of television the transmission time—should be British, and an attempt has been made to define it. I shall be glad to hear from whoever is to reply what steps are being taken. As I say, in view of the earlier discussion, I do not propose to press this, but I think the Committee is entitled to know—because I imagine the Committee is generally in favour of the broad idea of giving as large a preference as possible to British programmes—what the Government propose doing to implement that idea. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I entirely agree with my noble friend below me when he said that he did not propose to
872
press the Amendment. That was the only part of his speech which really affected my argument. This is a totally misconceived Amendment—
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Viscount gets too excited, I should not like him to get too excited on false premises. He thinks that I have not moved the Amendment, and I have moved it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is a most vital affair—the Amendment has been moved; therefore I am at liberty to examine it on its merits, if any. It is a totally misconceived conception, if the object is to encourage British art and have the finest television show available, whether from the B.B.C. or the I.T.A But if you are going to make a parochial hole-in-the-corner, in which no one can come unless he is of 80 per cent. British blood, or the shareholders are of British blood, you kill the whole thing from an art point of view. This thing is a great educational agency; it is something we hope to be proud of. Now we come with a whole rigmarole of tests which are to be applied. We found out that under an earlier Amendment broadcasts from the main parts of the British Commonwealth would be excluded. It is not a British Commonwealth; it is a Commonwealth which is very largely non-British.
The second point is that 80 per cent. of the time is to be devoted to what is described as "British programmes." The whole wording could be riddled but after the reproof from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I dare not make more than the briefest remarks. What is meant by British labour? Suppose the Hungarian footballers are going to be shown. The fellows are foreigners, I regret to say, but they are a definite part of the show. Instead of showing them, you have to show a local team playing a second eleven, because they are British. Equally, you could not have a leading prima donna because she is not British. The fact of the matter is that we have made a great contribution to art and culture in the world, but it has been because we have had open minds and have not attempted to apply silly little principles of tariff reform to the great cause of art.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I am not surprised that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has left the Front

873
Bench, because last night he delivered himself in scathing, terms upon a modest little phrase in this Bill:
"that the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British."
Unfortunately, the OFFICIAL REPORT of the latter part of last night's proceedings is not yet with us, but he was sustained by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, whose words are on record and whose opinions do not differ from those of the noble Earl. In the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 188 (No. 87). col. 393) he described this poor, modest little phrase about British style and character as
"barbarous, illiterate, Philistine nonsense, without the benefit of the Parliamentary draftsman."
He added:
"This is sheer artistic censorship, of the worst possible kind. Culture is international. European culture is based not upon these islands but upon the whole Continent of Europe. …"
If that language could be used about a modest little phrase which the Government have offered to reconsider, what is to be said about this Amendment, which puts the Authority in a complete straitjacket, wraps it up in a Union Jack and almost requires that Rule, Britannia and God Save the Queen be sung on every programme.
It is true that I am new to the House, but I never believed that I should hear from the Front Bench opposite such jingoistic claims as we have heard this afternoon. Before this programme could be put before viewers, the most elaborate mathematical calculation would have to be made, for under this Amendment 80 per cent. of the programmes have to be British. The originator has to be British. That would rule out the Edinburgh Festival right away, because any foreign impressario who graced these shores and gave us the benefit of his skill and experience would, under these proposals, be taboo. The place of origin of the programme must be within the United Kingdom—that, I suggest, must be termed the Everest clause—and the whole of the labour costs of the programme have to be payable in respect of British labour. I think it is a very fortunate thing that it is on record for the whole world to see what kind of Authority would be produced, and what kind of programme would be shown, if noble Lords opposite had their way. I am glad the noble Lord has
874
moved the Amendment, but I am even,more glad that he is about to withdraw it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thoroughly enjoyed hearing the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, because that is the line we should like the entertainment industry to take—that is, they should be on the attack with a view to getting reciprocal rights in America and other parts of the world. In fact, Lord Silkin's Amendment also goes a long way, because he is emphasising not British but United Kingdom tone and style. He is confining it right down to that, which goes further than the film quota. It is said about labour that we have to be certain that opportunities of employment in the industry are not lost. With your Lordships' permission, I will read part of a resolution passed by the American Federation of Labor two years ago at the Film Council in Hollywood. It began:
"Whereas we deem it grossly unfair and improper for American industry to attempt to sell American production to American workers by means of advertising films that have been made in foreign countries by foreign workers with the specific purpose of avoiding the wage and living standards which make purchases of our products in America possible …"
That resolution puts the other side of the matter. That is the sort of retaliation we want to get rid of. I am glad to say that British trade unions are making representations to their colleagues in America: they are saying, "If we allow 20 per cent. into this country, you must not worry if 1 or 2 per cent. of British stuff goes to America." That is the position at the present time. This will be a matter for the I.T.A. when it is appointed, but I notice that the B.B.C. recently made a contract in this direction: they obtained a certain amount of material from America, and I hope that a certain amount will be going back.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is it not a fact that special machinery exists for protecting the interests of labour?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes, there is, at the end.
LORD SILKIN: I was very interested in, and received a certain amount of entertainment from, the two former Liberals who are to-day sitting in art opposite direction. It is amusing that although they have travelled a long way from those days, they are still very much of one view. I did not appreciate that

875
the principle behind this Amendment was one from which the Government were now dissenting. I thought we were on common ground—indeed, it was the reply of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that the Government were in favour of ensuring that a large proportion of the programme would be British, and that the only disagreement between us was on whether a specific quota should be stated in the Bill or whether it should be left to the Authority. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has gone very much further than that. When noble Lords opposite read their briefs it ought to be quite clear that they are getting the same kind of briefs on the same Amendments, otherwise business becomes very difficult. I made a short statement on the assumption that, in spite of the noble Lord on this side and the noble Lord on that, we were in agreement on the objectives of this Bill; and it was only for that reason—accepting the assurance that we were in agreement but that the Government preferred to do it some other way by ensuring that the Authority were going to carry out this principle—that I said I would not press the Amendment. But if there is any idea that the Government are against the principle of securing the preference for British programme time then the position is very different indeed.
I may say that this is not a "one man" proposal: this is a proposal which is backed. as I said on an earlier Amendment, by all the organisations concerned with the entertainment world. Of course they have to give value; they have to produce the best programmes they can. But they have to be given a chance; and whereas they are quite prepared to face fair competition, some of the competition which they have had to face has been unfair. For example, there has been the importation of films produced in America, the cost of which has already been paid for by American viewers and which can thus be imported into this country at a low rate. The noble Earl himself read out the resolution of the American trade unions, and it indicates that we should be in a strong position if we were able to take reciprocal action. I feel that the reply of the noble Earl is not satisfactory and rather detracts from what was said earlier, with complete satisfaction so far as I was concerned, by the noble Viscount. I should be glad if the noble
876
Earl would reconcile those two statements and give us the assurance which I hoped to receive when I originally moved the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think the noble Lord is labouring this Amendment unnecessarily. I did not repeat every argument used by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, because I did not want to bore the Committee; but what I did do was to try to emphasise certain aspects of this matter which seemed important, because every word the noble Viscount has said I endorse. What I did say then—possibly I over-emphasised it in the excitement from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—was that reciprocal action (the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, emphasised that) was very important. I said that it was important to protect labour in this country, in certain cases. Of course we accept the proposition that a great deal of it must be British in origin—there is no question about that. How we do it is another matter, but I should be very happy if 40 per cent. were American in this country and 40 per cent. were British in America. If somebody made an arrangement of that sort, it would be satisfactory. But putting a fixed quota to some extent restricts that flexibility which might be more advantageous. I do not think the noble Lord need be anxious about withdrawing his Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Earl has gone a little bit nearer to what I had in mind. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2), after the first word "contractor" to insert "or advertiser." The noble Earl said: In the temporary absence of my noble and learned Leader, I think I can put the case for this Amendment on his behalf briefly. Subsection (2) of Clause 3 deals with the views of certain persons on political and other controversial subjects, which views it will be the duty of the Authority to exclude from broadcasts or from publications. These persons are the Authority itself and its employees, and the programme companies and their employees. This is the accepted practice in the case of the B.B.C., and it is right that in setting up a new organisation of this kind the same

877
practice should be applied. I must say that if the views of the Authority on these controversial subjects are to be excluded, I cannot see why the views of the firms of advertisers who pay for time for advertisements in these programmes should not also be excluded. It would seem to be quite logical to exclude all three categories of persons from taking an active part in political and other controversial discussions that may be broadcast by any of the programme companies. I hope very much that, even if this Amendment cannot be accepted, the Government can give us some assurance that it is the intention in any case that advertisers and their employees shall be excluded in the same way as the other persons mentioned in this subsection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 33, after ("contractor") insert ("or advertiser").—(The Earl of Listowell.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble Earl what he means by "advertiser"? Does he mean "advertising agent" or does he just mean anybody who uses television for advertising?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am speaking on behalf of my noble and learned friend—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I know, but it is very important.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: —and I should not like to take the responsibility of saying how he would define the word "advertiser." But I can speak for myself, at any rate, and I would say that "advertiser" ought to cover either "advertising agent" or an advertising firm—either agents employed by advertisers or the advertisers themselves.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The definition of "advertiser" by the noble Earl would mean anyone who is connected, as a director or as a partner, with a concern that uses the television medium for advertising. I submit that that is far too wide. We might lose the services of Mr. Malcolm Muggeridge in "In the News," because Punch was using television as an advertising medium. One could cite many other instances. Suppose The Times chose to advertise, as it might well do, through this new medium; then Sir William Haley would be precluded by the noble Earl from taking part in some very useful discussions to which he could
878
give an important contribution. I thick that the noble Earl, on reflection, will find that his definition goes far too wide and that the Amendment is not really necessary.
THE EARL of SELKIRK: This subsection relates to the subject of paragraph (g) above—that is, due impartiality in political or industrial controversy and in matters of current public policy. We want due impartiality, and we put that straight obligation at Clause 3 (1) (g), and we have added something to it. We have added this: that there should be no. What might be described as, "editorials"—that is to say, either by the Authority or by the programme contractors—in the sense in which any paper like The Times might contain an editorial. We think it is undesirable that even high-minded men like those who will serve the I.T.A. or programme contractors should be in such a strong position as to give a personal view on television, so we are inclined to cut that out. I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, is absolutely right in saying that if that is extended from the programme contractors and the Authority to all the people who may be advertising, all their employees and all their directors, it will cut out, or may cut out, a substantial body of people holding responsible positions, who have nothing to do with television and are possibly not the least interested in it, from taking part in important discussions.
The point at issue is: Can they use their privileged position in any way advantageously? I really do not think they can, in any sense. Perhaps I may take the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, as an example. He was, I believe, connected with the Co-operative Movement. If the "Co-ops" had chosen to advertise in this field, it would not have affected his views if he had spoken on some political controvery. I think it would be a great pity if he could not take part, just because his concern was in some way connected with advertising on television. I think it goes too wide and there is not the slightest danger of any undue influence being exercised.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I entirely agree with the view that the line has to be drawn very carefully, and it would be the gravest mistake to exclude from taking part In political discussions many responsible people whose businesses

879
might at some time or other be connected with this broadcasting service. In that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Earl opposite. At the same time, as I think the noble Earl himself admits, there is some risk of undue influence. He said he thought that risk could be discounted. and I hope he is right.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I said that there is a privileged position of the Authority and the programme companies. I do not think I said that there was any risk of undue influence from the advertisers, who have, after all, nothing whatsoever to do with the programmes. We are dealing only with the programmes here. Advertisements, as such, are dealt with by another provision altogether.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged for the reference to myself made by the noble Earl, but I must say that it has drawn me in, whereas otherwise I might not have been drawn in at all. The whole clause is very interesting. It brings us up against not only the word in the Amendment, "advertiser." but also "programme contractors." I have been very quiet about this Bill. I am sure I have not been objectionably obstructive about it. But if you are going to mention the Cooperative Society, with which I used to be connected by which I am now honourably superannuated, you are raising a great difficulty. You are raising something which affects trade, political views and everything else. It seems to me that, by this clause, you are going to exclude them from ever becoming programme contractors, although they are most adequately fitted to be one. Certainly I think a clause of this sort will be used objectively against their taking part, although they have been engaged for decades in organising entertainments, arranging debates, examining philosophies and the like. Apparently they will not have a chance to become a programme contractor for the production of programmes which could emanate entirely from or be contributed to by literary, musical and other elements contained within the training part of the movement, and all because of this particular clause. I must say the noble Earl has brought me to my feet on something I wanted to mention before in
880
connection with the Bill, and I do protest about it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I really think the noble Viscount has misunderstood this. Certainly the intention is not that. All it says here is that programme contractors cannot express their own views. I cannot, for the life of me, see how that would affect the Co-operative Societies if they wanted to advertise. The only thing before us is whether it should extend to someone who is advertising.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It applies directly to programme contractors. This clause will practically exclude the whole of the great organisation of Co-operative endeavour, including all the things which some subsidiary organisations of the Co-operative Societies have already been broadcasting quite frequently upon the sound service. I should say that this would handicap them from ever becoming their own programme contractors.
EARL DE LA WARR: The speech the noble Viscount has just delivered is a fairly strong argument against the Amendment and for leaving the clause as it is. I do not think he heard the beginning of the discussion or he would not have intervened. Perhaps I can suggest, for the benefit of his friend, Lord Listowel, who is trying to push the other way, that he should leave him to handle it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think there is a danger of some degree of undue influence. It might happen in this way: the programme contractor might invite, responsible people certainly, but people connected with firms that were doing advertising, that were engaged by them, or that were paying for advertisements in their programme, so as to give undue bias to their views as compared with other people who might be invited to take part.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This deals only with political controversy.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am talking about political controversy. I am saying that you might get too one-sided a view because the programme contractors might invite the representatives of those firms to the exclusion of other people better qualified to present a more balanced political argument. I think that is a real danger. At the same time,

881
I do think the Amendment goes too wide, and I do not consider it meets the danger which it was designed to meet. For that reason, I ask leave of the House to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to subsection (2); "or having a substantial shareholding therein". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 44. In view of the statement of the noble Earl, explaining the provisions of Clause 2, I do not think I need enlarge upon the purpose of it. The object of my Amendment is to accept the clause and accept the purpose of it, but to make quite sure that it really does achieve in all respects the purpose it had in mind. The clause provides that partners in a firm of programme contractors are excluded from taking part in publications; and it provides also that a body of persons haying control of a corporation are excluded.
I want to go just a little further and provide that those who have a substantial holding in a corporation should be excluded. My reason is simply this: that those of us who have any experience of companies will know that a body of persons having a substantial holding are quite often very influential indeed, and if they co-operate can very largely determine the policy of the company. It is not essential that there should be a majority holding; a substantial proportion can in many cases achieve the same result. In order to be consistent, therefore, what we are really aiming at is that any body or group of people who can influence the decision of a corporation should be excluded. I feel, like my noble friend, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that this clause is a very wide one. For instance, you may have a partnership of eight or nine people. You are excluding any person who is a partner in a firm. He may not even control the firm, but this clause excludes him. This Amendment is much stronger; it excludes a group of people having a substantial shareholding. I think, to be consistent, these words ought to be included. I therefore beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 36, at end insert the said words.—(Lord silkin.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is the same clause and I do not think I need
882
explain it again, except to say that this is by way of being an extension of the safeguards provided in paragraph (g) in regard to impartiality in public policy. We have effectively excluded the Authority and its servants, the programme contractor and his servants, and the controller. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, takes out the extreme instance of someone who may have a very effective control over one of the programme contractors but is not a director; he has not control, either direct or indirect. I would refer the noble Lord to Clause 17, where the word "control" is defined, if he has not looked at it already, which he probably has. The Amendment excludes somebody who is not a director and who has not got control, either direct or indirect.
I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. He admits that this clause is pretty widely drawn, by bringing in partners and that type of person. In what circumstances will a man be in a position of holding such a substantial holding that he can exercise influence but not be a director? I would suggest that that is almost always the case of a rigged company, or a rigged board of directors. If that is not the case, I do not quite see how he exercises control. If the directors are not his nominees, or if the board is not rigged, how can he exercise control? He may put his money in as a form of investment. The noble Lord can haw no objection to that. What he objects to is that the man exercises influence. The only way he can exercise influence is by nominating directors, and, with great respect, I should call that a rigged company. If it is a rigged company, it will be unsatisfactory to the I.T.A.—for a large number of reasons.
To begin with, the requirements of impartiality in paragraph (g) will certainly begin to show themselves. The I.T.A. will be on their guard against it, and the various safeguards will come into play. But the moment anything of that sort, directly or indirectly, came to the attention of the I.T.A., I am quite certain that they would be fully justified in using their powers under the Third Schedule. These powers are pretty extensive. They envisage that some unfortunate use would be made of the powers which this man possesses. With great respect to the noble Lord, l suggest that the circumstances envisaged are utterly remote; that even

883
if they did exist, there is ample provision in this Bill to deal with them. I really do not think we need to add what in any case is only another safeguard. I do not think there is any danger in the point that the noble Lord has in mind, and I hope he will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I think that the noble Earl is rather "playing down" the importance of this Amendment. I think it is important, and I do not think it is remote. I can quite conceive a body of people who have not a majority holding being able to exercise important influence over the policy of a company. However, I do not attach particular importance to this Amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will look at it again. I shall not press it. I do not think there is anything of policy between us. If we want to make these safeguards really watertight, I believe that this is worth looking at again. I hope the Government will do that. In the meantime, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved, in subsection (3) to leave out "of significant value," where that phrase first occurs. The noble Viscount said: For the reasons which I gave yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is unable to be here, and I am moving this Amendment on his behalf. I am sure that it will already have occurred to the Committee that the object of this Amendment and the next is to preclude the possibility of prizes being offered by way of advertisement, whether they are or are not in connection with competitions. I must say that it seems to me almost incredible that one should put into a Statute words of this kind, words which may afterwards have to be interpreted in a court. How is one to decide what is a prize "of significant value"? We all know enough of the enormously wide range of prizes now offered by way of trade advertisements. One has the scale extending upwards to one or two motor-cars, or the cost of a free Continental holiday; or it may be confined to quantities of soap as a free gift, or biscuits as a free gift, or things of that kind.
It may, however, be interpreted very widely in other directions. If, through
884
this limited provision for programme contractors, a co-operative advertiser obtained the opportunity to advertise co-operative sales, would the offer of dividends be "of significant value?" What are the actual benefits of becoming a trading co-operative member just by advertisement? Is the fact that they will get a dividend "of significant value"? Where lies the beginning and end of the interpretation of this phrase? I cannot possibly see how these words can be administered. I feel that when the Government have looked at this matter impartially they will see that the desirable objective at which they are aiming in this subsection will be endangered as a result of the inclusion of these words and the later lines of the subsection. That is why I want to prevent them from legislating at all for advertisements that offer prizes. I do not see how such a provision can be difficult to administer. It would be quite easy and quite fair to all the other people, whether or not they advertise through this particular medium.
I emphasise most strongly that not only will there be enormous controversy, between advertisers advertising through the contractors, but there will be differences of interpretation placed by the viewers upon the offers made over the television. I think that will lead to all sorts of difficulties. There are certain forms of trade advertisements contained in reputably published and clearly printed journals in which there is almost a form of contract as to what the prize will be and how it will be either given or competed for. But in the case of television and broadcasting I think that it is quite illusory—it will not be possible to create any impression upon the mind of the individual as to what is going to be the result of the advertisement. Therefore, I hope that the Government may reconsider the matter straight away, and will agree to this Amendment, which will make it perfectly clear that prizes may not in any circumstances whatever be offered on television. After all, the Government have not given us very much in regard to this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("of significant value").—(Viscount Alexander of Hills-borough.)
EARL JOWITT: I should like to reinforce in a few words what has been said

885
by my noble friend. I think the Government are quite right here in applying the principle to prohibit prizes and gifts, but I think that they should do it rather more clearly, without this qualifying phrase. What is a prize "of significant value?" To Mr. Rockefeller it would be one standard, but to a schoolboy who is prepared to pick up hot pennies it is quite another. These words may have to be construed by the courts, and it is going to be extremely difficult for the court to say whether the prize offered is "of significant value." Why not say simply that there must not be prizes or gifts? That is a very simple way out. I hope the noble Earl will give us this Amendment. It is a small Amendment, and does not in any way touch the vitals of the Bill—in fact, I think it improves the Bill.
We have had practically nothing from the Government; they have made no concession whatever on this Bill, except for two or three to which we are coming immediately, and which were offered before this Bill was debated in this House. As a result of our debates in this House we have got nothing whatever, and one wonders whether we are serving any useful purpose here at all, or whether we had not better pack up and say to the Government, "Well, this is your Bill; you had better take it away and administer it." This matter concerns the working of the House. I venture to say that your Lordships will be giving nothing away by agreeing to this Amendment. It would be more satisfactory to say in plain language that the giving of gifts or prizes is prohibited and to strike out this very difficult and ambiguous phrase, "of significant value." I see that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, is preparing to say something. Where it is possible to get clarity of language perfectly easily, as here, I believe that the noble Lord will be on our side, perhaps for the first time but I hope not for the last.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I ask Lord Jowitt this question? As I understand it, the Amendment would apply to what is broadcast, whether in an advertisement or not; that means that it would apply in the programme. Obviously, it would have to apply to the B.B.C. equally, and would it not have the effect of washing out those very harmless but enjoyable little gifts that Mr. Pickles gives—"Give 'em the money, Barney," is,
886
I think, the expression he uses—or even giving insignificant things like certificates to someone who has beaten the Panel in the "What's my line?" programme? Would not that be the effect of what the noble and learned Earl suggests?
EARL JOWITT: I do not think so, certainly not in respect of certificates given on "What's my line?" I do not know anything about Mr. Pickles' programme.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: He gives away a few shillings.
EARL JOWITT: I have not competed in that particular programme or won a prize, but I think it is best to have no prizes at all.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: You would spoil a lot of people's fun.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: In view of what happens in American broadcasting, I should like to ask whether the Government have in mind to permit or prohibit this kind of prize-giving. When I was last in America I tuned in to a broadcast programme modelled on our "Twenty Questions," to which I often listen in this country; but there every question was connected with a prize gift. At the end of each question the announcer said, "This question was sent in by Mrs. So-and-so, of such-and-such an address. She has accordingly received a valuable crocodile skin leather case made by Messrs. So-and-so, of No. 499 124th Street, New York." A similar announcement followed every question when the answer wags given, and similar crocodile skin leather cases were awarded. The consequence was that the questions were hurried over and were not nearly so good as our "Twenty Questions" programme, because the announcer wanted to get them finished as quickly as possible in order to have as many repetitions of the advertisement within the given time as could be got in; because, of course, every one was paid for. I want to know whether that kind of gift system, which might grow to an enormous extent on these advertisement programmes, is to be allowed in this country or not. Does this clause apply to it or not? I imagine that it does not apply because it says:
or any gift of significant value, being a prize or gift which is available only to persons receiving that programme, or in relation to which any advantage is given to such persons."

887
The people who receive the gifts are persons who send in the questions, and the advantage goes to the shopkeeper who provides the prizes—perhaps ten of them given within a quarter of an hour. That is a concrete example of the kind of thing which will become rife all over this country as soon as this Bill comes into operation.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we must all regard the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, as a most fortunate person, in that he seems to be in the happy position of feeling it is an open question whether a crocodile skin case is "of significant value" or not. Most of us who live more humble lives are perfectly clear in our minds that a crocodile skin case, particularly when it is described as of value, is, in fact, "of significant value." On this question, I confess that I have a very open mind. As the noble and learned Earl said, we are completely together in principle. The real "give away" programme is most undesirable, and we have made that perfectly clear in the Bill. But one does not want to be silly. We know that quite simple people in villages are sometimes harried because of little raffles that they run. They are very harmless, and although there is a little legal quibble they get round it, and then have trouble about it. We do not want to start that kind of thing. Noble Lords who listen in to the B.B.C., will know that Wilfred Pickles now runs a good programme where the successful person to answer a certain number of questions gets a pound in his hand. It might even be that if we accepted this Amendment the B.B.C. would have to cut out certain elements in its "What's my Line?" programme. I should be sorry, to accept an Amendment that led to our having to prevent the B.B.C. from carrying on quite innocent programmes like that. We are really at one on this, and perhaps we can have a discussion between now and Report in order to see whether we can deal with this subject on a reasonable basis.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am obliged for the answer of the noble Earl, the Postmaster General. I do not accept at all the analogy of the Wilfred Pickles programme. That is not a case of an advertiser giving away prizes; it is a
888
gift to people in the localities which he visits for the purpose of entertaining them and others who listen-in in other districts. There is no point in that illustration at all.
EARL DE LA WARR: The clause refers to programmes; the Amendment would apply to Wilfred Pickles.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Why this should apply to the B.B.C. I do not know. We are seeking to apply this to an advertising arrangement—a very different thing. There is to be no advertising on the B.B.C. I am quite willing, however, to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl that we should have conversations about this matter before the Report stage of the Bill, and an that understanding we will withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Let us be quite clear. I have not gone into this, but we can enter conversations only on the assumption that if an imposition or prohibition is put upon this undertaking, there should be a similar obligation upon the B.B.C. We should not like to go into conversations on any other basis. No advertiser may offer a significant prize in the advertising part; therefore, what we are dealing with here is the programme itself and a prize that is part of, or arises out of, the programme. That would not be permitted. It would be quite wrong to impose such a restriction on the undertaking we are setting up unless we also do it to the B.B.C. It is exactly like the other things we are discussing. I do not want to discuss it further but, so that we shall have no misunderstanding, I think that would be the view of the Government if it were discussed.
EARL JOWITT: Has the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, already discussed with the B.B.C. the question of putting upon them a prohibition in respect of prizes "of significant value"?
EARL DE LA WARR: We should deal with that as it occurred, and it has not yet occurred.
EARL JOWITT: You have a perfect illustration on this Bill; you are proposing, I think very rightly, to prevent any prizes of significant value being given, and with regard to the B.B.C. you have made no such statement. Therefore I merely suggest that in our conversations that question (which is one which should certainly be discussed) might be left open.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we have made our own point clear. I made the suggestion of discussions only in order to meet noble Lords opposite. If you feel you want to continue this controversy here that may be done; but I thought my offer of talks might be helpful.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am quite prepared to discuss the matter, but it was narrowed by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, to such close confines. I am quite prepared to join in conversations to see whether we cannot come to an understanding. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.40 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL moved to add to the clause:
"(4) Except with the previous approval of the Authority, there shall not be included in any programme broadcast by the Authority—

(a) any religious service or any propaganda relating to matters of a religious nature;

(b) any item, whether an advertisement or not, which gives or is designed to give publicity to the needs or Objects of any association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes."

The right reverend Prelate said: I am afraid that, speaking on another Amendment, as the circumstances were a little unexpected and unfamiliar to me, I may have given the impression of not quite knowing my own mind. But I am certain that in moving this Amendment I know my own mind very clearly indeed. I believe that this Amendment is essential to the wholesomeness, dignity and freedom of religious broadcasting. I am thankful to know that Her Majesty's Government are inclined favourably to consider it, and therefore I need spend little time in presenting the case. There are, however, just one or two things which I would ask leave to say.
A few moments ago I said that I believed the Amendment was essential to the freedom of religious broadcasting. I am not one who is ever afraid of argument, or discussion, or even controversy, in religion. I believe that sound religion thrives on that; I am in favour of the fullest possible opportunity for it on the air. But even in religious discussion and controversy there are, I suppose, such things as Queensberry Rules, and it is desirable that these rules should be kept.
890
These Amendments which I am proposing are not intended in any way to short-circuit the freedom of expression of different convictions and traditions. They are intended only to prevent what I believe Members of this House would wish to prevent—what I would call an unregulated, competitive buying of time in order to sell particular denominational or religious views. That I believe to be a most undesirable practice which we should wish to prevent. There are those, I think, who might well hope that this new medium of television might afford them an opportunity for that particular kind of activity. I hope that the Committee will be prepared to accept this Amendment. It affords, I believe, a fair, honest and effective way of preventing the undesirable practice of which I have spoken. I beg to move.
Amendment moves—
Page 6, line 42, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Bishop of Bristol.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I should like to say straight away that I am extremely pleased to accept this Amendment. I do so because I think it effects an improvement in the Bill, and also because I think it is a clarification. That, in itself, is an improvement. There is no question but that there have been some lingering doubts in certain minds on the subject of the buying of time in programmes by religious bodies. Though I took the view that that was made impossible by the machinery of the mandatory Religious Advisory Committee, whose advice was binding on the programme contractors, I think it is very much better to be completely clear on this point. Now everything is subject to the Religious Advisory Committee, excepting where the Authority otherwise decides. The noble Earl, Lord Winterton, has now left the Chamber, but I hope that his attention will be drawn to this. If the Churches' Religious Advisory Committee took, as they never have taken, too narrow a view, then, of course, the last word would rest with the I.T.A. But, having regard to the conduct of the Committee in the past, and in view of what the right reverend Prelate said yesterday, I do not think any of us could possibly conceive of any difficulty arising. I repeat that I am very pleased to accept this Amendment which, as I say, I consider to be an improvement and a clarification.
LORD MATHERS: May I say how pleased I am to hear the words that have fallen from the lips of the noble Earl Lord De La Warr. I think this makes the position which I was endeavouring to contend for last evening much clearer, and this is something that can well be accepted by those who shared the fears and apprehensions that were in my mind. It seems to me that, with the position of the Authority set out as it is, even when they allow things to be done under advice by the Advisory Committee, the final authority still rests with the I.T.A. itself. I am very glad indeed to think that that should be so.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The right reverend Prelate, in moving this Amendment, dealt with subsection (a) of the Amendment. I cannot see what subsection (b) means or whether it has any relevance to subsection (a). Would the right reverend Prelate be kind enough to explain? Subsection (b) reads:
"any item, whether an advertisement or not, which gives or is designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes."
What has that to do with religious broad-casting?
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: I think the point is that in addition to buying time on the air it is also possible for well-disposed and wealthy people to offer free time to a body on the air. There are a number of religious bodies which could, I think, very well present their case as being a case for additional funds and additional workers, and which could set out additional needs of various other kinds and, by a rather skilful use of their time, do a good deal of advocacy for their cause under conditions which are left out by subsection (a). I confess that if I had been drafting this Amendment myself, I should have been inclined to use some such words as
"which is designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association conducted for religious, charitable or benevolent purposes."
But it was thought proper to draft this part of the Amendment in this way.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I should like to ask that at the Report stage, it should be drafted in the way suggested. As it stands you could not, for instance, show in a programme a house held by the National Trust or other of the National
892
Trust properties—and the National Trust is a legal charity—without getting the advice of the Religious Advisory Committee, which would be perfectly ridiculous. Would it not be better to put in subsection (b) a special reference to religious charities which would make the matter perfectly clear?
EARL JOWITT: I think the noble Viscount has a rather good point there. I have an Amendment down—it is No. 102—which I intended should deal with this very point. Perhaps this is a matter that might be looked at, and possibly our conversations with the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, might extend to this topic. I think we should all agree that it is very undesirable that associations or organisations which are charities in the ordinary sense should buy time and advertise and compete against each other. I agree with the noble Viscount that if we were to say: "In your programme you are not to refer to any of these good causes" those concerned might find themselves terribly handicapped in what they could put in the programme. I think this is a matter which needs to be looked at, and I will ask the Postmaster General whether we might have a look at it when we are considering the other topics which were mentioned a few minutes ago.
EARL DE LA WARR: The actual purpose of this Amendment is slightly to extend the Authority's surveillance beyond religious matters to charities. At the present moment there is provision for appeals on various programmes, and we feel that appeals made on behalf of charities should be subject to the same rules as on the B.B.C. It should not be a matter of some large charity with plenty of money, who might put on an expensive documentary, getting all the money of the week, and when the "Week's Good Cause" comes along on Sunday, it is found that everybody has already "shelled out." But I am willing to talk with the noble and learned Earl on this matter.
LORD MATHERS: There seems to be some failure to apprehend what is in this Amendment. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, seemed to think that the items referred to in paragraph (b) were being completely prohibited, but that is not so. They can be brought in with the previous

893
approval of the Authority, the supreme body under which this new instrument is being created.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Advertisements
4.—(1) The programmes broadcast by the Authority may, so long as the provisions of this Act are complied with in relation thereto, include advertisements inserted therein in consideration of payments to the relevant programme contractor or, in the case of an advertisement included in a programme or part of a programme provided under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section two of this Act, to the Authority.
5.52 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (1), to omit "under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section two of this Act," and to insert, "by the Authority." The noble Earl said: This is rather a different point. I do not know whether there is any great controversy between us. The Postmaster General will tell me whether there is or not. I am proposing here to do two things—to leave out the words "under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section two of this Act," and to insert "by the Authority." So the subsection will read as follows:
"The programmes broadcast by the Authority may, so long as the provisions of this Act are complied with in relation thereto, include advertisements inserted therein in consideration of payments to the relevant programme contractor or, in the case of an advertisement included in a programme or part of a programme provided by the Authority, to the Authority."
I suggest that that simplifies the matter. I do not know whether the noble Earl has any real objection to that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 1, leave out from ("provided") to ("to") in line 2 and insert ("by The Authority").—(Earl Jowitt.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble and learned Earl is pursuing what was the first stage of my thoughts in this matter. Then it seemed to me that if we were inserting a provision in Clause 9 to provide £750,000 for the express purpose of making it possible to have programmes not connected with advertisements, it would not be logical then to associate them with advertisements, and for that reason I was responsible for this change.
894
I thought the whole purpose of this £750,000 was to make it possible to have programmes to which advertisements were not attached. I hope that the noble and learned Earl will feel convinced and not press the point.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I put this point? It would be a duty of the Authority to balance the programme of a commercial company if that company does not produce a balanced programme. That is an obligation. Suppose a company were to put on a lot of light music and very little serious music, then it would be the duty of the Authority to put on serious music, a symphony concert or something of the kind. Under the Bill as it stands they would be prohibited from getting any revenue from advertisements on a programme of that type. That means that the programme of serious music would have to be financed out of the taxpayers' money. Why should not the Authority be given, a chance of saving the taxpayers' money by having the right to invite advertisements for suitable programmes? Obviously a religious programe is not a suitable programme, but if part of their duty is to balance the prograntmes of commercial companies, obviously there are some programes with which advertisements could he associated. I hope the noble Earl will consider whether it would not be to the great advantage of the taxpayers that in suitable cases the Authority should be able to include advertisements in any programme they themselves may provide.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Earl has made a logical point, but I would say to him that if the programme company were producing a fundamentally unbalanced programme, it is not for the Authority to come in and insert material of their own; it is for the Authority to use their power to compel the programme company to carry out their instructions to provide a balanced programme. On the other hand there might be a particular programme which the Authority were very anxious to have, probably one that was very uncommercial in character, on which they felt it most undesirable to have advertisements. In that case they would have the programme put on and pay for it themselves.
EARL JOWITT: I certainly cannot divide on this Amendment. I will look

895
at it again in the light of the noble Earl's words and consider it. As it is at present, I am anxious to see that if the Authority have default power, then they have the right to make some revenue by advertisements out of the exercise of that power.
EARL DE LA WARR: I would point out to the noble and learned Earl that under Clause 2 (2) (b), where the Authority exercise default power, in the event of there being a gap, they can have advertisements.
EARL JOWITT: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN: I beg leave to move this Amendment. It is pure and unadulterated drafting. It does in twenty-six words what the original clause does in forty-seven, and I think it does everything that the original clause does.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 and insert—
("(4) After consultation with the Authority the Postmaster-General may make regulations by Statutory Instrument amending, repealing, or adding to any of the provisions of the said Schedule:")—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL DE LA WARR: It is not often that any of us succeed in beating the Government draftsman, but in this case he freely admits that this is an improvement and I gladly accept this Amendment, subject to one small point. If the noble Lord would be prepared to omit the words "any of" in the last line but one, I should be grateful, otherwise his paragraph has an unduly limited effect.
LORD SILKIN: Of course, I gladly accept that. It reduces the number of words to twenty-four. I withdraw my Amendment and move it again in its altered form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 and insert—
("(4) After consultation with the Authority the Postmaster-General may make regulations by Statutory Instrument amending, repealing, or adding to the provisions of the said Schedule:")—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: This Amendment and No. 53 are both drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 22.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LIVERPOOL: I understand that this Amendment is consequential to Amendment No. 47, which has already been agreed to, and brings the wording into conformity with that Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 46, after ("needs"), insert ("or objects").—(The Lord Bishop of Liverpool.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: As I have said, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 22, leave out from ("under") to second ("the") in line 23 and insert ("this section").—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether "this section" means the whole of Clause 4.
EARL DE LA WARR: We have two obligations in one clause to have the Affirmative Resolution procedure. All we have done is to take those two obligations and put them into one subsection.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The Affirmative Resolution procedure is retained for the whole clause?
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes, for the whole lot.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
"5. Without prejudice to any other application to the said advertisements of the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1953, any communication broadcast in the said advertisements, whether an express communication or a communication by representation or inference,—

(a) shall be deemed to be a commercial communication for the purposes of section ten of the Patents, etc. (International Conventions) Act, 1938; and

(b) if in that communication a trade mark or mark or trade description is used in a manner calculated to lead to the belief that the goods in connection with which it is used are designated or described by that

897
trade mark or mark or trade description, shall constitute the application of a trade description to those goods."

The noble Lord said: This and the next Amendment, in the name of my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, cover the same point and are really alternatives. They deal with complicated questions arising out of the Merchandise Marks Acts which, as your Lordships know, give certain rights to the owners of trade-marks and also lay down certain provisions for the protection of consumers. I can say now that I will withdraw the Amendment if the Postmaster General, or someone, can give me an assurance on the point. I understand that the main point—namely, the protection of the consumer from the use of false descriptions of goods, and so on—is covered by Amendment No. 77 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, which no doubt has been put down on behalf of the Government and under which it is provided that one of the duties of one of the advisory committees to be set up, or arranged, by the Authority, will be to advise as to the exclusion of misleading advertisements from programmes. It may be that in quite simple language that deals with a most complicated problem. If that is so, and if I receive an assurance that that is as far as the Government can go in that direction, I shall be willing to withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure your Lordships are most indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, for moving this Amendment with such brevity and common sense. This is a highly complicated subject. What I would say to the Committee is that if it were necessary to do anything in relation to the Merchandise Marks Acts it should be done in a Merchandise Marks Act; this is not the place to do it. The subject raises a host of complicated considerations with which I need not bother your Lordships now. What I can say to the noble Lord is this. I have here a letter from the Retail Trading Standards Association saying that they thoroughly approve of the new Amendment to the Television Bill—that relates to Amendment No. 77, which will be moved in due course and is designed to prevent mis-
898
leading advertisements. That fully covers the point which did at one time give them a measure of anxiety. I am able to give that assurance to the noble Lord.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am obliged to the noble Earl. I understood him to say that he had the approval or agreement of some association. If that is the British Trading Standards Association, I may say that they are closely concerned with this matter of false descriptions. Having regard to what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Contracts for programmes
5.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that persons who are disqualified persons as defined in this subsection do not become or continue as programme contractors, either alone or in partnership with other persons.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that there is adequate competition to supply programmes between a number of programmes contractors independent of each other both as to finance and as to control; and, in the case of such public ceremonies, public spectacles and important sporting event; as may from time to time be agreed upon between the Authority and the Postmaster-General or, in default of agreement, determined by the Postmaster-General, it shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that no broadcast thereof takes place from any television station as part of the broadcasts of the Authority, unless, in the opinion of the Authority, reasonable facilities are available or reasonable terms for the broadcasting thereof from all television broadcasting stations in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, whether used by the Authority or by the British Broadcasting Corporation.
(5) The contracts between the Authority and the various programme contractors shall contain all such provisions (including provisions for the purposes set out in the Third Schedule to this Act) as the Authority think necessary or expedient to be inserted for complying and securing compliance with the provisions of this Act and any restrictions or requirements imposed thereunder in relation to the programmes provided by the programme contractors:
Provided that the Authority shall not be enabled by any such contract to exercise any such power as is referred to in the said Third Schedule unless they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so having regard to a breach which they apprehend on the part of the programme contractor of any provision included in the contract in pursuance of this subsection.
(6) Every such contract shall in particular contain such provisions as the Authority think necessary or expedient as aforesaid for the

899
payment by the programme contractor to the Authority of sums by way of penalty in the event of such breaches of his contract as may be specified in those provisions, and any such provision as is mentioned in this subsection shall be valid and enforceable in accordance with the terms thereof notwithstanding any rule of law restricting the cases in which or the extent to which provisions for penalties are legally enforceable:
Provided that every such contract shall be such as to secure—

(a) that the maximum penalty which may be demanded by the Authority by virtue of this subsection in the case of any breach shall not exceed five hundred pounds; and

(b) without prejudice to the power of the parties to agree upon any wider form of arbitration provision, that any dispute whether any such breach of contract has occurred as to give rise to a liability to such a penalty as aforesaid, or as to the amount demanded by way of penalty in respect of any such breach, shall be determined by arbitration.

(7) Without prejudice to the previous provisions of this section, every contract between the Authority and a programme contractor shall contain a provision reserving to the Authority an absolute right, if, in view of any breaches by the programme contractor of his obligations under his contract with the Authority, the Authority, after giving the programme contractor a reasonable opportunity of making representations with respect to the matter, think it necessary so to do, to serve on the programme contractor a notice in writing, taking effect forthwith or on a date stated in the notice, to determine or suspend for such period as may be specified in the notice or until a further notice is given the Authority's obligation to transmit the programmes supplied by the programme contractor (without prejudice, however, to the programme contractor's obligations as to the supply of programmes up to the date when the notice takes effect); and where a notice is given in pursuance of a right reserved in accordance with this subsection, the programme contractor shall not be entitled to any compensation from the Authority or to any refund of any sum previously paid by him or to any relief from any liability which has accrued at the date when the notice takes effect for any sums payable by him to the Authority:
Provided that the contract shall be such as to secure that no notice is given in pursuance of a right reserved as aforesaid unless such penalties as are mentioned in subsection (6) of this section have been paid or agreed to be paid or adjudged by arbitration to be payable by the contractor in respect of breaches of the contract occurring on at least three separate occasions.
(8) The provisions of this section relating to breaches of contract on the part of programme contractors shall be without prejudice to any other remedies of the Authority for the enforcement of their rights in respect of contracts with programme contractors, and shall not, except as expressly provided therein, affect the jurisdiction of any court in respect of such contracts.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: We now come on the Marshalled List of Amendments to Amendment No. 56, but I think that should really come after the Amendments to Clause 5. Therefore, I will call Amendment No. 57.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "to do all that they can." The noble Earl said: The point here is a quite simple one. What I want to ask the Government, in moving this Amendment, is why they wish to qualify the obligation they are placing upon the Authority by the words which I am proposing to leave out. The obligation is perfectly clear. It is one to see that people who are disqualified do not act as programme contractors; and if they do become programme contractors, then they should be removed as soon as possible. What puzzles me—I hope that the noble Earl can explain it satisfactorily—is why this obligation should, as it would seem to me, be weakened by the words "to do all that they can." Presumably, it would be possible, if the wording of the clause were left as it is, for a disqualified person—a foreigner, or whoever it may be—to become a programme contractor if the Authority had done their best but failed to prevent it. There seems to be a certain loophole there. I would hope that the Government could make this obligation unconditional. That is really the simple point of my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 27, leave out the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I can tell the noble Earl why it was put in this form. Once the Authority know, then obviously there is an obligation upon them to act. If the Authority have ascertained that somebody has become a disqualified person, then there is clearly an obligation on the Authority there and then to do one of two things. If they feel the person has not been gravely at fault, then they should tell him to remedy the defect and become respectable again, as it were—we shall have to deal with that in the next Amendment. On the other hand, if they are satisfied that there is a clear default, then they must say: "You have ceased to be a programme contractor." In order to secure this, they have to find out something which prima facie is not within their

901
knowledge. It is not as if I said to the noble Earl that he must not do so and so. Clearly, the noble Earl would know at once whether he was or was not doing what the Act of Parliament told him not to do. Here the duty to enforce compliance with the Act arises only when they have found out what the circumstances are which makes it a duty for them to act. Therefore, the draftsman preferred to use the words, as it was something the Authority had got to find out, "do all that they can to secure," instead of putting an absolute obligation upon them.
I have taken such legal advice as I can, and I am advised that, so far as we can make out, it would make no difference whether these words are in or not—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would agree with this—because if, in fact, the Authority had taken all reasonable steps they would have complied with the clause. There is no penalty upon them. You cannot put the Authority in the dock and fine them because they have not taken all reasonable steps. Presumably somebody could bring an action for mandamus or some-thing like that. I am very nervous of using all these legal terms, but I am glad to say that the House is almost devoid of legal talent at the moment. I think the best thing for me to do would be to let the lawyers have a look at it and make sure that the provisional legal opinion that they have given me—because I said I did not see why I could not accept this Amendment—is right. If I am correct in what am saying, that it-fact it does not make any difference, then the words will be unnecessary. There are several places in the Act where they are necessary, where it is a case of using your best endeavours to find something out. I do not mind accepting the Amendment now and, if I am told that I am wrong, putting the words back on Report. I will do whatever the noble Earl prefers.
EARL DE LA WARR: I rather hope that the noble Earl will allow them to stay in until we can find out whether they can be omitted, because upon me falls the responsibility of conducting the work of the I.T.A. If I ask them, without any qualification, to secure something, when there is an element of great difficulty in doing that they may say, "You have taken out these words and we, as responsible people, cannot take it on." There is a serious point there. I
902
agree that if the words do not perform a function, then by all means let them come out.
LORD SILKIN: This is not a very big point, but I must confess that, looking at it as objectively as I can, I consider that some words are necessary.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Some words like these?
LORD SILKIN: I am not at all sure that they are the best words, but I do not think you can put an absolute obligation on the Authority which they may not be in a position to fulfil.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I wanted to meet him if I could, but I think we ought to keep the words in for the time being.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Viscount and the noble Earl. I think their proposal is entirely reasonable. Let us leave these words in and discuss the matter with the draftsman between now and Report stage. There are three courses open to us: either leave the words as they are now, find another formula, or leave them out.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If they are to stay in, I do not see that we can have stronger words to tell a person to do his best than "Do all you can."
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: If you tell a man he is to secure something and he says, "I did everything I could to secure it," that is an answer. We are making very heavy weather over a matter of drafting, believe me, and I know something about this business.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: With that undertaking, I gladly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.14 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to the first paragraph of subsection (1):
"without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing it shall be the duty of the Authority to ensure that every contract entered into with a programme contractor provides that if at any time after the execution of the contract it shall appear to the Authority that the programme contractor shall have become or shall have entered into partnership with a disqualified person the contract shall he determined automatically, and it shall be lawful for the Authority in such case to give notice to the programme contractor in writing declaring the contract to be at end, and where

903
such a notice is given but no such disqualification has in fact been incurred the contract shall nonetheless be determined but subject to any right to recover damages for breach thereof which may enure to the benefit of the programme contractors."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is on the same point. I could make a long speech in explanation of it, but I shall be quite content if I receive the same assurance as was given on the previous Amendment that this matter will be looked at again. This Amendment is designed to ensure that the Authority put into their contract a provision that programme contractors are not to appoint as directors, or to go into partnership with, disqualified persons. Looking at this again, I think the penalty of immediate automatic determination of a contract is rather harsh, and on further consideration I do not think I should feel prepared to press it. It is a sanction which might be out of all proportion to the offence involved. On the other hand, as the clause stands there is no sanction at all. The Authority are required to do something, but what is to happen if the programme contractor, despite the pressure of the Authority, defies them? It may or may not be a breach of contract. It would, however, be a breach if words corresponding to my Amendment were included, because it would be part of the contract that they are not to take in disqualified persons. We are now getting on to fine legal points which I should be quite happy to develop, but I do not think the Committee want to do that. Therefore, I will move the Amendment in the hope that the noble Viscount will agree to have it looked at again to ensure that there is some sanction provided in the Bill for people who do something in defiance of the Authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 31, at end insert the said words.—(Lord silkin.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Part of this Amendment might be all right, but part of it would certainly not be right at all. Let me take the part that obviously is not right. Supposing that, quite inadvertently, a programme contractor has acquired a shareholding in a company, and that control had passed to somebody on the prohibited list. The noble Lord knows what I mean: it might happen that somebody had acquired a share-
904
holding under somebody's will. When he finds out, the programme contractor has a duty to comply with the Act of Parliament. If the Authority discovered this and the contractor had not, it would be the duty of the Authority to bring it to his notice and tell him to correct it. It would be very unfair in a case like that—and we can all think of other cases—to say that an enormous contract, in which a couple of million pounds had been invested should be determined. Obviously the thing to do is to remedy the mistake as soon as it can be done. The noble Lord accepts that.
The other side of the matter is that we should put into an Act of Parliament something to say that when the Authority are making a contract—and I agree that we depend here on contractual relationship; that is the structure and notion of this—they should put in a clause to say that this and that must be complied with; that you shall not allow yourself to become illegitimate, if I may so phrase it. I doubt whether it is necessary or wise to put those words in, but I will have a look at the point. There is a duty imposed in the Bill upon the Authority to ensure that a programme contractor does not become, or continue to be, disqualified. It may be that that should go into the contract, but if that is so, would not that be forced upon him by the words we have already used—either an absolute obligation or a qualified one to do everything possible to ensure that the proper thing happens? What I think would be dangerous would be, on the expressio unius principle, to say that this and that must be put into the contract. Either everything ought to be in a contract, or nothing, because it is already an obligation under the Act of Parliament. Having said that, I think that is probably the reason why it is not there. I will ask the lawyers to look at this matter, and if they advise that some Amendment is necessary I shall be glad to let the noble Lord know.
LORD SILKIN: I hope that the noble Viscount will appreciate that if the Bill puts an obligation on the Authority there will be no means of enforcing it. I can see that this Amendment goes too far, but I think the noble Viscount has the point, and I am very much obliged to him. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2), after the second "that" to insert:
"on each broadcasting station operated by the Authority."
The noble Earl said: The noble Viscount opposite will remember that during the Second Reading debate a good deal of anxiety was expressed by several noble Lords, and particularly the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Liberal Party, about the danger that local broadcasting monopolies would be created from the fact that one programme director would acquire the right to the whole of the broadcasting time on one station. The object of this Amendment is to prevent such a local monopoly. I am not at all sure that this is the right form of words, but if it is the intention of the Government to prevent local monopolies perhaps they will be able to suggest another form of words. May I read to your Lordships the first four lines of this subsection as they now stand:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all they can to secure that there is adequate competition to supply programmes between a number of programme contractors independent of each other both as to finance and as to control."
That is a general duty to secure competition. But is it sufficiently specific? There is no definition in the Bill of "adequate competition." Perhaps it is impossible to define.
The Government have stated what they mean by "adequate competition" and of course it might mean no more than that no one programme contractor will control the time of more than one station. If that is the meaning, there would be what I may call horizontal competition, competition between different contractors, in different parts of the country, broadcasting from different stations; but that is by no means a guarantee that there would not be a vertical monopoly.
What I should like the Government to explain, in reply to this Amendment, is whether they consider that the subsection as it now stands would prevent a local monopoly; and, if not, are they prepared to suggest some form of Amendment which would secure that object? I beg leave to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 8, after ("that") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I put my name to this Amendment because I am anxious to secure some elucidation of the point raised by me in the Second Reading debate. On that occasion I ventured to interrupt the noble Earl the Postmaster General in the course of his speech. On that occasion I said. (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 188 (No. 86), col. 194):
"My Lords, I did not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, but there is one point with which he has not dealt in his speech and with which I expected he would deal."
Later I said:
"He also mentioned that it was proposed, in the first instance, to set up three stations. Is there to be competition between the contractors for the use of those three stations, or is one contractor to be licensed for a period of time for each station?"
The reply seemed to me to be somewhat cryptic, as it did to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who asked for a clear reply. The Postmaster General, in his speech, ended his answer to us both by saying (col. 195):
"What is laid down, and if this Bill is passed will become the law, is that adequate competition shall be ensured. I can give the noble and learned Earl the definite answer that the Government intend to ensure that that is done."
The Postmaster General, who was good enough to interrupt me in the course of my own speech, then used these words (col. 221):
"I said quite clearly that the words in the Bill showed that there shall be no new monopoly, and that there shall be adequate competition. I did not inform noble Lords what steps would be taken to enforce that."
We have put down this Amendment in order that the Postmaster General may have the opportunity of telling us how this competition is to be obtained, or whether in each of the stations (there are to be three at the beginning) there will be licensed for a period, whether for one year or for ten, one programme contractor; and, if that is so, whether that will fulfil the very clear and specific undertaking that he gave on Second Reading.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Before the noble Earl replies, may I add a plea to the Postmaster General to treat this Amendment as it is intended. The Amendment is designed to allay genuine fears without taking away anything from the essential qualities of the Bill. Supposing this Amendment is accepted—and

907
this is a plea I want to put quite shortly to the Postmaster General—all that will be said in the subsection, unless I have misread it, is this:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that on each broadcasting station there is adequate competition."
It is a very modest Amendment which does not impose an absolute obligation. I frankly admit that I should have liked to see an absolute obligation, but the Amendment does not seek to do that. We have not sought to do anything in the Amendment which could legitimately be said to interfere with the principles of the Bill which the Government secured on Second Reading.
We want to know from the Government how they regard the matter of local monopoly. When the Bill was read a second time, the House was told, and no doubt the Government sincerely believed it though we challenged it, that the whole issue was between monopoly and competition, and the Government came down on the side of competition against monopoly. It so happens that I am entirely in that camp. I would not be a member of the Party of which I am a member if that were not so. I gave the House my reasons for thinking the application of the principle was misunderstood by the Government on Second Reading. When I see the Government proposing a system of television the effect of which may be, so far as one can tell, to erect a series of local monopolies over the country for the purpose of television, I am bound to inquire of the Government how that squares with the principle of competition as against monopoly. Because these three broadcasting stations will not in effect be competing against one another or against the B.B.C. Whatever they are competing against, they will not be competing against one another. When it is said, "We are going to leave that to the Independent Television Authority because we trust the Independent Television Authority," I must plead with the Government that that is not good enough.
We are told that the whole object of this Bill is to secure competition. We are entitled to know, surely, what the policy of the Government is to be about this. Is it to secure competition on each broadcasting station, is it to erect a chain of local monopolies or are we going to be
908
left in doubt, having passed the Bill, as to which of those two very different things is going to be attempted? Surely the I.T.A. ought to be given some guidance, and surely we should be told what guidance it is to be given. There has been no lack of guidance in other matters. There has been no lack of directions to the Television Authority about, for instance, the use of studios or the provision of programmes. There has been no undue trust of the Television Authority in relation to matters of that kind. Surely we are not asking too much when we ask the Government to tell us what guidance they have to give to the Television Authority in this matter, much of which goes to the root of the whole Bill.
I venture to close, modestly I hope, with the sentiment with which I began. Let the Postmaster General look at the wording of this Amendment. All that it proposes to do in terms, and all that it can do in law, is to impose upon the Television Authority the obligation, not an absolute obligation but a qualified obligation, to do all that they can to see that there is adequate competition, not merely on the air in general but at each broadcasting station which they operate. Therefore, I do respectfully submit to the Postmaster General that there is nothing in this Amendment offensive to the principles to which the Government have committed themselves, and that they might do well to accept it as well as give the statement of policy which has been asked for—if they can do so in the howling gale which appears to be rushing through the Chamber.
6.33 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for putting down this Amendment because I think it gives us an opportunity for a useful and important discussion. I know that this is a point about which noble Lords are deeply anxious. I am, in fact, going to ask your Lordships not to press this Amendment, and I am afraid one of the reasons I shall give is the reason which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, asked me not to give—which is that I feel that the Bill is fundamentally right in saying that this is a matter that should, subject to the proviso which is already in the Bill, be dealt with by the I.T.A. On the other hand, whether the duty is laid on me or not, it is perfectly obvious that I, as the Departmental Minister responsible,

909
would be expected to give some guidance and to express my views to the I.T.A., and I think your Lordships are clearly entitled to ask me what that guidance would be.
First of all, with regard to the point that has been particularly raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel: I remember he made a most eloquent, albeit inaccurate, speech on my behalf yesterday, when he said that if I were making the speech I should be making a passionate plea on behalf of the local monopoly. I do not want to disappoint him, but I must say that I have some considerable sympathy with the point of view that has been expressed about the dangers of establishing a commercial monopoly—not, of course, a monopoly of television, because, in fact, if there were only one other service it would provide competition. But I quite appreciate the point that noble Lords have made that there would not in fact be commercial competition. I think that point has been made clear.
All of us, I think, who are trying to face the problem—certainly the Government who have to be responsible for this policy—have to recognise that, whatever we do about making provision for competition in the existing circumstances, that competition is bound to be limited. Your Lordships know that we are only just coming to operate on Band III and, at the present moment, there is virtually only room for one more programme that can give the national coverage—that is, until we can clear the other six channels on Band III. That is a very serious limitation. Your Lordships will forgive my being slightly technical for the moment, but we do labour here at a great disadvantage compared with the United States, who can obviously make a great deal more use of a channel than we can because their cities are great distances apart; therefore, a channel can be used again and again without causing interference. But we are very much more closely concentrated and, therefore, have a greater limitation in the use of these channels. That is a limiting factor that we have all to face.
The noble Lord asked me how I would favour running this scheme. I think there are many factors to be taken into account and that the I.T.A. will have to look at. But I can quite visualise that
910
the best system—and I mean the best system from the point of view of introducing genuine competition and also for the commercial success of the scheme—is likely to be a system of time-sharing under which the whole network will be allocated between, shall we say, two or more contractors, each of whom may have the sole use of it for a number of days in the week. This could be—indeed, I think it should be—supplemented by smaller local companies in the individual regions. These would provide local regional programmes with what seems to me extremely important—we have already touched upon this subject when the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, moved his Amendment—regional roots. We do not want just regional programmes that are put on by companies in London who think that Manchester and Liverpool would probably like some particular development.
So far as I have been able to ascertain, the large majority of those companies who are considering applying to come into this scheme when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament—in fact, I can say all but one—favour this sort of scheme. It appears also to be suitable to the advertiser. I hope that this will not be accounted as a reason against it by noble Lords opposite, but it is actually suitable to advertisers, who naturally, in the main, want national coverage because we are used to a national Press in this country, whereas America is much more used to regional or local advertising; they do not have a national Press. There is going to be room for local advertisements too, and they would be placed in the regional programmes. I am fairly sure that from the financial point of view—that is, from the contractor's point of view—this is likely to prove to be the best arrangement, and also from the point of view of the quality of the programmes, because it will mean that each contractor can concentrate his energies on producing fewer programmes with the revenue of the whole network behind them.
I am not going to say that that is the ideal scheme, but it does seem to me that, in view of the admitted technical limitation that we have to face at the present moment, it may well be the best scheme for the time being, and certainly it is the scheme that I would commend to the consideration of the programme contractors. I hope that I am not going to

911
be asked to put this in the Bill, because the Bill lays on the I.T.A. the responsibility for negotiations with programme contractors. There may arise many other considerations, including technical considerations, which I have not yet been able to visualise, and I feel at the moment in dealing with this medium—which is so full of uncertainties, so full of changes from day to day—that we should make a mistake in laying down anything in this Bill that is either rigid or permanent.
May I say one more word in expressing my fear of putting anything rigid into the Bill? It may well be, even if I prove to be right in the sort of machinery that I contemplate—that is, what I have always called the horizontal organisation—that in some fairly remote part of the country, which perhaps it might be difficult to reach with the necessary Post Office links, and so on, for a long time, perhaps some enterprising individual or company might say, "We should like to be licensed to start a small station in our area." It would be impossible to connect them up with the main network, and it might be desirable to consider some special arrangement for them. I think that it is important to keep this scheme as flexible as possible.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Before my noble friend sits down, can he deal with the point I put to him? How will the scheme be made more rigid, or the I.T.A. hampered in any way, if we insert the words proposed in this Amendment, that the Authority shall do all they can to see that on every broadcasting station there is adequate competition? How does it make it more rigid or hamper them in any way, because that is all the Amendment proposes?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I certainly think that the Postmaster General has carried matters a stage further from where they were on the Second Reading, because the position then was that this was to be left to the I.T.A.; that it would be within their own discretion to do as they liked; that Parliament should not have any understanding before passing this Bill into law as to what the ultimate arrangement would be. It was quite plain that the Postmaster General necessarily must have had communication with those
912
probable applicants for licences in the local stations, and also with those who organise the advertising. There would be nothing improper in that; in fact it would be very wrong if he did not have a very good idea in his own mind how this scheme was going to work out in practice, once the Bill had been passed. It appears that these conversations and anticipations have now taken a more definite form, and although he does not say that conclusions have been arrived at, the scheme that he has in mind is apparently something like this: that there will be left the B.B.C., and there will be competition against the B.B.C. by programme companies. Probably in the first instance there may be two programme companies, who will each have a national coverage on certain days a week.
EARL DE LA WARR: Two or more.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: There are not so many days in the week, are there? If the Government are to allow room for possibly some local company to have its local programme on one day a week, or part of a day, you cannot sub-divide it too much; also it is very expensive to establish these organisations. However, that scheme is said to be sufficient for adequate competition as between programme companies. I do not think that that is the kind of lay-out of the scheme that the public have in mind. We have been told that in New York viewers have a choice of eight different programmes. It was thought that something of that kind would be possible here. It never has been possible, for the reason given by the Postmaster General—the shortage of wavelengths. As I have said repeatedly during this discussion, if this Bill had been put forward after very-high-frequency had become practicable, and a large number of stations in the same area were technically feasible, then it might be that we should have to consider it in another light. As it is, the competition now, the horizontal competition, will be limited as a rule to two companies: two companies and a fraction of a company, possibly, for the local service, over the whole country.
How do you know that that will provide real competition? What is to prevent those two from getting together and consulting, as it is suggested that the B.B.C. and the programme companies should consult, on certain points; arranging

913
things in their own way, and making the competition, though apparently complete, sotto voce very friendly competition as the thing is arranged? They might have a tariff among them for payment of artistes; they might allocate the times between themselves to divide the best features between the two of them week by week. With such limited competition as that between two companies it is almost impossible to avoid something in the nature of a cartel between the two. In any case, it appears to me that the programme of "setting the people free," letting the public have what they want, and envisaging a great number of eagerly competing companies, with as many competing companies as there are competing newspapers (continually we are given the Press as an example; the people might take in the Daily Mirror televisor or The Times televisor as they prefer) will not be attained at all. There will be competition as between the B.B.C., on the one hand, and the programme companies, on the other, but the second is not a real, effective, widespread, lively competition, in which private enterprise, ruthless private enterprise, competing here and there, will ultimately result in the highest possible efficiency and liveliness and success. It will be so limited, and must be so limited, owing to the technical nature of the whole situation, that it will be far indeed from the expectations that have been aroused by the promoters of the Bill.
6.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I wonder if I might add one word, which I will try to make impartial, having listened to this discussion and drawing on such knowledge as we all share of ordinary commercial undertakings. I do not think we need pay too much attention to the speech which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has just delivered. It seems to me a little bit in the nature of the way he described other people's speeches earlier in the debate today: "Pah!—competition. Of course you will rot really have any competition." Even if the situation were likely to emerge as described by the noble Viscount—and it certainly will not be anything like it—I am quite certain that there will be a good deal more competition than there is today; because to-day you have to see the B.B.C. or nothing. Therefore, obviously, even at the worst, there is going to be
914
more competition. I think, if I may say so, that the Postmaster General is wise not to tie himself down, with only certain wave lengths at his disposal to-day, in developing a service on which—I will not say one proceeds by trial and error, but on which what is needed is essentially, not a theoretical but a sort of pragmatical approach. If he said, "I will not in any case allow one company to have a monopoly of a particular station," that would make it impossible, very likely, to give a localised service.
We heard to-day from the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that he wants a special station set up for Wales which would cater for Welsh people. We too want that. You may get small stations for local purposes for which it would be quite impossible to get two contractors competing. It may even, be that it will not be a commercial proposition for one, and it may be wise to allow a subsidiary of one of the larger undertakings to do it, so that the people would get better service; or it may be a subsidiary which is in partnership with some more local interest. Assuming that you could get one person to do it, and do it very well, with all the knowledge of the locality and of what the people of the locality wanted, the Postmaster General, by accepting this Amendment, would be cutting out that possibility.
How is this plan likely to work in fact? I am with the Postmaster General in his decision not to tie his hands. But what I think the Committee will want to look at is what will probably happen. It seems to me that all interests support the sort of plan which the Postmaster General has outlined. The revenue is to be drawn from advertisements; the contractors will draw their revenue from advertising. They want to give the best programme they can, and, quite obviously, they want to get the largest revenue they can. The excellence or merit of their programme will depend upon their revenue. What will be wanted by the advertising company whatever company it is? It will be the largest medium through which the company can make its appeal. People advertise in papers having a wide circulation. I think that what the advertiser will want will be to be able to go on the air at a particular moment, not in London alone, or in Birmingham alone, or in Liverpool alone; he will want to go on all over England.

915
As a matter of fact, if you were to have, say, three companies—I am saying this on the assumption that what you have is a London station, a Midlands station and a station somewhere in the North-West, which is probably what will happen—even if you gave those stations to three separate companies, I believe that they would make the kind of interlocking arrangement which the noble Viscount. Lord Samuel has suggested, not in order just to get together to make a cartel but to make an arrangement of a different kind. They would make an arrangement whereby one of them, with a programme in Manchester or Birmingham, would televise that programme over the whole national network, over each of the three stations. It is only in that way that the programme would reach the big listening public and command a large price. Therefore, it seems to me that it is in the commercial interest of those who are going to run these stations to do it in that way. I should not enter the field even if I were to retire from the Government; but I am quite sure that if anybody came to me and asked me for my advice in this matter, I should say that I would not advise him to take over only one station, even if it were the London station; and I certainly should not advise him to take over one of the other two. But given two days or selected periods during which one could go out to the whole country, then I think it might be a reasonable proposition. In that way there is much more competition.
Suppose that you gave each of the three stations to a different company merely for the purpose of functioning there. It is true that in each case you would get competition, and different competition with the B.B.C.; but you would get no competition between the companies. Therefore it is in the interests of competition that it should not be done in this way. But commercial interests and competitive interests are at one in this matter, because there is more money in it and you will certainly get much more attractive programmes that way. As I say, there will be more money available, because the programme which is televised will be seen by more people.
I come now to what my noble friend Lord Hore-Belisha has said, more than once this evening, in regard to the viewers. The viewers have to be con-
916
sidered. I believe that in this way the viewer will get much greater variety and will be more attracted to the programme. The more attracted he is, the more the advertiser is attracted to advertise. It seems to me, in looking at the ordinary commercial probability of how this plan will turn out, that that is the most likely thing to happen. I believe that if it does happen in that way it will be in the interests of the programme companies, in the interests of the people who want to advertise and, most important of all, in the interests of the viewer.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not want to seem importunate, but I put a question to the Postmaster General, and I did not do it simply with the idea of asking a rhetorical question. I also asked him to reply. The question was this. Assuming the truth of everything that the noble Viscount and the Postmaster General have just said, how do the words proposed in this Amendment interfere with the policy of the Bill? All that they do is to ask that the Independent Television Authority shall do all they can to achieve adequate competition on every station. I have listened carefully to both Government speeches. One does not come down to the House to ask a question simply for the sake of asking it; it is because we genuinely do not see the answer, and we want the Government to give an answer. I am sure the Government mean to be conciliatory in this matter, but it is really not treating people with genuine difficulties in a conciliatory fashion, to ignore the questions which they specifically put. I wonder whether one of my noble friends could deal with that point.
EARL JOWITT: May I, as I hope, conclude this debate by this short statement? We have listened to a remarkable speech by the noble Viscount. It was of brief length, and if its clarity had been equal to its length no doubt we should all have been convinced. I venture to think that this Amendment is such a small one that it really needs no lengthy speech at all. I derived some hope from the speech of the Postmaster General, but I confess (no doubt it is entirely my fault) that I got confused with the speech of the noble Viscount. The subsection reads as follows:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that there is adequate competition to supply programmes"

917
and so on. The Amendment, if we get it, would make the subsection read in this way:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that on each broadcasting station operated by the Authority there is adequate competition to supply programmes."
The whole basis of this Bill is that competition is a good thing. If we believe that, why is it not a good thing to have that competition on each broadcasting station, so far as that is possible? If there are, as the noble Viscount suggested there may be, circumstances which make competition quite impracticable, then you need not have it—the clause so provides. But, upon my word, on the assumption that competition is the right thing, I cannot see why you should not have competition on each broadcasting station. If it is going to be difficult for the noble Viscount, and if he wants a little time to consider it—perhaps a year or something of that sort—then we can deal with that on Report stage. But I would ask him—and this is the same question as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, asked—why does he hesitate to give us this Amendment? He wants competition, so far as practicable, on each station. If it is not practicable, then he need not have it: the Authority are not bound to provide it.
I do not want to suggest that the Committee should divide on this matter, because we are trying to do all we can to save time, but I would suggest that between now and the next stage of the Bill the noble Viscount should think again about it, possibly after some more discussion. Obviously, he has had some discussion, but perhaps later on he may be able to see that what this Amendment seeks to achieve is that so far as practicable there should be competition existing on different stations. That is all this Amendment does. It is a little Amendment. I would have ventured to hope that he might have given it to us, but if he does not give it to us now I hope that on Report he will be able to do so, because I cannot see the slightest objection to it. It seems to me to be carrying out the principle of this Bill.
7.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am not especially concerned with the particular Amendment which is now before the House, and I have nothing to add to what
918
has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt; but the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is one of great importance, perhaps the most important that we have had on the Committee stage of this Bill. He has made it plain that over the country as a whole there will be national programmes, to be contributed to by possibly two or three different programme contractors. I do think that is a good arrangement.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is my forecast.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Probably it will not be a mere coincidence if that forecast is fulfilled. But, from the point of view of a sound, economic, businesslike arrangement, I think that it is quite right. It is much better that there should be national programmes over a single national network and that they should be able—because it is a very costly business—to produce as good programmes as they can. But to suggest that if it is divided up between two or three that is open competition, is, I think, not justified. These two or three companies, of course, will have to concert between themselves about their programmes. They will not want to have the same programme on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, as they have on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. They will agree together on exactly what each of them shall do. They will arrange which artists, so called, are to be engaged by each one of them and the sort of salaries to be paid. In effect, the ultimate result will be, as we have forecast from the very beginning (because we foresaw all this), that owing to the nature of things—the number of channels and so forth—there will be set up in effect another monopoly, side by side with the monopoly of the B.B.C. You may say that that is a good or a bad thing, or question whether it would not be better to have the competition inside the B.B.C. as between the Home Service, the Light and the Third Programmes or as between Regional and National Programmes. That would be a better plan until we get a large number of channels with perhaps a great number of competing stations and very high frequencies. That is not being done, and I still think that, as the outcome of our whole discussion,

919
we are going to have a second commercial monopoly side by side with the public service monopoly of the B.B.C.
EARL DE LA WARR: I was sorry the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, felt it necessary to make that speech. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and I were perfectly clear in what we said, and we had very much better stand by that. I am sorry the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, thought I was trying to avoid giving an answer, but I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, had really dealt fully with his point. The noble Viscount is quite right that the words of the Amendment he proposes are not completely binding; nevertheless we should feel we were to a very considerable extent tied by them. I feel strongly that at this moment, right at the beginning of this great new scheme, we ought to keep our hands as free as we can. We must remember we are not only legislating for to-day but for a considerable time ahead. I cannot help feeling it is not entirely fair to take up the position of noble Lords who present this Amendment, namely, "It does not really tie you to anything; it means nothing; nevertheless, we are determined to insist upon it." It seems a pity that, having achieved so much agreement, or at any rate come so much nearer to understanding each other's position, we should close this very useful and constructive discussion by a Division. It is entirely in the hands of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, but I should have thought he had, from both the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and myself, an expression of opinion that brought us very closely into line with each other.
EARL JOWITT: I suggested we should not have a Division. I suggested that the noble Earl should include this matter in our talks. Does he reject that offer?
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not want to be unto-operative or dishonest, and it might suggest that during those discussions we should be able to accept this Amendment. That would not be really fair. We should be wrong to put anything in the Bill which in any way tied our hands in the future, and it would be dishonest for us to say that that point is open to discussion.
EARL JOWITT: At any rate, we will have a discussion with the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: There is a very old rule of Parliamentary practice that an intention ought always to be put in a Bill. We certainly had that rule thrown at our heads again and again when we sat on those Benches.
EARL DE LA WARR: And we have had it thrown at our heads.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: It is the intention of the Government that there shall be two programmes, or that there shall be local competition as well as broadcasting competition between different regions. Therefore, I cannot really see why this simple Amendment or something like it should not be included in the Bill. But, of course, the noble Earl has been kind enough to say he will discuss this matter with us—
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, says he is going to discuss it with me. I said I cannot give any undertaking.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: It takes two people to make a discussion possible, and unless the noble Earl can give us some assurance that he will discuss the matter, then we must assume there will be no discussion. I must confess that that is a great disappointment to us in view of the fact that noble Lords on both sides of the House accept the general principle. I do not want to waste your Lordships' time, but I feel that this is an Amendment which I cannot possibly withdraw.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, says he feels very strongly about this matter and he is evidently sincere. Some of us feel quite sincerely. Does this Amendment do him any harm? Assuming the truth of every word he says, will he not at least take a little more advice from those who advised him about the legal effect of the measure? It occurs to me he is entirely wrong in saying that we shall tie the hands of the I.T.A. It can do its best to secure, on every broadcasting station which it operates, adequate competition. That does not tie its hands in any way. It does not interfere with Goverment policy. If the noble Earl thinks it does, is he really going to be so stiff-necked that he will not even ask those who advised him about the legal effect of this Bill? It really does

921
not take away anything from the policy; it will give us something we sincerely want, and will exactly reflect the tone of the speeches which the two noble Lords on the Front Benches have given.
EARL DE LA WARR: There are certain matters in Parliamentary parlance that are very important. When you say an Amendment is a drafting Amendment, it must be purely drafting. When you say you are going to enter into discussions you must mean in your heart that you are prepared to consider adopting

CONTENTS

Listowel, E.

Darwen, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Lucan, E.

Derwent, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hailsham, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Quibell, L.

Samuel, V.

Henderson, L.

Sempill, L.

Kenswood, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Silkin, L.

Carnock, L.

Mathers, L.

Simon of Wythenshawe, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Selkirk, E.

Digby, L.

Winterton, E.

Dovercourt, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Dunleath, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Portland, D.

Davidson, V.

Gifford, L.

Furness, V.

Hampton, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Goschen, V.

Hawke, L.

Exeter, M.

Hudson, V.

Hore-Belisha, L.

Reading, M.

Leathers, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Ridley, V.

Leconfield, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Swinton, V.

Lloyd, L.

Bessborough, E.

Woolton, V

Mancroft, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Melchett, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Raglan, L.

De La Warr, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Remnant, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Saltoun, L.

Glasgow, E.

Blackford, L.

Sandford, L.

Howe, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Morley, E.

Brocket, L.

Munster, E.

Broughshane, L.

Templemore, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Teviot, L.

Radnor, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Teynham, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

House resumed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
7.20 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have a statement to make regarding future Business. First of all, I should like to say that it has been arranged through the usual channels that we should, if possible, get to Amendment 88 to-night, but it is not proposed to detain your Lordships until a very late hour. We are sure that the Committee will do its best to
922
your opponent's proposal. I cannot say that. I should feel that it was wrong to insert this Amendment in the Bill. I have told noble Lords very frankly what I think, which is in very close accord with what they think. I really do not want to be asked to put anything more into the Bill.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; No:-Contents, 60.
co-operate and enable us to reach our target.
It has also been arranged, with the kind consent of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, that his Motion on the Navy should be postponed until Tuesday, July 27. The reasons are that it is necessary to get the Television Bill through its Committee stage as soon as possible, and it is considered that an important debate like that on the Royal Navy should have the first place on the day on which it stands. I would add that noble Lords opposite have promised that we shall have completed this stage of the Television Bill tomorrow in reasonable time.

TELEVISION BILL
Committee stage resumed.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "control" to the end of the subsection. The noble Earl said: This is an important Amendment, but perhaps your Lordships will allow me to open up the matter and then adjourn for dinner. It is an attempt to deal with an extremely difficult and complicated problem. Your Lordships have not had much notice about it and I should like to start by saying that I shall very much welcome the advice and opinion of your Lordships. We are faced with a very real dilemma here. On the one hand, I think we are all agreed that it is most undesirable that a certain limited number of events—it may be only nine or ten a year, like the Cup Final and certain Test Matches—can be bought up and restricted to a small number of viewers. On the other hand, it would be grossly unfair to take action which would depreciate the value of selected events solely because they are especially popular and important, and that is what may be done by embarking on restrictive legislation against them.
In facing this problem we have this happy advantage: that the sporting promoters, most of whom are businessmen, and all of whom incur considerable expenses in organising these events, have shown during the last few years that we have every reason to trust them. Certainly the Government feel confident that the programme contractors themselves will want to handle this matter in a wise manner. Therefore I can say straight away that the background of the Amendments I am venturing to propose is the decision that we should try to leave the matter to voluntary arrangement. We propose to give the Postmaster General powers to prevent the making of exclusive arrangements for broadcasting certain events to restricted audiences. What are the powers contemplated? First, the Postmaster General is given power to schedule a limited number of events—on the sporting side I would mention the Derby, the Grand National, the Australian Test Match and the Cup Final. The power to schedule these events will be subject to Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, nothing could happen until the Postmaster General had
924
come back to both Houses and laid a Resolution.
Secondly, there must be a request to the promoters to broadcast, both from the B.B.C. and from the programme company. That request must be made five months before the event. If the three parties are unable to agree on terms, or if the sum payable to the promoter has been agreed upon and they are unable to agree upon the allocation as between the B.B.C. and the programme company, they must go to arbitration. I should make it clear that right up to the point of going to arbitration the promoters will be free not to grant any facilities or, if they do so, to limit them to certain areas. Having agreed to negotiate, then all parties, including the promoters, will be bound by the arbitrator's decision. In skeleton form, those are the proposals which I propose to introduce into the Bill.
I have discussed them both with the B.B.C. and with the sporting promoters. Of course, the sporting promoters would prefer to have absolute freedom in the matter. Nevertheless, they note that it is not intended to operate this clause unless experience proves it is necessary. I would express the views of the Governors of the B.B.C. by saying that they have been consulted in the drafting of this clause and, being strongly in favour of the principle of non-exclusivity, they would be glad to see a safeguard in the Bill in these terms. They agree that it would be well to have such powers in reserve and that these powers should not be applied unless experience showed that they were necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 10, leave out from ("control") to end of line 22.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): I think it would be convenient for the Committee to adjourn during pleasure now and meet again at a quarter to nine.
[The Sitting was suspended at half past seven, and resumed at a quarter before nine o'clock.]
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Earl, the Postmaster General, has just made—"just" is perhaps not strictly accurate, and I should say recently made—an interesting and important statement about the televising of sporting events. I

925
think it would be rash to express a considered opinion about that statement until we have had an opportunity of studying it carefully in Hansard, but perhaps I might at this stage say two things. It looks to me as though the powers which the noble Earl wishes to take are powers which are essential to safeguard the interests of the public. I understand from what he said that the B.B.C. approves of the safeguards proposed. The essential thing is that, if a sporting event is televised, it should be available equally to a commercial company and to the B.B.C., and that position seems to be safeguarded by the powers which the noble Earl wishes to take. The second thing I want to say is this—and it is really in the form of a question. I cannot help wondering whether, as the promoters of these events will not be allowed to sell an exclusive right to televise whatever it may be for which they are responsible, they will, in fact, be willing to allow the Cup Final, the Derby, or whatever it may be, to be televised at all. I do not know whether the noble Earl, who has had discussions with the promoters of these events, reached a stage at which they made their intentions plain to him. Clearly, whatever their intentions may be, these powers are necessary, but I think it would be of interest to know whether the noble Earl has had any indication of how far the promoters of these important sporting events would be willing to allow television under the terms and conditions laid down in the new clause.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is only right that I should speak very tentatively here, because this is a ground over which we have to feel our way, and I want to be perfectly frank with the House. Briefly, the answer is that as the promoters will be under no obligation to sell their events, they are therefore in a position to state their own price. Therefore, it is up to them, before going to arbitration, to assess the price of their event, and if they open their mouths too wide and are unreasonably difficult, of course they will not sell it, and they will have to go without the money altogether. But if it is a reasonable price, then no doubt the two bodies will come together, and if they cannot come to an agreement, themselves go to arbitration.
EARL JOWITT: May I ask the noble Earl's guidance on this question? We want to do what we can in the way of time. This is a preliminary Amendment to the new Clause 5 and, after that, the Fourth Schedule. Whatever discussion we are to have, obviously we had better have it once, and not three times. Would this be a convenient time to have it?
EARL DE LA WARR: I think so.
EARL JOWITT: I understand the noble Earl has said that he has discussed this matter with the B.B.C. and they are satisfied?
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes. I actually read out the agreed statement.
EARL JOWITT: I am sorry. I was away for the moment but of course I accept that. I must say that I was in a state of alarm and despondency on reading the noble Earl's Fourth Schedule, because it seems to me that these things often have to be settled very quickly. I remember watching the Oval Test Match last year on television. We had finished here the day before the last day of the match and the broadcast was not due to come on, I think, until one o'clock. It was obvious that the Test Match might be over by one o'clock, and your Lordships will remember that it was arranged finally, with the consent of the cricket captains, that the broadcast should be started at eleven o'clock. Obviously that has to be done at the last moment. It was there done to the great satisfaction of those who, like myself, like watching cricket on television.
All this business in the Fourth Schedule about five months' notice seems to me to make matters very difficult. I am entirely at one with the noble Earl, and I hope that he will not think there is any controversy between us here—there really is not—if he would simply lay down this proposition: that where one of these two bodies, the I.T.A. as we call them for the moment, or the B.B.C., get some sporting event, then it should be open to the other to have it on reasonable terms. It seems to me that that would not be at all a difficult thing to arrange without all the elaborate machinery about five months and three months which is in the Fourth Schedule. If that is the substance of what the noble Earl wants, then I am entirely with him, because we are looking at the interests

927
of the viewer and are not concerned about the sectional interests of one or other of these two bodies. If there is nothing between us there, I would ask the noble Earl to look at it and ask the Lord Chancellor about it, who I am sure will advise him as to whether it would not be possible to make a much simpler clause than this, simply by inserting that where one of these bodies gets the right then they must allow the other body to have it at a price arranged, whether by arbitration or anything you like.
Subject to that, I will not say anything about the new clause, about Clause 5 or about the Fourth Schedule. There is nothing controversial between us here. I am greatly disturbed about the rigidity of the noble Earl's Fourth Schedule, and I cannot think that it is really necessary, if that is all he wants to achieve. It seems so simple to say that where one of these people gets an event, the other must have a right to have it at a fair price. There is no political issue involved here, so far as I know. Perhaps the noble Earl could look at it from that point of view, to see whether he could not scrap his Fourth Schedule and perhaps his new clause, and achieve on the whole a desirable result. If he can do that I should be entirely with him.
EARL WINTERTON: I feel that in the discussions up to now the principal point has not been brought out. It is all very well to say that there should not be rigidity of arrangement, and that arrangements should not be made a long time ahead. The real position is that the promoters of sporting events, here and across the Atlantic, have not yet made up their minds whether it pays them to televise. They have experts working on it and astounding figures have been produced on the other side of the Atlantic. Thousands of dollars have been lost by sports promoters through sports televising.
It should be made plain in your Lordships' House that we cannot say to these people that they have to do this or that; they must have an absolutely free choice in the matter. Nobody has any right to say, "I am going to televise this thing whether you like it or not." It is important to bring out the fact that this is an unknown quantity at the moment, and no one can tell what
928
consumer resistance there will be to the televising of popular sporting events.
EARL JOWITT: I agree with the noble Earl. I do not want to impose the right to televise. I do not think the Government contemplated it. I do not; nor, I think, does the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr.
EARL DE LA WARR: This is simply machinery for dealing with the situation when all three parties, the promoters and the two broadcasting entities, are willing to come together. There is a very genuine difficulty about value, and I cannot give quite so simple an answer as the noble Earl would like. When I started, it seemed to me very simple, and I put in Clause 5 and hoped that it would deal with the situation. But I am not giving away any secrets when I say that the Government draftsman produced something like ten drafts on this subject: it has been the most difficult problem in the Bill. The problem is this: that while we do not want exclusivity in regard to these limited number of events—probably at most there are nine or ten—on the other hand, it is not fair to say that, because the event is particularly popular and particularly important, we propose to do something which will depreciate the value of it. It might end by £10,000 being paid for the St. Leger but only £5,000 for the Derby, because there cannot be exclusivity with regard to the latter. That would obviously be wrong and unjust. The moment you have said that there is no exclusivity, by that statement you have depreciated the value of that property. That is really why we want this rather complicated machinery, and it seems to me that we do get to the right point by saying that on the whole we are dealing with extremely decent, sensible people. Let us give them a chance to work this machinery among themselves, on a purely voluntary basis; but let us have in reserve these powers, which are not unalterable. If we find they are unworkable we shall have to come back to Parliament.
EARL JOWITT: Will that not prejudice a last moment decision?
EARL DE LA WARR: Speaking generally, if arrangements for a match are made and then are to be varied,

929
special arrangements will have to be made. I cannot see that it would prejudice the point. It is a very real point.
9.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My noble friend has asked us, in a sense, to think aloud because we have not had much time to consider this Amendment. There are two or three points that I should like to suggest for his consideration. In the first place, I feel that in our desire not to impose upon promoters of sporting events we must not lose sight of the interest of the public to see and hear the events. Nor, I think, must we lose sight of the fact that some sporting events, like the Boat Race, if I may give a simple example, can be televised at the expense of the promoter. The universities might be considered, in a sense, to have something to do with the Boat Race. Owing to the terrain upon which some other sporting events are held, they cannot be televised without the permission of the promoter. I feel that, on the whole, it is quite a relevant circumstance that the Boat Race is held on a public waterway and that the Grand National, say, is held on private property, because the promoter of the Grand National has an advantage which is not shared by the two universities who promote the Boat Race and who are certainly equally in need of funds and have less of a "gate" than the promoter of the Grand National.
Secondly, there is a technical point in this Amendment, I take it that an Amendment of this kind is not in order unless it is within the Long Title of the Bill. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord De La Warr has considered whether this Amendment is within the Long Title which describes the Bill as:
"An Act to make provision for television broadcasting services in addition to those provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and to set up a special authority for that purpose; to make provision as to the constitution, powers, duties and financial resources of that authority and as to the position and obligations of persons contracting with that authority for the provision of programmes and parts of programmes; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
In point of fact, the Fourth Schedule, which is ancillary to the Amendment now under discussion, provides considerable arrangements for the regulation of the B.B.C. in relation to these sporting events.
930
That may or may not be intrinsically desirable, but I venture to think, with respect, that this Amendment could not be legitimately brought within the Long Title of the Bill without some Amendment to the Long Title. I should be obliged if my noble friend would consider that before he finally parts with the measure in this House.
There is a third point, and this, like my first, is a question of policy which I should like to submit for the consideration of my noble friend. This obviously requires interim provisions because, on any view, if the Amendment is passed the provisions of Clause 5 (2), which under the present Amendment are to be removed, will no longer be there. Clause 5 (2), on the whole, is designed—and it is, after all, the subsection which was originally provided, I think, by the Government and has survived the deliberations of another place—to safeguard the interests both of the B.B.C. and of all the television producers. It was designed to prevent what most of us would desire to prevent—that is to say, one particular television profiteer making a "corner." After all, you do not break a monopoly—and we are told that this Bill is designed to break a monopoly—by creating the opportunity to make a "corner."
The object of subsection (2), which is now to be amended, is to prevent anybody from making a "corner" in sporting events. It is now proposed to delete that provision so that, so far, there is no provision against making a "corner" in sporting events of this important kind. Nothing is to happen under the new code until first, the Postmaster General promulgates a statutory instrument and secondly, that statutory instrument is approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament. That appears from the new Clause 6, subsection (5) which is ancillary to the Amendment. It follows, therefore, that the safeguard is to be deleted, and that nothing new is to be substituted for it until there is a statutory instrument and a positive Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That seems to me to be a little odd and, possibly, undesirable.
It seems to be odder still when we come to consider the nature of the new code. The purpose of the new code is, broadly speaking, to prevent exclusiveness

931
—"exclusivity" was the word used by my noble friend, though it has a doubtful parentage. To prevent exclusivity in relation to these sporting events there is to be introduced an elaborate new code which is to be substituted for the principle contained in the provision which, by this Amendment, is to be deleted. I say nothing against the new code. I think it will require a great deal more time for consideration than we have had to give it, but it does strike me as odd that the interim arrangement, if that is to be the new code, should consist in the deletion of the principle of non-exclusivity from the Bill. If this Amendment is passed, it seems to me that all the sporting producers will be as free as air to do all the things the new code is designed to prevent, and which the Government themselves consider it desirable to prevent, owing to the fact that their existing Bill prevents it. I ask my noble friend between now and the Report stage to consider whether there may not be something in these criticisms.
EARL DE LA WARR: I thank noble Lords for their helpful remarks. I said at the beginning that I should be grateful for the wisdom of the House. If I may answer Lord Hailsham's question about the Title, I would say that I am advised that this would be within the Title, but, of course, if necessary the Title can be amended. I will make particular inquiry; but on my first inquiry I am advised that that is so. This makes quite a change in the nature of Clause 5 (2), because that was a provision—an extremely vague one, but still it was a provision—for taking immediate action. This did, as I stressed to your Lordships when I was putting this Amendment before you, say, to begin with, that we shall trust the promoters, the companies and indeed the B.B.C., and that nothing will happen until somebody starts making "corners." From the day this Bill becomes law, these people will be operating, knowing that the appointed day will be the moment anybody starts what the noble and learned Earl calls making "corners." It seems to me that on extremely new ground like this, that is really the right line to take, I can say that in so far as certain protection may seem to be removed from the B.B.C. by deferring these powers of non-exclusivity, they are themselves satisfied that this is definitely the wisest course
932
to take. Perhaps I may suggest to noble Lords that if we pass this Amendment now, nothing prevents further comments on the Report stage; and I say also that if after the passage of this Bill into law we find on further examination of the problem that we have not taken quite the right course, then we will have to see whether we cannot work out the really best solution.
9.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
"(5) During the currency of a contract between the Authority and a programme contractor, who is a body corporate, no transfer of control of that body corporate shall be made without the previous consent in writing of the Authority."
The noble Viscount said: This is a technical Amendment designed to deal with the question of the transfer of control in a body corporate. As your Lordships will realise, it is obviously of the essence of this matter that the I.T.A. should be satisfied with the personality of the programme contractor with whom it deals. That is a familiar topic of the law and indeed of commercial practice. A landlord will always desire to be satisfied with the personality of his tenant, and indeed there are many kinds of contract which no commercial man will enter into unless he is content with the satisfactory nature of the person with whom he is doing business. I think we shall all be at one about that. It therefore follows, and I think it is already in the Bill, that a contract of that kind may be readily assignable without the consent of the person with whom the contract is made. That, again, I think will be common ground. Unfortunately, when you are dealing with a body corporate you are dealing with an entity which is sometimes strangely distinct from the persons who really control it, and the purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that control of a body corporate with whom the I.T.A. is in contractual relations shall not, without the consent of the Authority, pass to somebody whom the I.T.A. consider unsuitable. I should have thought that this was largely a technical Amendment, designed to give effect to what was already the policy of the Bill but applying it more specifically to the peculiar conditions in which the I.T.A. will

933
operate when it is dealing with a body corporate instead of a flesh and blood human being or partnership. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think the noble Viscount is going a little too far in this Amendment. He is, of course, quite right in saying that you must not make a contract with a person who is obviously disqualified under the clauses of the Bill which lay down whether a person is a legitimate or an illegitimate contractor. But, as he himself said, you may get the position where a contract has been made between the Authority and a company which is absolutely legitimate at the start; and then, as the years go on, the shares of that company may become quotable, if it is a successful company, and it may be that, without the knowledge certainly of the Authority, who could not possibly know, and very likely even of the company itself, a majority of shares pass into the hands of a certain number of disqualified people. Obviously, when that is discovered, then is the moment at which the company has rendered itself unsuitable. It must then arrange to get rid of the disqualification; otherwise it renders itself liable to be cut out of its contract.
At the start nothing can happen. I think that is common ground. Certainly the people who have invested perhaps a couple of million pounds in these undertakings are going to take the greatest possible care that their investment is not put in jeopardy by something that happens on the stock market. What the noble Viscount is really seeking to do here is to ensure that control does not pass without leave of the Authority. As the noble Viscount has pointed out, one must observe what that means in practice. When you get a public company operating it would mean that no shares could be transferred by ordinary sale on the Stock Exchange without the leave of the Authority. The Committee will observe at once that that would make those shares entirely unquotable. I once made my living out of Company Law; that was a long time ago, but the simple principles have not changed since then. I am sure that the noble Viscount will agree that this Amendment, well-inten-
934
tioned as it is, places on the Authority an obligation that the Authority could not possibly discharge, and puts upon the programme contractor a liability which it would be quite unfair to ask him to incur. I am sure that with that explanation the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am disposed to think that there is a good deal in what my noble friend has just said, and for that reason at the close of these two or three sentences I shall certainly ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. At the same time, I think, with respect, that my noble friend has minimised the danger against which this Amendment was designed to guard. I was not primarily concerned with the question of controlling corporate bodies and others who, under the law as it will be under this Act, are actually disqualified. I take it that when that happens in one way of another the programme contractor will forfeit his time. I was looking at it from the point of view of suitability on more general lines. It is a fundamental right of persons who enter into business relations that they shall be satisfied in types of contract which depend largely upon the personality of the other party to it (and I give as an example the landlord and tenant, though there are very many other cases, such as one's tailor); it is a fundamental principle of law which must be considered that, where personality enters into the contract shall not be assignable without the leave or permission of the person Who is interested in the personality of the other party. In the case of a limited company that presents a difficulty of a kind on which the noble Viscount, with his experience as a company lawyer, can put his finger. But in a public matter of this importance some machinery ought to be evolved to guard against those difficulties. Therefore, although I now ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, I ask the Government also to consider the danger against which the Amendment was designed to guard.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had given notice of an Amendment, after subsection (4) to insert:
"(5) The Authority may require from time to time from the programme contractor such declarations, returns, documents and other information as the Authority, after consultation

935
with the Postmaster-General, may consider necessar or advisable for the purpose of ensuring that the requirements of this Act are complied with."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The Bill so far as we have gone imposes a number of duties—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps I might make an agreeable interruption if I told him that if he will strike out from his Amendment the words "after consultation with the Postmaster General" which add another complication to it, I shall be delighted to accept it.
LORD SILKIN: Most disappointing!
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 33, at end insert—
("(5) The Authority may require from time to time from the programme contractor such declarations, returns, documents and other information as the Authority may consider necessary or advisable for the purpose of ensuring that the requirements of this Act are complied with.")—(Lord Silkin.)
9.19 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in the proviso to subsection (5), after the first "in" to insert, "paragraph 4 of." The noble and learned Earl said: This is a most astounding position. I hope that I am going to meet with similar success, but I am afraid that I am not. These five Amendments, of which I should like to discuss the first two together, are matters of importance but not in any sense going to the structure of the Bill. If the noble Earl, the Postmaster General thinks it at all important that he should have some measure of consent from the Opposition to the passing of this Bill, he can get it if he can give us some assistance with regard to these five Amendments. The scheme of the Bill is that there is the Authority, and the Postmaster General (because I know him well) will take the greatest care, in setting it up, to get the most responsible and reputable Authority he can; he will want to do that because they have a responsible job to perform. I confess that I do not like the set-up of the programme contractors, but obviously the whole scheme turns upon the responsibility of the Authority, and I am sure that it will be a responsible Authority.
This Amendment deals with this situation. The Bill has a Third Schedule which contains four paragraphs. The first enables the Authority to require the provision by the programme contractor of scripts and particulars of the programmes, including advertisements. The second enables them to ask for the making of visual and sound records. The third reserves to them powers to forbid recording of certain descriptions of matter; and the fourth, more drastically, reserves to them power
"to require that nothing shall be broadcast without the previous approval of me Authority."
My plea to the Postmaster General is this. As he has this very responsible Authority, why cannot he trust them to make such agreements and take such steps as are reasonable and proper in all circumstances? They deal with the programme contractors by means of contracts. Why cannot they, as business men, put in their contracts what they like? Why must the noble Earl have this proviso—it will be understood, of course, that I am taking together Amendments Nos. 66 and 67. Why must the Postmaster General have the proviso that they are not entitled to stipulate for certain things unless they are frightened of an apprehended breach?
I think I am right in saying—there are many lawyers here—that the form of action in which you establish that you are frightened of a breach is called a quia timet action. It is so called because you are frightened, and you have to show that there are good reasons why you are frightened of a breach. I suppose the mere fact that in some other contract there has been a breach, or there have been breaches, is no reason why you should apprehend a new breach. I submit that this proviso is a very great limitation on the powers. What I want to do is this. At the bottom of page 9 your Lordships will see a proviso which, in effect, says that the Authority shall not be enabled by any such contract to exercise any such power as is referred to in the Third Schedule unless they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so having regard to a breach which they apprehend. I cannot see why you should not entrust this responsible Authority with complete freedom to make whatever contracts they like. I suggest that that is what is called for if there is to be happy working between the Authority and the programme

937
contractors, and I appeal to your Lordships, many of whom have much more knowledge of business than I have, to support me in this.
Would not the Authority say to the programme contractor: "We should like to see what you are going to do about this or that particular thing. Will you let us have the script"—or whatever it may be? I should have thought that if you have a responsible body to whom you have given power, you ought not to tie them up and say to them in effect: "You may not do that unless you can establish that you apprehend a breach"—which means that there is reasonable grounds for apprehending a breach. We are setting up this Authority who are in some position of control over the programme contractors—and I am glad they are—and I beg your Lordships to appreciate the position. If we take this Amendment to a Division I know I shall be defeated. I have only once had a Division with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on the other side, which I won; and I have sat in this House for nine years. So I am accustomed to being defeated. The point of having a Division is really to show that the matter is one which we care about. I am going to suggest to my noble friends that on these five Amendments we do not divide, because that means that each Amendment would take about a quarter of an hour. But the fact that we do not divide does not mean that we do not care about these things; it does not mean that it is not desirable for the Government to try to meet us on the principle that it is always desirable to carry the other side with you if you can.
I believe I am right in saying that this proviso was put in during the proceedings in another place. I believe that as the Bill started out the proviso was not there. I regard the proviso as a very great misfortune and I suggest that if you want to have it (and I would rather have it out) you should make it plain that it relates only to the extreme powers in paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule. If you like, with regard to this matter, you could say that the Authorities must not, in their contracts, stipulate for certain things. I beg noble Lords to trust their own Authority. I cannot think it is desirable that the Authority should not be in a position to exercise some measure of supervision and control, if these programmes are to be the
938
sort of programmes we should like, and that they should be able to ask, for instance, for a script, of what is going to take place only if they can establish that they apprehend a breach of contract. I do not believe it is on those lines that the business ought to be conducted or will be conducted. It would be very much better if either this proviso were struck out altogether—it was put in, most unfortunately, I presume under pressure, in another place: I do not know how it happened—or if you want it in, it were limited to paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule and the Authority enabled to make in all contracts with the programme contractors such terms and stipulations as reasonable and sensible businessmen, whom I predicate them to be, think fit and proper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 43, after ("in") insert ("paragraph 4 of").—(Earl jowitt.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The appetite grows with eating. Although we gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on something which we thought improved the Bill, I say at once that I cannot hold out any hope of doing the same thing here. The noble and learned Earl said that what he proposes would make it better to conduct business: from all the business experience I have had, I think it would make the conduct of business extraordinarily difficult, and even impossible. We should not be putting it in for fun. The fact that we put it in would indicate that it would be frequently used. Why should the Authority have power to do this? And power implies something of a duty. What is the noble and learned Earl asking of these people? The Authority will select the most reputable programme contractors they can find, men of integrity, men who have sunk a million pounds in the enterprise they are conducting, and they are as interested as anybody else in seeing that it is properly conducted in accordance with the Act. We trust the B.B.C. over this: why not trust the people responsible in this case? The noble and learned Earl does not like the Bill. I know he does not want any alternative system. That we accept. But we decided that matter on Second Reading, and, having once decided that, do not let us cast a slur upon men of high repute who are going to conduct this business and treat them as if we assume that they are going to try and find a way round the Act

939
in every possible way. I say that advisedly. I believe these people are going to maintain as high a standard and certainly have as high a moral integrity as the B.B.C., and that is saying a great deal.
EARL JOWITT: I accept that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Very well. Observe what you are asking these people to do—"these people" being the programme contractors. If the Authority are going to have the power to do something, presumably they are going to exercise that power, or it would be foolish to put it in the Bill. I presume it is going to be exercised. How are these people going to conduct the business? They have a six to eight hour programme to fulfil and they have to deal all the time with different advertisers who are going to pay advertising fees. Anybody who knows anything about how a broadcast programme is framed, knows that it cannot be done in a hand-to-mouth fashion: it has to be dovetailed in, in hours, in half-hours, and sometimes in quarter-hours. They have to be negotiating all the time with the people who are going to pay for advertisements. It is going to be a whole-time, daily job and the people engaged in it must have the broadest discretion and the greatest facilities to close here and there and make arrangements with an actor who is going to perform or an advertiser who is going to pay them a fee. The noble and learned Earl, who had a tremendous commercial practice at the Bar, will know that the essential of all business is that you can go on doing your business from day to day, and that at any one moment you can close with a contract, whether big or small.
EARL JOWITT: All I am asking is that these bodies—they are both responsible bodies; I am not saying a word against the programme contractors or the I.T.A.—shall have freedom of contract, to make such contracts as they like. What is wrong with that?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: You are not doing that at all. If they have this power, they obviously have a duty—the duty to require in advance provision of scripts or details of programmes, the making of records of programmes and their approval by the Authority. I say frankly to the
940
Committee—and I am sure your Lordships will agree that I have treated you with frankness, because I do not regard this as a political Bill, once we have passed the Second Reading—that if you did that it would make it much more difficult to get the right kind of people to come forward and put up their money.
We must divide upon this Amendment, because I can tell the noble and learned Earl that it is no good asking us to consider it between now and Report. This is fundamental with us. If the Authority suspect that the programme contractors are guilty of a breach, or are likely to be (I hope that it will not arise), then they should have this power to require all these things, even though that would gravely interfere with the man's business and cost him thousands of pounds. That is a perfectly fair power to give to the Authority, if they have reason to believe—it is not a question of their going to the court; they have to be satisfied in their own minds—that there is a risk. We really ought not to put it in otherwise. The noble and learned Earl says, "Just put it in; it does not mean anything." But you do not put in things that do not mean anything. If you put it in, you mean the power to be exercised. I say that it ought to be exercised only if they suspect that the contractor is going to transgress the Act or the contract.
EARL JOWITT: The noble Viscount has been addressing his Back-Benchers, and I did not hear the last part of his remarks.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sorry; I will repeat them. I say that it is a power which it is right the Authority should have if they have reason to suspect—and they are the sole judge of this—that the programme contractor with whom they have made a contract is likely to transgress the Act or the contract. It is not a power which ought to be given to them—a power costing thousands of pounds and interfering with the contractor's business—if there is no reason to suspect that he is not conducting his business in an honourable way. I have put the position fully and frankly to the Committee. As the noble and learned Earl has said, this is an important Amendment; it is one to which the Government attach great importance, and we must flatly stand on the principle as laid down in the Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should not say that the noble Viscount who has just resumed his seat is unreasonable, but I would say that I have never heard from anybody a more explicit assurance that he is deaf to reason, and is going to remain so. Therefore, it is with some feeling of trepidation that I ask him to look again at the actual terms of the Amendment proposed. I thought that in his enthusiasm for the causes which he has at heart he was losing sight of the fact that there was an Amendment before the Committee. It is the merits of that Amendment—if the noble Viscount will hear with me, and give me his attention and his ears, even if his mind, as he has said, is wholly closed to anything that may be said—that I desire to canvass.
The noble Viscount seems constitutionaly incapable of believing that anyone can put down an Amendment without desiring to go back on the Second Reading of the Bill. But I can assure him that if he looks more carefully at this Amendment he will find that its merits are far more modest than a revision of the Second Reading. As the noble and learned Earl who moved it has pointed out, this proviso is an Amendment which occurred to the Government only as an afterthought. It was not in the Bill originally, and in spite of what the noble Viscount has told us. I still adhere to the belief that in some respects, at any rate, it was put in by mistake. I will tell the Committee why I think it was put in by mistake. Under the provisions of Clause 5 (5), without the proviso it was originally laid down that the Authority should have the right, by a provision in the contract (and, indeed, I suppose in some circumstances the duty, although I must join issue with the noble Viscount in his statement that when you have a right conferred by an Act of Parliament you have a duty to exercise it always and on all occasions: it seemed to me that that was going a great deal too far), to exercise the powers of the Third Schedule presumably if they thought it right to do so.
Just look, for instance, at Paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule. The Authority have the right to reserve to themselves power
"to forbid the broadcasting of any matter, or class or description of matter."
942
I myself should have thought that that was an essential means of being able to discharge the duty imposed upon them by Clause 3 (1) (b) of the Bill, which provides that the Authority shall satisfy themselves
"that nothing is included in the programme which offends against good taste or decency …"
I should have thought it was inherent in that that they would have the ultimate right forbidding certain classes of matter. Whether that be so or not, it is, I submit, clearly necessary to the Authority to have that right in connection with Clause 4 (5) which provides that:
"Without prejudice to any of the duties incumbent on the Authority otherwise than under this subsection … it shall be the duty of the Authority to consult from time to time with the Postmaster General as to the classes and descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised and the methods of advertising which must not be employed and to carry out any direction which he may give them in those respects."
I cannot conceive how the Authority can, in Fact, comply with the provisions of Clause 4 (5) of the Bill as drafted if they are not to have the power conferred by Paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule.
Moreover, under Clause 6 of the Bill it is the duty of the Authority to provide two advisory committees, and maybe more, and when they have done so to comply with their requirements. I see, too, that one of those advisory committees is to be
"a committee representative of organisations, authorities and persons concerned with the standards of conduct in tie advertising of goods and services … to give advice to the Authority and programme contractors as to the principles to be followed in connection with the advertisements included as aforesaid."
When I see that that is the committee which they have to set up, and with whose directions they are bound to comply, then I cannot conceive how they can, perform the duty imposed upon them by Clause 6 (2) (b) and the following provisions of the Bill unless they have the right conferred upon them by Paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule. If that be correct—and the noble Viscount has said nothing whatever to indicate that it is wrong—then why is it provided in the proviso to Clause 5 (5) that they cannot exercise that right unless they apprehend a breach?
After all, quite clearly, the obligation under Clause 3, the obligations under

943
Clause 4 (5), and Clause 6 (2) (b), arise irrespective of whether the breach is apprehended or not. I know that the noble Viscount's mind is closed, but I wish he would do me the courtesy of listening to my argument, which is meant seriously. I am concerned as to how this Authority can do the things imposed upon them by the provisions of the Bill, as drafted, if they are to be fettered in the way provided by the proviso. When I was asking myself for what purpose the proviso came into the Bill I discovered that it was not there at all until Back Benchers in another place proposed it; and it was carried. It is for that reason that I genuinely came to the conclusion that the proviso in its present form, whatever form it might ultimately take, was inserted in the Bill per incuriam.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Does the noble Viscount suggest that if an Amendment is moved by a Back-Bencher it is accepted per incuriam and is always to be struck out?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Viscount is to be forgiven for thinking that is what I said, for my last sentence was the only sentence to which he directed his attention. For the rest he was engaged in a happy conversation with the Leader of the House. The rest of your Lordships, I hope, thought better of my argument than that. If I may engage his attention for thirty seconds I would point out that I was not complaining that a Back-Bencher's Amendment was accepted in another place. Yesterday the noble Viscount said he had never been accused of discourtesy, but at least he is inattentive to a serious argument when it is presented to him.
I was designing to show, as I thought I had, that there were duties imposed upon the Authority by the Bill, namely, those in Clause 3, Clause 4 (5), and Clause 6 which could be carried out only if the Authority were given the right, irrespective of apprehension of breach, as it was given before the Bill was amended. If the noble Viscount really desires to take the House seriously and to listen to the argument, may I say that I tried to impress upon him the view that the obligation arises quite irrespective of breach. When I looked at the Bill and discovered the proviso was not originally in it I could only come to the conclusion that it
944
had been accepted by way of Amendment and accepted in its present form per incuriam. To suggest that I ever put forward my argument because I had some deep-rooted objection to the acceptance of an Amendment from a Back-Bencher is frankly a travesty of what I was saying and it can be explained only by the urgency of Government business which prevents the noble Viscount from listening to the speeches of Back-Benchers in this House.
Let me point out the merits of this modest little Amendment. I think its exact purpose the noble Earl tried to put forward in his speech. The protection of programme contractors against the unreasonable use of powers under the Third Schedule would, in fact, be fully safeguarded if you retained the safeguard in respect of Paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule, which reserves to the Authority the power to require that nothing should be broadcast without the previous approval of the Authority. For my part, I should be happy to agree with the noble and learned Earl that it would be reasonable to trust the Authority with a matter of this kind. But if the Government are not prepared to trust their own child—well, after all, parents are the best judges whether their child is to be trusted or not, and I can see that Paragraph 4 might be a little difficult to give to an untrustworthy Authority. If the noble Viscount, instead of asserting without the smallest justification that these Amendments are proposed from some devious motive to get round the Second Reading, would carefully attend to Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Third Schedule and tell me which of those he thinks essential, no doubt we could come to a compromise. I should have thought that Paragraph 3 was not essential. Not a word has been said by the noble Viscount to justify the imposition of a fetter on Paragraph 3. If the noble Viscount closes his mind to any argument and tells us in advance that, whatever we say, he is not going to be persuaded, and shows us by his evident lack of interest that he is not going even to listen to what we say, no further progress can be made.
EARL JOWITT: I am not going to seek a Division. A Division takes a quarter of an hour and we want to save time on this Bill. I am disappointed with the attitude of the noble Viscount. He can beat me in the Division Lobby, I agree,

945
but what I want him to do is to try to destroy my arguments. I do not think he has done that at all. Centuries ago a very distinguished judge, talking about public policy, said:
"It is a paramount feature of public policy that you are not likely to interfere with the freedom of contract,"
That I believe to be profoundly true. If you have a sensible body like the I.T.A. and, on the other hand, a sensible body of programme contractors, and you have certain duties cast upon the I.T.A., I cannot see why you should not allow them to make what contracts they like. I shall not carry this Amendment to a Division. Let it be negatived. That does not mean that I do not care about a Division. It means only that in the peculiar circumstances I am anxious to save time. And the only point of a Division in this House is to show that a matter is something which we regard as important.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
9.48 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in proviso (a) to subsection (6), after "any" to insert "first". The noble and learned Earl said: This Amendment can be put shortly. The machinery of the Bill is this. It is provided in the Bill that the maximum penalty is to be £500. It seems to me that that is quite right in the case of the first breach, but if there is a second breach which may be a glaring breach, or even a third breach which may be still more glaring, I cannot see why the discretion of the arbitrator or judge or whoever it may be should be fettered in this way. I seek simply to make the £500 maximum penalty apply to the first breach. I ask your Lordships to say that with regard to the second and third breaches there is no reason why this limitation should apply. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 14, after ("any") insert ("first").—(Earl jowitt.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble and learned Earl has put his point clearly and briefly. He feels that the present sanctions for a second and third breach are too slight. I think we have to look at the powers of the I.T.A. as a whole. The fact of the matter is that not only have the Authority already the power to
946
fine a company three times, but they have much more drastic powers than that. We know that after three offences the contract may be terminated, but what I do not believe the noble and learned Earl has appreciated—and I am not sure that noble Lords opposite have; I only wish I could persuade them on this point—is just how drastic all the powers contained in the Third Schedule really are. The noble Lord talks as if paragraphs 3 and 4 are the only really drastic ones; but if only we could picture ourselves trying to run an organisation of this character and being asked, under paragraph 1, to show all our scripts in advance—just imagine what that really means, and the gravity of such a request. I hope, looking at the sanctions as a whole (and I make no apology for bringing in the Third Schedule on quite a different matter), that your Lordships will feel that the sanctions as they stand are really satisfactory. If we make them heavier all we shall do is to preclude really careful, reputable business from coming in.
EARL JOWITT: We will not spend more time on it. We realise now that the attitude of the Government is completely non-co-operative in regard to all these matters. What I say is that if you have a case where the breach is of such a grave character that the arbitrator decides that £500 is the appropriate penalty in the first case, and then you have a second breach, I cannot for the life of me understand why the same limitation should apply to the second breach as to the first; and if you have a third breach, I cannot for the life of me understand why there should be the same limitation for the third as for the second and the first. That is the point on which I should have thought the Government could easily have given way to us, because, obviously, we have here what every man will agree, apart from Party politics, is a case which ought to be met. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (6), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble and learned Earl said: I have not the slightest hope of getting this Amendment, but may I just say this about it. I had at one time in my life as much experience in arbitration as anybody ever had, and

947
I have a very high regard for arbitrations. In certain classes of matters arbitrations are much better than lawsuits. I remember very well that I used to go to the London Corn Exchange, and there used to be disputes about the quality of a cargo of corn. After proper samples had been taken—and sampling is itself an art—experts would take some of this corn, look at it in their hands, blow on it and say, "I think you have to make an allowance of 5s. a quarter." If you had to have such matters decided by a court of law, you would have experts on both sides contradicting each other, and the unhappy judge, who knew nothing about corn whatever, would have to do his best to come to a conclusion. Let it not be said that I am opposed to arbitrations. I believe they are in proper cases most admirable institutions.
There are certain weaknesses, however, about arbitrations, and two occur to me. I am sure the Lord Chancellor will agree with me that where there is a point of law, then in an arbitration the arbitrator can be asked to state a case for the opinion of the court. Thereupon the case which the arbitrator states has to go to the court; there can be an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and if the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords give leave, if it is important enough, there can be an appeal to the House of Lords. Lord Reading and I had experience of this in the old days in the commercial court. Everybody knows that it is apt to be a very lengthy procedure; the mixture of arbitration and law takes a very long time. That is one disadvantage of arbitration, where you are dealing with what turns out to be a question of law as opposed to mere questions of fact about the quality of goods. There is another difficulty which I think makes me decide against arbitration, and that is that in arbitrations you do not have publicity. I am one of those who are old-fashioned enough to believe that publicity is of tremendous importance in the law. If it were not that our cases were reported in the papers and the fierce light of publicity beat upon us, I do not think our justice would be nearly as good as it is.
Of course, not having publicity in an arbitration is undesirable, but it is also undesirable in that you do not get points
948
decided. If you have a case heard before a judge in court, then you get a decision on the case, which is reported and is available in other cases. If you have an arbitration you get no decision which can be relied upon in other cases. In the sort of arbitration that we are contemplating here, it seems to me that you may very well want guidance. You are not dealing with the quality of goods or anything of that sort; you are dealing with whether there has been a breach of contract, whether the programme is or is not in accordance with all the stipulations we have been discussing. That being so, I would ask the Committee to say this: not that we should stipulate either for arbitration or for law, but that we should leave it for the parties to decide amongst themselves. They can, if they are so minded, have arbitration, but if they cannot agree then they go to law. I believe that that would be by far the better method. I would therefore ask the noble Earl not to insist upon arbitration but to give the parties the right, unless they agree to arbitration, to go to law about this thing.
I welcome the fact that by going to law there is complete publicity. I welcome the fact that by going to law you get a decision that can be quoted in other cases. I cannot charge my memory for certain, but I believe that in many cases in the lifetime of the last Government the Opposition, as they then were, now the Government of the day, pressed for this particular point, saying that a man should not be deprived of his right to go to the law courts and to go before Her Majesty's judges. Therefore I would beg the Committee not to insist on arbitration here as a condition of getting three times over this £500, which cannot be increased. I do not for a moment suppose that the Amendment will be agreed to; perhaps it may not even be answered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).—(Earl Jowitt.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: In the first place there is no difficulty about going to law if the parties want to. I think it is worth while looking at the two Amendments that we have just considered. It is unusual in contracts to put in a penalty

949
clause at all, and if it is put in it is unusual for the courts to recognise it. I think we are on common ground there. In the first Amendment that we had before this, it was proposed that the penalty which could be imposed should be unlimited—any amount at all, like the fortune of the Count of Monte Cristo. In the second Amendment which the noble and learned Earl has just moved, the I.T.A. is to be judge, jury and prosecuting counsel in one on fines—in other words to be the sole judge as to whether a breach has taken place and as to what amount is to be paid. That is the effect of the noble and learned Earl's Amendments. I do not know whether that is what he intended.
EARL JOWITT: It is certainly not what I intended.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should be astonished if an ex-Lord Chancellor had said that it was what he had intended, but in fact that is what his Amendments mean. At the present moment, taken together, these Amendments are quite ridiculous, for the reason, of course, that no reputable company would join in a contract with a penalty clause in regard to which the amount imposed was controlled by the sole fiat of one of the parties to that contract. That is completely ridiculous. The noble and learned Earl spoke about arbitration taking a long time. I think the point is that either the company want to do the job or they do not. If they want to do the job, then, frankly, criticism will have some effect. If it does not have effect, then the whole force of the Third Schedule comes into play, for, at the moment there is any difficulty about it there is obviously apprehension about a breach of contract, so that the terms of the Third Schedule come into play. Such as it is, arbitration is there. If the noble and learned Earl has any proposal for hastening arbitration, I am sure we should be glad to hear it, although I do not know how we can do that. There is ample power for the I.T.A. to see that its duties are carried out, and the terms of the Third Schedule, paragraph 1, are fully fulfilled. But as the terms of the Amendments stand, I do not think we can consider them.
EARL JOWITT: I certainly never meant that this body should be the judge
950
and jury—that is the last thing I wanted. If my phraseology is wrong, I will apologise. But this question is as between arbitration and going to law. That is a point that I made perfectly plain in my speech and, though this is what I anticipated in this Bill, it is rather ridiculous to take me up on that point. I did not mean that that would happen, and the whole train of my speech was to point out that this was a case for a judge, rather than for arbitration, because of the question of publicity. The point of principle was decided. I do say, with respect to the noble Earl who answered, that what he said is not in accordance with the best traditions of this House. I have, in conducting this debate, attempted in every way to shorten the time. I have done everything I can to help. To be answered in that way does not assist. It is hardly courteous.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I reinforce what the noble and learned Earl has just said. After all, this is a Parliamentary discussion on an important matter and these Amendments are brought forward in good faith. We are asking for nothing more than courteous and fair consideration from the Government. I have come to expect rough handling from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, but I expected something better from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. Innocently, of course, he has completely misled this House as to arguments contained in these Amendments. I am not going back, as he found it necessary to do, to a previous Amendment which has already been negatived. Under the Bill as now drafted the Authority may say to a programme contractor, "You have broken your contract, you must pay the penalty"—which is any sum up to £500. The programme contractor says, "No, what I did does not constitute a breach of contract." The Government say that this is a fine—that word was used by the noble Earl, the Postmaster General. But fines are not exacted in private, in my experience, in any rational or civilized system of law. What the Government say is, "Although we call it a fine, we are going to enact by Act of Parliament that you shall not go to Her Majesty's judges. You are not allowed to." If the party breaking the contract, or alleged to have broken the contract, does not agree, neither side can go to Her

951
Majesty's judges. I call that an insult to constitutional law in this country.
I do not know why Her Majesty's judges are not considered proper persons to discover whether or not there has been a breach of contract, and I wish the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is no doubt in charge of the legal side of this Bill, would tell me what is wrong with using Her Majesty's judges—the people he appoints—for this purpose, to say whether or not there has been a breach of contract. The noble Earl says that the Amendment would make the Authority the judge, jury and prosecutor in its own case. That is pure rubbish. There should be a clear statement from the Government, from those who are qualified in law to correct the false impression made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. The effect of passing this Amendment, as was made plain by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt—and there is no excuse for misunderstanding—would be that the Authority would be in a position to issue a writ in the ordinary courts of law, in the ordinary way that any other party to a contract is entitled to do.
The effect of the Bill as drafted is to provide secret justice for contract-breakers, in order that the public shall never know what they are alleged to have done. That is the real difference between us here. It is quite ingenuous for the noble Earl to say that the effect of our Amendment would be to make the Authority the judge, jury and prosecutor in its own case, because in fact the opposite is true. I cannot tell your Lordships in too plain language that what the noble Earl has told us—no doubt in all good faith—is the opposite of the truth. The effect of this Amendment is to enable the Authority to go to the courts. The effect of the Bill as it stands is to forbid them to do so. What the Government are providing is secret justice. What the noble Earl has not said in his speech in support of this present situation is why he wants secret justice, why he wants arbitration. I am not suggesting that arbitration is not very suitable for settling disputes when both parties agree. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has spoken of the many advantages which follow when both parties agree to arbitration, though
952
we have all known of many cases unsuitable for arbitration. I want to know why in this case arbitration is being imposed on the Authority by force of law.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, says that it is extremely unusual for contracts to carry a penalty clause. With respect, the noble Earl is entirely mistaken about that. It is comparatively common for contracts to carry a penalty clause in the way in which this Bill proposes. The ordinary law with regard to the penalty clause is this. Under the ordinary law of contract a penalty clause is enforceable to the extent that actual damage can be proved. Obviously, in the nature of events, the Independent Television Authority will seldom, if ever, have suffered any actual damage, so the penalty clause under the ordinary law would be unenforceable. In return for that, the Government have properly inserted a provision to the effect that the original Common Law should be enforced, that a penalty clause should be enforced, with a penalty in a liquidated sum. What is wrong with letting Her Majesty's judges determine that question? Instead of telling us that, the noble Earl who has spoken for the Government has made a speech which might almost be described as insulting. As I have said, the noble Earl has told us what is really the opposite of the truth. He says that he does not want to go to the courts at all. It is all very well for the Government to ask for co-operation in Bills of this kind. None of us wants to protract business unnecessarily, but if in fact Peers of Parliament are to be treated in this insulting way, by having proffered to them the insolent kind of rubbish which the noble Earl has just given us. I can only say that the Government are not going about matters the right way to get co-operation.
10.8 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I think the noble Viscount who has just spoken has made an important point in drawing attention to the fact that in the ordinary way arbitration proceedings are conducted in private. It is well known in the legal profession that a certain type of insurance company which is proposing to rely on a release clause so to speak—a warranty—insists on having its disputes submitted to arbitration, for the very reason

953
that by doing so it avoids publicity, publicity which it has good reason to fear will deter other people from seeking insurances with it. It is important that, if there are breaches of the kind to which the noble Viscount has drawn attention in connection with these contracts, there should be as wide publicity as possible, in order that people should know what is going on. These disputes ought not to be settled behind closed doors, completely away from the light of day and with no reporters present. I should have thought that there was obvious reason, in some of these cases at any rate, for providing that the matter should be decided in the ordinary courts of law. Apart from that, the problem involved in most of these cases will be whether or not there has been a breach of contract. That is a question of law which a lay arbitrator is not really competent to decide, and which can be carried, as a matter of law, from the arbi-trator into the courts. The noble Viscount, who is the author of one of the best-known books on the subject, might well have pointed that out in his speech. Therefore, it seems to me that there is a reasonable case for the acceptance of this Amendment, and I suggest to the Government that they should think about it again.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not know why the noble and learned Earl should think that what I said was insulting. I was arguing purely on the facts. If noble Lords feel strongly about this, we are prepared to consider that the amount of the penalty should be settled by the I.T.A., instead of by an arbitrator. Our purpose in referring it to an arbitrator—there was no question of being secret about it—was with the idea of making it more expeditious. This is quite a normal way of doing it; there is nothing unusual about it. There is no question of short-circuiting the courts. In the whole range of the contract the matter can be taken to law. If the noble and learned Earl wishes to discuss the possibility of making the amount of the penalty subject to the I.T.A., I am authorised to say that we are prepared to consider that.
EARL JOWITT: That is much more satisfactory. Never before have I thought the noble Earl was the least discourteous;
954
in any observations he made. Maybe I took him wrongly, but I thought he was discourteous in the way in which he referred to me in my Amendment. His observation that he was surprised that an ex-Lord Chancellor should move this Amendment was lacking in courtesy. If I misunderstood him, I am very glad to say so. I am all for harmony being restored, and I gladly acknowledge what he has now said. I never had the slightest intention of letting these people be judge in their own cause, but I thought that the matter should be decided by a judge and not by an arbitrator. But this is one of the matters which we might consider between now and Report stage to see whether we can get harmonious agreement. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:I should like to make one point. I can assure noble Lords that it is not our object to be offensive in any way whatever, but in debate we all put our cases a little more strongly than we do in private conversation. I did not get the impression that my noble friend was in any way offensive in what he said. But I am afraid I can hardly say the same about the noble Viscount, Lord Hail-sham, who, rising to rebuke the noble Earl, said the Government's case was infamous rubbish.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Not "infamous"; I said "insolent," which was exactly what the noble Earl had said. I should not have applied that epithet because my epithets, if intended to hit, are not intended to hit wildly. I said "insolent rubbish."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a far more offensive phrase than that used by my noble friend or has ever been used by him. We are accustomed to the noble Viscount in this House and we do not pay too much attention to the words he uses, because his method of persuading us to his point of view is gratuitously to insult us in every speech he delivers.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to say that the very last thing I want to do is to insult either him or his colleagues.

955
Believe me, if I have said anything in the heat of debate which either wounded them or could be considered personal, I am very sorry. But let me tell the Committee this. I have put forward three or four Amendments, all carefully drafted; and on every one of them the Leader of the House—not the noble Marquess, but the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—went out of his way to pay absolutely no attention to what was said, to talk loudly to his colleagues, to chatter with those on the right and left of him. When I begged him to pay attention, he did nothing. When the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who after all is an ex-Lord Chancellor, proposed an Amendment, he was told by the Government representative something which, compendiously stated, though no doubt innocently, was the opposite of the truth and ridiculed him for his pains.
This is a House where there is a large Government majority which can carry its will whenever it wants to. I am in the painful position of differing from some of my colleagues in this respect. If I hit back, I hit hard, without the desire to be offensive. But for a minority to be treated as the Government have, I feel, treated us this evening, is enough to make us strike home when we feel they have been less than courteous. I may tell the noble Marquess at once that if I have hurt anybody's feelings, I am sorry for that. I do hope that the Committee will believe me when I say that, despite the last and rather—I was going to use the word "offensive," but the last rather savage remarks of the Leader of the House, and it is not the first time he has attacked me personally. After all, our debates are in a Parliamentary Chamber, and if all appeals to reason and good sense are ignored, then it is for the Government to be conciliatory to those who differ from them. I feel that the Government have been less than conciliatory and less than courteous to those who put down Amendments to-day, and less than reasonable in the use of their majority. I do hope the noble Marquess—while I say at once that I certainly do not want to pursue a personal quarrel, either with him, or with the noble Earl to whose assistance he came—will realise that if he persists in personally wounding Members of the
956
House, he must expect them to hit back, because we are none of us going to be bullied in this way.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: think the noble Viscount is rather new to this House and he does not yet understand its ways, but no doubt he will in time. This House is not like another place. There is no Speaker in this House, and the rather invidious duty of maintaining the standards of the House falls upon the Leader of the House, although he is a Party Leader and is, therefore, often put in a position of some embarrassment. All I intended to say in my remarks was that there is a certain manner of speaking which is the custom in this House, and which has been scrupulously observed by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, throughout this debate. But the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, says he speaks sharply, and he then says to me that I wish to personally insult. That is not so. All I am concerned to do is to maintain the general standards of this House, to which the House has been accustomed. As nobody else can do it but the Leader of the House, it is for that reason that I have spoken as I have.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should like to say one more thing to the noble Marquess. The last thing I wish is to pursue this matter. I do sincerely want the noble Marquess to believe that I speak from the heart when I speak, and I shall never speak very much otherwise. I tend to mean what I say. I have never tried, and never shall try, to curry favour with an audience, and I regard it as a courtesy to them not to do so. I am certainly not concerned to embitter feelings in this House. It is not altogether kind of the noble Marquess to remind me that I am comparatively new to the House—I have been here only four years. I have tried to take part in these debates, and I am bound to say that I have felt, perhaps wrongly, that the noble Marquess has not been altogether courteous in some of his dealings with me. However, I hope that now, if what he says is correct, we can put matters on a basis where things of this kind will not occur again. If only he would be conciliatory I should be grateful and would try and be so too.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can assure the noble Viscount that I have no personal feelings about this matter at

957
all. Indeed, the position in which I am placed, or the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, would be placed if he were sitting on this side of the House, is not one which is very easy or pleasant. But I know that there has been a feeling in the House that, perhaps not intentionally, the noble Viscount has been rather too sharp, and the arguments that he has used, though perfectly legitimate, halve been barbed rather too acidly for the usual custom of this House. I am sure that the noble Viscount will take that remark in the spirit in which it is intended, and I assure him again, most sincerely, that there is nothing personal in what I say. I am merely acting as I felt it was necessary to act, as one to whom the general maintenance of the standard of the House is entrusted.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: May I accept that in the spirit in which it is offered? I do want the noble Marquess to realise that if my remarks have been barbed it is because I have felt wounded.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.22 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to omit the proviso to subsection (7). The noble Earl said: Now that we have let off a certain amount of steam, I hope all of us will be happier. I think the opposition are entitled to this and this only: if they put their case simply and courteously, I think they are entitled to a simple and courteous reply. I notice the noble Lord is engaged in conversation. I was indicating that I thought the opposition were entitled to this: that so long as they put their case simply and courteously, they are entitled to a simple and courteous reply. I am sure that the noble Earl did not intend to be discourteous on the last occasion. I gladly accept his assurance, and I am sure that on this occasion he, or whoever is going to reply, will reply simply and try to meet the arguments, because although they can beat us in the Division Lobby the real point is, do they beat us in the argument?
I now come to Amendment No. 70 to which I attach great importance. Subsection (7) of Clause 5 provides a right to the Authority to give a notice determining the contract, so far as I am concerned, in the event of a breach. I should like it to be quite plain that I do not ask the Authority to be judge in
958
their own case. Might I have the attention of the noble Lord who is to reply? I am addressing a serious and short argument, and it would be much more convenient if I might have the attention of whichever noble Lord is going to reply. I am saying that in the event of a breach they are entitled to issue a notice terminating the contract. As far as I am concerned, it certainly should be the fact that that notice should be issued only if a court thinks it proper. I presume that to be so. If it is an arbitrary notice I do not want it to be so decided. But there is a proviso to this clause, and the proviso is that the contract is to provide that no notice is to be given unless the contractor has been held liable in respect of breaches of the contract on at least three separate occasions. I have already indicated the length of time before the finality of the judgment—because it is quite idle to talk about the I.T.A. fining these people; it is the work of the arbitrator and possibly the court afterwards. It may be as much as a year, and, indeed, if you are going to have a case stated, that is not at all an excessive period. If you are going to have this happen three times as a condition of terminating a contract, that seems to me quite wrong, and I would ask the noble Lord to see whether he does not agree that that is so.
I am not suggesting for a moment that these programme contractors are irresponsible people, but I am suggesting that the duty of the I.T.A. is to supervise what they are doing, and if the programme contractor is guilty of a serious breach of contract then I cannot see why it should not be possible for the contract to provide that the I.T.A. may terminate the contract, if necessary going to the court to get a decision of the court. But to say it cannot be done until three breaches have been committed seems to me quite wrong and without precedent. I speak subject to correction, but I rather think that this is another of the Amendments which were put down in another place. I rather think that this was not in the Bill when it was first introduced. The Postmaster General will know. Whether that is so or not, I think it is a thoroughly bad provision and I would very much rather that it should not be limited in this way. It should be at large, without this proviso. In those few words—and I hope I shall

959
have an answer which bears upon the question, for I am not in the least ashamed of this Amendment—I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 45, leave out the said proviso.—(Earl Jowitt.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I find it rather difficult to answer this because I do not want to be guilty of repetition. Naturally I want to give the noble and learned Earl a full and courteous reply, but I think he would agree that this Amendment comes within the orbit of the four or five stiffening-up penalties for breach of contract. This Amendment means that the I.T.A. can terminate a contract without three breaches of the contract having taken place. The answer is really the same. If we are going to stiffen up the penalties, we are not going to get reputable companies to come in. We feel—I feel it very strongly—that the termination of the contract ought to be the last resort, and I again ask the noble and learned Earl, at the risk of repetition, to read the Third Schedule which can be used as such a tremendous source of power, as a powerful sanction. Surely he will agree that it is very much better that the Authority should, by the use of these comparatively moderate powers—I say "moderate" only as compared with the termination of the contract—bring an erring company back on to the rails rather than terminate the contract in the very early stages of the erring.
EARL JOWITT: It is a contract we are talking about. I do not say that the I.T.A. will put this in the contract, but, being sensible business men, they will be better able to judge what is appropriate to the contract than I am. Therefore why prevent them from putting it in?
EARL DE LA WARR: If they do not put it in, or having put it in they do not operate the power, there is really no point in it. We feel that the termination of the contract should be the final step that is taken. By the nature of it, it is final, and it should be used only in the ultimate resort. That is definite Government policy. I do not see how, without a fundamental alteration of Government policy, the noble and learned Earl can ask us to make this very great change in the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think we are asking in this Amendment for anything that is at all unusual. The normal thing in any relationship between two business people making a contract is that if one party commits a breach the other has a right to put an end to the contract. There are, of course, minor breaches which are not material, but if there is a material breach of contract it automatically normally gives the right on the part of the other side to bring the contract to an end. I have never come across a case where one of the contracting parties is entitled to break a contract three times before the contract can be put an end to, however serious the breach may be. I feel that this is a matter which ought to be looked at again. This is the most unusual arrangement that I have ever seen in any form of contract that has ever been presented to me. Personally, I am not very much interested in the penalty. I do not think a maximum penalty of £500—it is a maximum—will be a serious deterrent or will be very important, having regard to the large sums that may be involved in the contract.
The noble Earl can visualise, I am sure, serious breaches of contract which ought in the public interest to give rise to the normal remedy, namely, for the Authority to be able to put an end to the contract. The thing which one fears is that there may be serious breaches, but the Authority will have to wait until those serious breaches have taken place on three occasions before the contract can be put an end to. I suggest that that is something that ought to be reconsidered. You could, if you liked, say that they had to be serious breaches. Of course, nobody would suggest that the Authority should put an end to a contract because of a minor or technical breach. It is quite a common thing to define what is a serious breach or even, if you like, to define the kind of breaches which would give rise to the remedy of terminating the contract. I certainly think that this matter should be looked at again.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to ask the noble Earl who is replying for Her Majesty's Government whether the intention of this clause is, in fact, that the Authority should not be able to put an end to a contract in the event of one fundamental breach taking place. The noble Lord who has just resumed his seat

961
has pointed out one elementary proposition of law, that in the ordinary way a fundamental breach of a contract gives the innocent party the right to rescind the contract. I am not quite clear whether the intention of this clause is to take that right away. If the noble Earl says it is, I ask him whether he has been advised that the proviso is effective to that purpose, because it is a very complicated proviso. It seems to me, as a lawyer, that it is questionable whether in fact it achieves that object.
EARL DE LA WARR: In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I would direct his attention to Clause 5, subsection (8), where he will see that that subsection preserves the Authority's Common Law remedies. I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. There is no question, from our discussion, that the noble Lords opposite are concerned about these provisions. I am not going to give any undertaking whatsoever, but, if they would like to talk with me on this matter between now and Report stage, I shall be happy to do so. We want to get this Bill through with a certain amount of mutual understanding, and I do not think there is any question that we must undertake to talk when we realise that the other side is really deeply worried on a matter.
EARL JOWITT: I should like to have a discussion with the noble Earl, if only to elucidate this question—I do not expect an answer now, but I mention it. It is the question Lord Chorley asked. Suppose there has been a fundamental breach of the contract which, under the normal contract law, would entitle the innocent contracting party to say, "You have breached the contract; you have repudiated it. I shall accept that repudiation and the contract is ended." Suppose that happened before there had been these three fines—because the three fines will generally cover a period of three years—is it, or is it not, within the power of the I.T.A. to terminate the contract? As subsection (8) of this clause is drafted at the present time it seems to me exceedingly difficult to know what the answer to that question is. I think it ought to be possible for the Parliamentary draftsmen to make that matter so plain that anybody can understand it. I do not ask the noble Earl to answer that question now, but I have raised it in the presence
962
of the Parliamentary draftsman and I should like to discuss it, because, having raised this question now, the noble Earl will be able then to give me a perfectly clear and categorical answer. In the meantime, although I regard this as a question of importance on which I should normally have divided the Committee, in view of the lateness of the hour I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.37 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved to add to subsection (7):
"Provided however that in any event the Authority shall not be bound to transmit any matter contained in a programme the transmission of which would, in the opinion of the Authority, constitute a breach by the Authority of any of the obligations imposed under Section 3 of this Act or expose the Authority to proceedings for defamation or criminal liability for the publication of seditious, blasphemous, or obscene matter."
The noble Lord said: This Bill, and Clause 5 in particular, confers a great many powers on the Authority, and of course lays down many conditions which should be included in the contracts with the programme contractors. But nowhere does there seem to be the power set out in this Amendment—namely, a power whereby
"the Authority shall not be bound to transmit any matter contained in a programme the transmission of which would, in the opinion of the Authority, constitute a breach by the Authority of any of the obligations imposed under Section 3 or expose the Authority to proceedings for defamation or criminal liability for the publication of seditious, blasphemous, or obscene matter."
It would seem such a power should be conferred on the Authority, and that the Authority should have a complete discretion, within the four walls of the conditions laid down in this Amendment—that is, that in the opinion of the Authority there might be a breach or that there are possibilities about proceedings for defamation, et cetera.
It would seem reasonable and proper that the Authority should not be under any compulsion to transmit any matter which would come within those two conditions. I am aware that in the Third Schedule it is proposed that there shall be power in contracts to forbid the publication of certain matter, but that is not quite the same thing. Here, if your

963
Lordships pass this Amendment, before any difficulty has arisen, it will be possible for the Authority to decline to transmit any matter coming within the purview of the Amendment. That would seem a very desirable provision. Your Lordships will know of cases in which the B.B.C. have been concerned—not many of them, because I think the B.B.C. must have some similar power—but in any event it is even more desirable that this power should be conferred upon the Television Authority than upon the B.B.C. I submit to your Lordships that there should be this overriding power, which is a moderate one and one which can be exercised only within the four walls of the conditions laid down. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
EARL DE LA WARR: This is an Amendment that I had definitely marked down to accept, until I looked at it more carefully; then I felt that there were reasons that could influence not only myself but also the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds. I gather that the Amendment does not involve a question of policy, of control of the companies; it is more a matter of protecting the I.T.A. I have looked into that, and I can assure the noble Lord that that is quite unnecessary, because the I.T.A. are already entitled, without incurring penalties, to refuse to lay themselves open to criminal prosecution or to civil proceedings for defamation.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Where is that laid down?
EARL DE LA WARR: That, I think, is the general law of the land—that nobody need take steps that will render him liable to criminal prosecution. But if, contrary to the legal advice that I have received, the legal advisers of the I.T.A. take a different view, then they can doubtless advise the I.T.A. to insert additional safeguards in the contract. To put it shortly, that means that this Amendment is not necessary. Supposing that we were to say "although it is not necessary, it will do no harm; we will put it in the Bill," we should then have to ask ourselves exactly how it is to be operated. There are only two ways in
964
which this can be done. One is by having a permanent monitor watching the programmes, and to arm that monitor with powers immediately to switch off a programme, which is turning him into a censor. The second way would be by allowing scripts to be demanded in advance, which would mean dropping the proviso to Clause 5 (5); and that would mean that scripts would be demanded as a general rule and without apprehension of the likelihood of a breach of the contract. There we really come down to policy. We should either have to say that we are going to have a permanent monitor, sitting as a censor, or that we are going to allow scripts to be demanded, as of right and as a normal procedure, from a perfectly respectable company that has never committed an offence and is never likely to commit an offence. Certainly those reasons convinced me that I should be wrong to accept this Amendment, and I trust that they have convinced the noble Lord.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Whilst I cannot accept the first proposition put forward by the noble Earl, I think that possibly I must admit the accuracy of the difficulty arising on his second proposition. I fully appreciate that there may be difficulty, without recourse to scripts beforehand and so forth, in knowing whether anything which would constitute a breach is going to be shown on the television screen. I am not altogether happy about it, but, having regard to what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.44 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, in subsection (8), after "prejudice" to insert:
"to the right of the Authority to accept as a repudiation by programme contractor any breach of contract by the programme contractor going to the root of the contract and"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been put down in the hope of clarifying subsection (8). I am not at all sure that the Government did not mean in the subsection to cover the point of the Amendment. If they did mean that, I do not think it is clear. I understand that the noble Earl is going to accept this Amendment, in which case I need say no more.
EARL DE LA WARR: Perhaps I may say that I accept it in principle; I think I may need a little advice on the actual drafting.
LORD OGMORE: I am much obliged.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 6, after ("prejudice") insert the said words.—(Lord Ogmore.)
EARL DE LA WARR: May I now move that Clause 5 be divided into two. This is a purely drafting Amendment for the convenience of Parliament. I need only say that the new subsection (5) moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and accepted by the Government will, of course, be included in the first part of the division. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
That Clause 5 be divided into two clauses, the first to consist of subsections (1) to (4) inclusive; and the second to consist of subsections (5) to (8) inclusive.—(Earl De La Warr.)
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: I beg to move the new clause after Clause 5.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:
Television broadcasting facilities in respect of certain sporting and other events
"6.—(1) If in the case of any sporting or other event of national interest it appears to the Postmaster General that it is expedient, in order to prevent the making of exclusive arrangements for broadcasting to a restricted audience, that provision should be made for regulating the grant of television broadcasting facilities, he may by order direct that the Fourth Schedule to this Act [Sporting events, etc.] shall have effect in relation to that event as from such date as may be specified in the order.
(2) this section and in the said Schedule 'television broadcasting facilities' means facilities for television broadcasting from stations in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands; and for the purposes of the said Schedule 'the promoters' means, in relation to an event specified in an order under this section, such person or persons as may be designated in that behalf by the order.
(3) The provisions of the said Schedule shall not apply to the broadcasting of a record of any event specified in an order under this section unless the visual images are transmitted within seven days after the happenings represented by those images respectively (not exceeding hours) as may be prescribed by the order.
(4) The power to make orders under this section shall include power to revoke or vary any such order by a subsequent order made thereunder.
(5) The power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and before making any such order the Postmaster General shall lay a draft thereof before each House of Parliament, and shall not make the order until a resolution has been passed by each House of Parliament approving the draft."—(Earl De La Warr.)
Clause 6:
Advisory committees
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, the Authority shall in particular appoint, or arrange for the assistance of—

(a) a committee representative of the main streams of religious thought in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, to give advice to the Authority on any religious services or other matters of a religious nature included in the programmes broadcast by the Authority, or in any publications issued by the Authority; and

(b) a committee representative of organisations, authorities and persons concerned with standards of conduct in the advertising of goods and services (including in particular the advertising of goods or services for medical or surgical purposes) to give advice to the Authority and programme contractors as to the principles to be followed in connection with the advertisements included as aforesaid,

and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply and secure compliance with the recommendations of the said committees, subject to such exceptions or modifications, if any, as may appear to the Authority to be necessary or proper having regard to the duties incumbent on them otherwise than under this subsection.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: Amendment No. 74 is consequential to the passing of Amendment No. 47 earlier in our proceedings. It is clear in Amendment No. 74 that the Committee set up to advise on religious matters will advise only on items under paragraph (3) of Amendment No. 47 and not on paragraph (b). I think this makes clear a question raised earlier in the debate by some noble Lords. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 20, leave out from ("Authotrity") to ("other") and insert ("as to the exercise of their functions in relation to any such items as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of section three of this Act, and on any").—(The Lord Bishop of Bristol.)
LORD MATHERS: This Amendment will have the effect of disqualifying Amendment No. 75, because it cuts out a word after which I wish to mention the time to be allowed to religious broadcasting. It seems that this particular Amendment should have been taken before the Amendment to leave out the words quoted, and I am wondering how my position can be safeguarded.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am not going to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, No. 75, but I accept Amendment No. 74.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, is that if you accept Amendment No. 74 that would involve cutting out certain words on which he wants to raise a question on Amendment No. 75.
EARL JOWITT: The practice of this House is always that, in those circumstances, before we accept Amendment No. 74 we deal with Amendment No. 75, so as to preserve the rights of any Member wanting to raise a point on that subsequent Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am sorry, I did not appreciate that point.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is it suggested that we should take Amendment No. 75 first and, having disposed of that, if necessary return to No. 74? That seems to be a practical course.
EARL JOWITT: It seems the only way to preserve the rights of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, on his Amendment.
LORD MATHERS: In that event I presume I can proceed with my Amendment?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I now understand that it is improper for us to go backwards. Would it not be better to discuss the two Amendments together? That would get over the difficulty with which the Committee is faced.
LORD MATHERS: I beg to move Amendment No. 75.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: May I point out that we are actually discussing Amendment No. 74. Amendment No. 74 has been moved, and
968
the noble Lord should discuss Amendment 75 together with Amendment No. 74. The noble Lord cannot move No. 75 yet.
LORD MATHERS: Let me put it this way. I am explaining to your Lordships what is involved in Amendment 75. It seems to me that what is happening to this Amendment is that it is rather in the position of getting "Jeddart justice." I do not know if there are many Scots here, but no doubt they will recognise the expression. "Jeddart justice" was to hang a man and try him afterwards. It was a safe way of dealing with some of my forbears in the old wild days in the Border country. Clause 6 (2) (a) contains the words "any religious services or other matters." I claim that the amount of time to be allotted to religious broadcasts is not germane to religious services. What I want dealt with by this Amendment is the amount of time allotted to religious broadcasting. In view of the fact that there is some particularisation in the clause, I think that the amount of time to be allotted to religious broadcasting should be included in the categories of items that will be dealt with under this particular clause. That explains the point as I see it, and I hope that I may have at least some indication as to why, as I have been told, this Amendment is condemned to death.
EARL DE LA WARR: The reason why I find it hard to accept Amendment No. 75 is that we have made the I.T.A. responsible for the balancing of the programmes. This Amendment would mean giving what the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Bristol described as the C.R.A.C. the right to say how much time should be devoted to religious broadcasting, and I do not think that this is the proper body to advise on that matter. We must be clear in our definition of powers. We must give certain powers and certain duties to one body, and quite positive duties to the other. I should say that it will be for the Churches' Advisory Committee to advise as to the nature and conduct of religious services and propaganda, but when it comes to the allocation of time that must be the responsibility of the I.T.A.
LORD MATHERS: I have to accept that this is an advisory body. I have been contending with energy the desirability of

969
leaving the Authority to be finally the responsible body. That has been established, and the Amendments from the right reverend Prelate have been accepted. I feel that on the argument as now presented to me I must give way. We will first of all dispose of Amendment 74 and then I shall be properly disqualified from moving Amendment 75, and I will not move it.
10.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (a) to insert:
"(b) a committee representative of persons with experience of and special interest in the welfare and education of young persons and children to give advice to the Authority and programme contractors on any matters intended for young persons or children in the said programmes or publications."
The noble Earl said: I am glad that we have reached an Amendment on which those of us who are completely unacquainted with the law can speak without feeling that we are dunces. This Amendment deals with a purely human point, but I think it is of some importance, and I feel your Lordships will agree that it deserves careful consideration.
The object of the Amendment is simply to get the Authority to appoint another advisory committee. There are already two, on religion and advertising standards, and I am suggesting that they should appoint another advisory committee on educational matters, a committee that would deal with the contents of broadcasts for children and young persons. I should mention that a similar Amendment was moved in another place, but under the guillotine it was discussed for only about ten minutes, and this important subject has not been dealt with since, either on Second Reading or during the last two days. I hope your Lordships will agree that if it is essential to guarantee a healthy and sound influence of television on the minds of children and young persons, then there is an extremely strong case for the appointment of a committee of this kind.
Speaking in another place the Assistant Postmaster General said the objection to this Amendment was that the Authority could already appoint a committee of
970
this kind if so desired, but surely it is far better to appoint the committee as soon as the Authority are appointed. That would enable them to avoid mistakes, probably disastrous mistakes, in broadcasting to children. Prevention is far better than cure. We ought not to wait until mistakes are made before they are corrected. I think we can draw conclusions from what has happened in America, where commercial broadcasts for children have been going on for a long time. I understand that in America Western films have been the most popular item on all children's programmes. Some of these films are perfectly suitable, but others are not; and, clearly, if films of this type are to be shown here in children's programmes it is essential for the experts qualified to judge these matters to advise on their suitability before the films are put on the television screens. It is only in this way that we shall know whether they are frightening or cruel, or whatever it may be.
I am strengthened in my view that such advice is desirable here before we launch into children's broadcasting under commercial auspices by the following message from the American correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, which I noticed in that paper this morning. Let me read two sentences:
"Increasing emphasis is being placed on crime in children's programmes on American radio and television, according to the annual report of the National Association for Better Radio and Televison of Los Angeles.
"It declares"—
and this is a quotation from the Report—
"'Murder, torture, sadism, morbid suspense and other fear and tension-inducing elements are saturating children's minds and physical senses to a degree never before experienced by any generation.
"'Television more than any other medium is responsible for this crime deluge'."
Then there is the last sentence, which I feel is rather an ominous suggestion of what may happen in the future here. It says:
"Many of the programmes, the report notes, are filmed for disribution abroad."
I do not say that we should ever get anything like as bad here, but a risk is taken when we embark on this experiment in this country. If we are embarking on an experiment, then we should look elsewhere to get advice from people

971
who have had experience. Therefore I think it is reasonable to suggest that this is a matter that deserves the sincerest consideration by the Government. Apart from anything else, I cannot help feeling that all homes in which people have or are likely to have television sets, where there are young children, will be reassured by a safeguard of this kind, and by the knowledge that every film and other items produced specifically for children are to be "vetted" by people who know what is good for children to see and hear. For that reason, I commend this Amendment to the Government. I do not expect them to decide it now—at least, I hope they will not decide against it, and I do not expect them to decide in favour of it—but I think it is a matter that deserves careful consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My noble friend has so clearly stated the main object of his Amendment that there does not remain much to be said, and I have no intention of detaining your Lordships. However, I should like to add this. I am a Governor of one of the King Edward VI schools that specialises in the care of children from broken homes. The knowledge and experience which those who manage that school possess is something that makes me realise that a mere amateur in such a matter, dabbling in the education of children, may be quite unfitted to judge whether a particular broadcast or television programme is desirable for children generally. I therefore hope that the Government will see fit to give this proposal their earnest attention. If they cannot accept the Amendment now, I hope they will at least promise to give it their full consideration, and that, as a result, they will see their way to putting down a similar Amendment on Report.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I should like to say a word or two on this Amendment before my noble friend replies. I am a little perplexed. Does the noble Earl who moved the Amendment intend that a similar committee as this should also advise the B.B.C.? I do not want to repeat what I have already
972
said, but I pointed out on Second Reading a number of programmes on the B.B.C. of a most acutely horrific nature. Admittedly, they were not in a children's programme, but they were on at times when a child could hear them. They were certainly enough to scare any child out of his or her wits. I cannot see the rightness of applying a provision like this to the commercial television while programmes such as we have heard are allowed on the B.B.C. It is a point which I feel the noble Earl who moved the Amendment should bear in mind. The Amendment as it stands would give rise to considerable inconsistency.
LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE: May I point out to your Lordships that the first and most important advisory council appointed by the B.B.C. was the Schools Broadcasting Council, which is a very representative body—and more than an advisory body: in fact, it is largely executive. It was appointed twenty years ago; it has been a great success, and nobody would dream of altering it. That was done by the voluntary action of the B.B.C.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Lord opposite asked me a question, and I am perfectly prepared to answer it. This Amendment has nothing to do with the B.B.C. I am therefore not proposing in this Amendment that a similar committee should be appointed by the B.B.C. We are dealing now with commercial broadcasting, and the dangers which I mentioned in the course of my remarks are dangers which are associated with commercial broadcasting. If the noble Lord says he does not consider some of the films shown by the B.B.C. suitable for children, then I should be the first to say that there should be a careful examination and inquiry into the desirability of such a committee for the B.B.C. But that is quite separate from this Amendment; it has nothing whatever to do with it. I should be the first person to associate myself with any suggestion that a matter of this kind should be examined exceedingly carefully in relation to the B.B.C. if anyone with the authority of the noble Lord opposite, or anyone who takes a serious interest in the affairs of the young, were to suggest that the B.B.C. was misusing or falling short of its responsibilities.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should like to clear my own mind on what the noble Earl is proposing. If he is proposing a committee which is to look at every programme which every programme contractor produces for those of riper years, like the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence and myself—
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I can answer the noble Viscount straight off and spare him the trouble of talking at greater length. I do not propose anything of the kind. My intention was merely that this committee should see material intended for children and young persons; not material intended for adults.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The religious people do not "vet" the general broadcasts to see whether they have an effect upon religion, but only the religious programmes. If a programme contractor wishes to put on something such as what we loosely call a "Children's Hour." he should have expert advice.
EARL DE LA WARR: The reason why I was not keen on this Amendment was that the Authority will need a great number of committees, and if we started elaborating every one it would be a big affair, and I think that in the end we should probably not have got anywhere. But this is a special circumstance. Perhaps I may be allowed to consider this matter and put something down on Report. I do not think we can accept this Amendment. We have to take out programme contractors and make this a committee which will advise the Authority. That is a matter we could discuss. I do not want an undertaking from noble Lords, but I should not like it to be thought that we should enumerate every committee that the Authority would have to appoint.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. It exactly meets the point which I made—that the matter should be considered between now and Report. I was pleased to hear that the Government are likely to give this matter favourable consideration. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "contractors," to insert:
"with a view to the exclusion of misleading advertisements from such programmes, And otherwise."
The noble Lord said: This is a small but fairly important Amendment, and I hope that it may have some support. Clause 6 (2), paragraph (b), refers only in a very general way to the duties that the committee therein mentioned shall carry out in advising as to standards and principles in connection with advertisements. What is certainly implicit in the committee's terms of reference, however, is that it shall safeguard the public against misleading advertisements. To put some specification like that into this paragraph is the purpose of the Amendment. Nothing is mentioned so far. Some of your Lordships may feel that this Amendment is unnecessary since in a general way the paragraph already covers this particular provision, but I feel that more than that is required. This is a most important point indeed, and I consider that the committee should be specifically charged in the Statute with the carrying out of this duty. That is the first reason for moving the Amendment. There is another reason and it is something that the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, may have had in mind in an Amendment which he withdrew earlier this evening—that is, that existing legislation safeguards against misleading advertisements in matters other than television advertising. But it does not cover television advertising. This Amendment of mine is to stop the gap which exists at the moment. It is to rectify a breach which will occur in the existing law after this Bill is passed.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 29, after ("contractors") insert the said words.—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This meets the requirement of the Retail Trading Standards Association, and is designed to prevent misleading advertisements. The next Amendment extends the same regulations to publications made on behalf of the Independent Television Authority. I am glad to accept both these Amendments.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: This is consequential and I formally beg leave to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 31, after ("included") insert ("in such programmes, or in any publications issued").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2) to add to paragraph (b):
"and to prepare and submit to the Authority a code of such standards of conduct as aforesaid."
The noble Earl said: I think it would save time at this late hour if I were permitted to speak also to the two subsequent Amendments standing in my name while I am formally moving this Amendment, as all three are concerned with the same subject. I will not do it if it is inconvenient, but I think it might be a time-saving device, as all three are connected, and really follow one from another.
EARL DE LA WARR: If the noble Earl will forgive my intervention, I would tell him, in order to save time, that I shall be prepared to accept his first Amendment. I think that has considerable point. But I am afraid I could not accept the consequential ones.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am delighted with that acceptance, and I willingly withdraw this Amendment or, if he is satisfied with it in its present form—
EARL DE LA WARR: Would the noble Earl move the present Amendment and withdraw the other two?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should like to put the argument on the others and find out what the noble Earl's objections are.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 31, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "them" and insert "the Authority." The noble Viscount said: I do not want to take up the time of the House. This is a purely drafting Amendment. It was thought the word "them" might refer to the Authority or the committee, and the Amendment merely makes it clear that it is the Authority which is referred to. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 36, leave out ("them") and insert ("the Authority").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I agree that it is better drafting to leave out "them" and insert "Authority."
11.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to add to subsection (2):
"and to submit to the Postmaster-General for approval and thereafter to publish and secure compliance with the said code as approved with or without modifications by the Postmaster-General:
Provided that from time to time the Authority may after consultation with the said last-mentioned committee and with the approval of the Postmaster-General modify the said code and that the Postmaster-General shall lay before Parliament the said code and any modifications thereof made as aforesaid by the Authority."
The noble Earl said: I should like to speak on this Amendment and the next together. Their object is the same. It is this. The noble Earl has said that he accepts the desirability of having an advertising code. What I am trying to do by these Amendments is to secure that this code is subject to effective Parliamentary control. This is a matter on which a great deal of Parliamentary interest has been shown, both in debates in another place and, subsequently, here. The only way to make this control effective is the usual way of making a Minister responsible, and in that way enabling Parliament to criticise the Minister if any alterations are made in the code of which he does not approve. That is why I am suggesting that the code should be submitted by the Authority to the Postmaster General, as the Minister concerned in this matter, and should require his consent. Again, it is obviously essential that Parliament should know any alterations in this code of advertising which the Minister may decide to make, and that Parliament should know that at the time they are made, instead of having to wait until the end of the year, or whenever it may be, when it has the opportunity of seeing what they are in the annual report submitted by the Authority. This is simply a device to secure Parliamentary control. I imagine that the noble Earl will agree that some measure of Parliamentary control is desirable. As I gather he objects to this, I should like to know what alternative he has in mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 37, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not know whether the noble Earl regards Nos. 81 and 82 as alternative or supplementary, but if taken together they are

977
powerful. We have agreed in the first place to No. 79, which means that the Advisory Committee on Advertisements can prepare a code and submit it to the I.T.A. Now the noble Earl wants to go a great deal further. He wants the I.T.A. to submit the code to the Postmaster General and the Postmaster General to submit the code to Parliament; and Parliament can, of course, annul it. What is the use of appointing an advisory committee if we do not trust it to do anything? First of all, it has to submit a code for the approval of the I.T.A.—and we are not to trust the I.T.A. Then, under the Amendment, the I.T.A. is to submit it to the Postmaster General—and we do not trust the Postmaster General. Then the code is to come to Parliament. That really is going too far.
Under the second Amendment the Postmaster General would be given exactly the same powers as the I.T.A. have under Clause 6—that is to say, he can the I.T.A. what committees they are to appoint, who is to be on the Committees, what terms of reference the committees are to have. In effect, it overrides the powers of these committees to give mandatory advice to the I.T.A. on religious or advertising matters and makes the Postmaster General responsible for the whole thing. This Amendment makes fools of those two committees and makes the provisions of Clause 6 ridiculous. I therefore hope the noble Earl will withdraw the first Amendment and will not move the second.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I did not feel that my Amendments would have the disastrous effect which the noble Earl
978
appears to contemplate. I was merely indulging in a perfectly harmless and, I thought, quite usual desire to ensure that Parliamentary control was effective. The last thing I wanted to do was to say that we were going to distrust the Authority or the people who are going to act in the spirit or letter of the code. I do not think that was intended at all. However, if the Government object to this Amendment, I very readily ask permission to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL JOWITT: I see the noble Marquess has returned. Having got those two Amendments, I do not think we have done badly. We have reached No. 83. I do not know what the Government think, but we should like to adjourn at this stage if we might.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think we might bring our discussions to a close now. We have covered a great deal of ground and I think everybody is rather tired. It has been a long day, and if it is agreeable to the Opposition I suggest that we should adjourn the debate now and continue it to-morrow.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past eleven o'clock.