Lords Sitting of 14 July 1954

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  USE OF AGENE IN BREAD
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD HANKEY: 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: (1) whether tests have been made of the white bread now being produced, without employing any chemical bleachers and improvers such as agene, by high-speed mixing machines built in Scotland and used extensively in the south of England and Scotland; and (2) whether this aeration process provides a suitable substitute for agene, and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will now abandon the use of agene in accordance with the undertaking given in this House by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries on June 10, 1953, and confirmed by him on May 12, 1954.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, bread, in which improvement has been produced by high-speed mixing, has been included in the recent tests on flour improvers. As I told the noble Lord on May 12, we are at present awaiting the recommendations of the sub-committee of the Interdepartmental Standing Committee on Medical and Nutritional Problems on the results of these tests.
  LORD HANKEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask this supplementary question? Has not this unagenised bread been tried on the famous dogs which, when given this food of the people, developed hysteria?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whether he thinks that it would be
  980
  wrong to ban the use of agene until a suitable substitute has been found, and whether he would not also agree that the reaction of human beings to this substance may be different from the reaction of dogs?
  LORD CARRINGTON: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his supplementary question, with which I agree. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, I realise that he has been waiting some considerable time now for a definite answer on this question, but I think it is very important (and I know that he will agree with me) that we should have the fullest possible scientific information before we decide to ban agene.
  LORD HANKEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, and while fully agreeing with him about the importance of full scientific tests, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that this method of aeration of bread—mechanical aeration without any chemical improver—has been in existence for more than two and a half years? Are they aware that for more than two and a half years such bread has been sold by the largest bakery in Scotland, and that it is now, and has been for some time, in use in Glasgow and in Dundee, where a special factory has been built for its production and where all the bread is made on this system; and also in Exeter and the surrounding district, in Plymouth and in St. Austell? I believe that other places also have it, but the places I have mentioned I have verified. My Lords, might not the Government have bought a loaf and sent it to Hampstead to be tried out, in order to get some idea?
  LORD CARRINGTON: I think all your Lordships would agree that it would be a mistake to try to force this committee to do its work at a faster pace than it can properly be done. I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, will read the Answer I gave to his original Question, he will see that the bread to which he is referring has been included in the tests made on flour improvers.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Is the noble Lord, Lord Carrington aware that at least twenty-seven years ago a departmental committee on the treatment of flour with chemicals predicted the ill-results of using agene and similar substances, and recommended that flour

  981
  should be untreated and should have no chemicals added to it? Why the delay? What interest stands in the way of public health?
  LORD CARRINGTON: The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has asked me whether I am aware of this. I most certainly am aware of it, because he has told me so on the last two occasions on which this problem has been raised.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that a statement on Kenya will be made at about half past three by my noble friend Lord Munster.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

  PHARMACY BILL [H.L.]
  2.42 p.m.
  House in Committee (according to Order), on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): I beg to move that the Amendment made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills be agreed to.
  Moved, That the Amendment made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills be agreed to.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Clauses 1 to 29 agreed to.
  Clause 30 [Withdrawals from Fund]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a small Amendment to insert the words "by statutory instrument" after the word "may," an omission that was made by mistake. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 10, after ("may") insert ("by statutory instrument").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 31 to 66 agreed to.
  Clause 67 [Superannuation payments for transferred officers]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is precisely the same as that which I have just moved, to insert after the word "Commissioners" the words "by statutory instrument." I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 43, line 23, after ("Commissioners") insert ("by statutory instrument").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
  House resumed.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: the Amendment made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills agreed to.

  HOUSING (REPAIRS AND RENTS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  2.47 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
  Clause 10 [Amendments of Part VII of principal Act]:
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
  "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment any person aggrieved—

  (a) by the refusal of a local authority to approve an application for a grant under section one hundred and eleven of the principal Act (other than (i) an application which the local authority is required to refuse by virtue of subsection (6) of the said section or (ii) an application in respect of which the consent of the Secretary of State is required by virtue of subsection (7) of the said section): or

  (b) by the amount of the expense approved by the local authority in a case where the said application has been approved under the said section

  may appeal to the Secretary of State on giving notice of appeal within one month after he has been notified of the refusal of the said application or of the amount of the expense approved by the local authority as the case may be and the Secretary of State may allow or dismiss the appeal or may increase the amount of the expense approved as aforesaid."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause makes certain Amendments to the principal Act, the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. Part III of that Act provides that local authorities may make grants to owners of houses for the improvement of those houses. The object of this Amendment is to give the applicant a right of appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland in cases where his application for a grant is turned down by the local authority or where he considers the amount granted is insufficient. A somewhat similar Amendment was moved in another place, but for certain reasons was not considered suitable. I hope that this Amendment may remedy that position.
  Your Lordships may wonder why a right of appeal should be considered necessary. The reason is that the giving of these grants is purely permissive. A local authority may give grants; it is not obliged to do so. There are two kinds of cases where this matter presents difficulty. First, some local authorities have discriminated as between applicants in the giving of grants and
  984
  the amount of grants. A case was cited in another place of one local authority which gave individuals grants at the rate of 50 per cent., but when the local cooperative society applied for a grant only 25 per cent. was given. Whatever one thinks about co-operation, that is surely a case of discrimination.
  The second type of case, with which I am more concerned here, is of certain local authorities which have refused, altogether as a matter of principle, to entertain applications for grants. This appears to be for two separate causes. The first is that a great number of these applications are in respect of rural cottages occupied by agricultural workers. These cottages are de-rated, and, therefore, when improvements are made to them there is no increase in rates to the local authority. The second and more serious reason is that certain local authorities have refused to entertain grants for what we may call purely political reasons, in that they do not approve of giving public money to individual owners. Surely this is a loophole in the Bill which was not intended to be there when it was introduced by the Government, their object being to increase by all possible means the amount of housing accommodation available. And this particular method by giving grants to people for the improvement of private property is surely one of the least expensive and one which makes the least demand on the taxpayer's pocket, because these properties, when improved, are no drain on the public purse for continuing rent subsidies. Not only that, but these grants are met as to three-quarters by the Central Government, and only one-quarter falls on the local rates.
  In another place, the Secretary of State for Scotland undertook, on Third Reading of the Bill, to have discussions with local authorities, with a view to avoiding this discrimination which was taking place between individual applicants. I do not know how successful those discussions were, but I regret to say that the other point, the complete refusal to entertain a grant, has not been met. I see from the Ayrshire Post of July 3 that Ayr County Council have decided to cease giving improvement grants under that section of the Act, and are not even to entertain those applications for grants which had been lodged and were in the course of consideration. I am sure your

  985
  Lordships will agree that, particularly in one of the most progressive agricultural counties in Scotland, that is not a satisfactory state of affairs. I am sure that it is not the sort of thing that the Government, when they introduced this Bill, intended should arise, and it is with this in view that I introduce the Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 27, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Polwarth.)
  2.53 p.m.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I rise to say a few words in support of the noble Lord's Amendment. As he has already explained, the purposes of this Amendment are twofold. They are, first, to provide a right of appeal, in the case of refusal by the local authority to approve an application for grant, and secondly, as mentioned in another place, to provide that an appeal may be made against the amount of the expense approved. It was suggested on Second Reading of the Bill that an appeal was not necessary because it would enable a local authority to side step their responsibility by making the grant very small. Like many of your Lordships I serve as a county councillor. At one time I was convener, or chairman, of a county council, so I have no desire to encourage undue interference from the central authority. But it seems to me that it is necessary for us to appreciate that there are, and will be, cases where a local authority, as the noble Lord said, will not be particularly interested in giving grants to agricultural subjects which, of course, are de-rated and therefore bring little or no benefit to the rates. The county which is the concern of the authority may well be largely urban in its character, and because local affairs may be handled largely from the urban point of view, rather than from the rural point of view, there may be this neglect of rural needs—which would be a great mistake.
  I have no complaint in this respect to make about my own county, which is largely an agricultural county, but it is understandable that the council of a heavily urbanised county might not realise its full responsibility to the rural areas. It is a strong point that local authorities have a statutory responsibility for housing, and
  986
  where their burden is lessened by the modernisation of houses by private individuals then by that much their burden is correspondingly lightened. It is a fact, and should be noted, that in the case of privately owned houses the Central Government meet 75 per cent. of annual loan charges and seven-eights of such charges in Highland counties. It would appear, therefore, that there is a strong case for providing some means for a local authority's refusal to sanction a grant being reviewed by a higher authority. In another place, on June 2, Her Majesty's Government stressed their desire that much greater use should be made of "improvement grant provisions," and also stressed that no opportunity should be lost of bringing rural houses up to modern standards wherever there is a house which is structurally worth spending money on. I hope that the noble Earl, in charge of the Bill, will see his way to accept the Amendment, which, as a county councillor, I consider a most necessary one. I do not consider that the adoption of the Amendment would result in undue interference in the affairs of a county council. After all, we are asking only for the right of appeal, and the Secretary of State is always at liberty to turn down the appeal if he so wishes.
  2.55 p.m.
  LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I think the case for this Amendment has been made very clearly by the two noble Lords who have spoken, and I should like briefly to say a few words in support of what they have said. To their arguments I would only add that it does seem very hard, as between one set of people and another, that in one county agricultural cottages will not benefit from the Government's wish to have these grants spent, whereas neighbouring farms will get the benefit of the Government policy. That will mean, very often, that a farmer will not be able to get the agricultural labour that he wants, for nowadays the first questions a worker asks is, "Has this house modern conveniences?" If the houses which he has to offer to his men have not such conveniences the farmer often finds it is not possible to get men to work for him. That situation seems unfair, and I think the Government should find some method of meeting this case.
  2.56 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am in sympathy with the purpose which the noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Amendment have in mind. The Government very much want to see this reconditioning of houses undertaken, particularly in the countryside. I have some reluctance, however, to accept the method which the noble Lords have proposed. It is the general policy of the Government not to clip the wings of the local authorities but to give them authority in their own districts, as the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, has recognised, and this seems to be a field in which it is reasonable to leave the authority with powers that they have. They have the necessary technical staff, with knowledge and experience of local conditions and, as the mover of the Amendment said, the balance of expenditure has to be met from the rates. What Lord Polwarth asked me to do is to provide an appeal to the Secretary of State; but that, in effect, would be to dictate to the local authorities how they are to spend the ratepayers' money. I very much prefer in the first instance at any rate, to deal with this matter administratively.
  With that in mind we had a meeting with the local authorities' associations and they gave us an assurance that they would advise their members to work to the general plan of the Bill and would seek to secure that there should be no discrimination, on financial or on any other grounds. They undertook to get their members, so far as they could, to adhere to this plan. In addition to that, the Secretary of State is sending round a circular in which he draws the attention of local authorities to their powers and to the great desirability of safeguarding this national asset by the improvement of as many of these houses as can possibly be improved. I admit at once that a local authority which deliberately decides to give no grants is taking a very serious decision, from which grave social consequences may flow, because it is true that if one county council refuses to operate this Part of the Bill then agricultural workers in that county will not get the same housing conditions as prevail in almost every other county in Scotland. Therefore, the local authority concerned will be deliberately depriving agricultural workers in the main of good housing
  988
  conditions. I very much hope that common sense will prevail, as it so often does in these matters, among the county councils in Scotland. I believe that it will.
  There is this isolated case which Lord Polwarth has mentioned, but I hope that we shall be able to deal with that by administrative methods. I must say that should a local authority fail to perform what the Secretary of State considers to be a housing duty, then we have the default clauses in the main Housing Act, which he can use. That is a cumbersome procedure and we should not like to see it used. Nevertheless, the default clauses are there, and they would enable the Secretary of State to intervene. In view of the assurance that we are going to take every administrative action to overcome this real difficulty, and with the knowledge that certain powers would remain with the Secretary of State which can be used if necessary, I hope the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press this Amendment.
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. I appreciate the difficulty of meeting this case by amending the Bill, and I am glad to hear the noble Earl say that, if necessary, the point will be met by administrative action. For the benefit of the local authority which I mentioned, I would say that about 150 years ago there was a certain Ayrshire agricultural worker who in his spare time wrote verse. One of his main objects in life was campaigning for the improvement of the living and working conditions of his fellow-agricultural workers. He has even been hailed by members of the Party who control this local authority as one of their principal forerunners. May I hope that they will take a little heed of his efforts to improve the conditions of his fellow-workers, remember his shade, and repent. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before the noble Lord is given leave to withdraw his Amendment, I should like to say that I am sorry that the Amendment has been rejected, because all it asks for is the right of appeal. I remember going over my father's accounts with him when he was repairing every cottage on his property. By keeping his cottages in repair, he never had any difficulty in

  989
  letting his farms. Probably that is one of the most important factors in farming.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 17 [Notices of increase]:
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved to add to the clause:
  "(4) The sheriff, if satisfied that any error or omission in any notice of increase is due to a bona fide mistake on the part of the landlord, shall have power to amend the notice by correcting any errors or supplying any omissions therein which, if not corrected or supplied, would render the notice invalid, and may exercise the said power on such terms and conditions as respects arrears of rent or otherwise as appear to the sheriff to be just and reasonable; and a notice amended by virtue of this subsection shall have effect as a valid notice of increase served on such date, not earlier than the date on which the original notice was served nor later than the date of the amendment, as the sheriff may direct."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small technical point. Under the previous Act, where a landlord gave notice of an increase of rent of restricted premises, there was a provision that if the notice suffered from a technical defect, such as a false calculation or something of that nature, it would not automatically invalidate the notice asking for the increase of rent. There was power for the sheriff to correct any technical error in the notice. Such a provision was in the original version of this Bill when introduced in another place, but I am sorry to say that in Committee stage an Amendment for the removal of this provision was accepted by the Government, and now there is no power for the sheriff to correct a technical error.
  I find it difficult to understand why this should be done, especially as in the parallel English Act there remains such a provision. The matter may not appear of great importance, but there are a number of property owners who are not in a position to employ a factor or solicitor to handle their affairs and an error in a technical document of this sort might easily be made. There is no question of any unfair advantage to the landlord as opposed to the tenant, because it is only the landlord who has to lodge any document of this description and in any case it is stated in the Amendment that any alteration shall be
  "on such terms and conditions … as appear to the sheriff to be just and reasonable."
  I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 26, at end insert the said sub-section.—(Lord Polwarth.)
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this is a small point, although it aroused an amount of attention in another place. The reason why I do not want to accept this Amendment is that I do not really think that it is necessary. Let the noble Lord consider what will happen. The owner of a house will make a declaration that he has put it into good repair. The tenant may come along and object to the declaration, and give his reasons for saying that the landlord has not put the house in a satisfactory state of repair. The tenant is very unlikely to make a technical objection to the declaration, and I have no doubt whatever that if there is simply a technical error in the owner's declaration, the sheriff will call attention to it and adjourn for the time being to deal with the point. It is not worth cluttering up Acts of Parliament with words that are not necessary. I think the sheriffs can be trusted to do their work sensibly and I cannot accept this Amendment.
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I do not wish to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdraw it.
  Clause 39 [Interpretation of Part II]:
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 32, line 16, lease out ("Increase of Rent and Mortgage Increase") and insert ("Rent and Mortgage Interest").—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule [Proof of past repairs by landlord]:
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 36, line 19, leave out from ("work") to ("has") in ling 20 and insert ("(the nature of which shall be specified in general terms in the declaration)").—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in Paragraph 7 (3), after "area" to insert: "or rateable value." The noble Lord said:

  991
  My Lords, the majority of the rent-restricted houses affected in Scotland are in the form of tenements—that is to say, there are a number of dwelling-houses under one roof. For the landlord to obtain an increased rent he has to prove so much expenditure on each dwelling-house in that tenement. This is quite simple until it comes to the question of common repairs, such as renewing roofs, chimneys or stairs. As the Bill stands, the cost of these repairs must be divided between the dwellings on the basis of floor area. The object of my Amendment is to make an alternative basis of division, the rateable value of the different dwelling-houses in the tenement.
  The objections to floor area are these. First of all, it will be a considerable work for factors and agents to measure the areas of floor. Secondly, in the case of owners who do not employ agents there is a considerable likelihood of error creeping in, as any noble Lord who has attempted to measure a room for a carpet will agree. Finally—and this is the most potent reason—it is an old-established practice in Scotland in such dwellings, where there are different owners under the same roof, for the cost of common repairs to be divided on the basis of rateable value, which is a known and exact figure, as opposed to that of the floor area. I see no need to introduce an entirely new basis. It merely complicates the Bill, and I think the proprietor should have the option of taking the basis of the rateable value, as proposed in this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 37, line 38, after ("area") insert ("or rateable value").—(Lord Polwarth.)
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I feel well disposed towards this Amendment and think that the noble Earl speaking for the Government might reasonably
  992
  accept this alternative form of measuring rod for dealing with the matters that come within this clause. I hope he may be able to do that. I am speaking at the fifty-ninth minute of the twelfth hour. In the efforts I have made on this Bill, I have not put down any Amendment on my own account and I am speaking in order that I may have a half-share in securing this alternative, in co-operation with the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. I hope the noble Earl will be able to give an affirmative answer to what has been proposed.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will be able to accept the Amendment, because I am sure that if the two alternatives are there the rateable value will be the one to be most used.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I had hoped to be able to give the noble Lord opposite a half-share, but it now seems to have turned out to be a third. I have listened to the arguments of my noble friend Lord Polwarth, and it does seem to me that to take the rateable value as an alternative basis has the merit of simplicity, and leaves the floor area basis if anybody wants to use it. Therefore, although this is a late stage of the Bill, as the same sort of proposal was put forward by Mr. Douglas Johnston in another place on behalf of the Opposition, I think it is only common sense to accept the Amendment.
  On Question. Amendment agreed to.
  LORD POLWARTH: I beg to move the second Amendment, which is on the same point.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 37, line 39, after ("areas") insert ("or rateable values").—(Lord Polwarth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  TELEVISION BILL
  3.12 p.m.
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 7:
  Government control over Authority as to certain matters
  (3) The Postmaster-General may from time to time by notice in writing give directions to the Authority as to the maximum time, the minimum time, or both the maximum and the minimum time, which is to be given each day to broadcasts from any of the television broadcasting stations used by them and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply with the notice.
  LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE moved, in subsection (3), after "them" to insert:
  "and as to the hours of the day in which such broadcasts are to be given which shall so far as possible coincide with the British Broadcasting Corporation Television Service."
  The noble Lord said: The Amendment I have to move is an Amendment to Clause 7, subsection (3), which states that the Postmaster General may from time to time give written directions to the Authority as to the maximum time and the minimum time for television. My Amendment adds to that, that he shall have authority to lay down the actual hours during which these broadcasts shall take place. That happens to be exactly the condition which the noble Earl the Postmaster General has laid down for the B.B.C. In the licence for the B.B.C. of June, 1952, there is a clause which says that the Corporation shall send out every day programmes of sound and television from such stations and during such hours as the Postmaster General may prescribe. My Amendment is that the Postmaster General shall give the same directions to the I.T.A. as he now gives to the B.B.C.
  No doubt on the advice of the B.B.C., the Postmaster has made, if I may say so, wise regulations as regards hours. What happens is that Children's Hour is from 5 to 5.40, or 5 to 6 o'clock every day. Then the B.B.C. shuts down television from 6 to 7.30, so as to give the parents a chance of settling down, having their meal and getting the children off to bed, and to give the children, who
  994
  have been, or may have been, viewing television from 5 to 6 o'clock an hour and a half before going to bed when they will not be bound to this fascinating screen but will be able to do homework or engage in the sort of activities in which children should engage before going to bed. The simple object of this Amendment is to ensure that the Postmaster General will give the same directions to the I.T.A. as he gives to the B.B.C., and that he will continue the same beneficent instructions he has now given to the effect that between 6 and 7.30 there shall be no television. In my view, that is a wise arrangement.
  I know that the Postmaster General does not like to hear much about the United States, but I must ask him to allow me to read two short extracts of what happens in the evenings when children are listening in two towns of the United States. The first report comes from the Federal Communications Commission, which is the I.T.A. of the United States. That body grants licences; it can suspend licences, and it has in a few cases suspended licences. It does not, I believe, have to wait three years before it can suspend a licence. Even so, its powers are very limited. This report is given as regards broadcasting in San Francisco, and it says:
  "A group of dedicated San Francisco mothers … sat down for four uninterrupted hours of watching T.V. moppet shows. The F.C.C. published the results. The outraged mothers saw: 13 murders and assorted killings, 4 sluggings, 6 kidnappings, 5 hold-ups, 3 explosions, 3 instances of blackmail and extortion, 3 thefts, 2 armed robberies, 2 cases of arson, 1 lynching, 1 torture scene and 1 miscarriage"—
  I do not quite know how that was shown. It goes on:
  "The mothers concluded '… Not one episode, not one character, not one emotion did we see evoked that the children might emulate to their gain.'"
  Although I have many of these instances, I will read only one more. It is a letter from an English father, who was living in Washington at the time. He wrote:
  "The programmes on television for children are, with few exceptions, quite dreadful. … Here I am faced with the eternal problem of preventing my children from watching blood. and thunder stuff which has the immediate effect of keeping them awake half the night. What its long-term effect will be I shudder to think! I note that to-day a

  995
  thousand mothers in the little town I live in sent a protest to the National Associaion of Radio and T.V. Broadcasters saying 'Two or four hours of visual education in violence and crime are refuting our own efforts to protect the standards of our homes.'"
  That is the sort of thing that is happening in the United States to-day. My noble friend Lord Listowel read a similar account only yesterday of something that is happening at the present moment, but this was about a year ago. I do not say that this would necessarily happen here, but if commercial broadcasting were allowed for those hours the same pressure would be brought to bear on the commercial broadcasters as is brought to bear in Los Angeles and Washington, and there would be a great danger. This is quite a simple Amendment. I am asking the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, to treat the I.T.A. only in exactly the same way as he is treating the B.B.C., and with the same wisdom and judgment. I beg the noble Earl to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 13, after ("them") insert the said words.—(Lord Simon of Wythenshawe.)
  LORD BRAND: I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, has said, on the simple principle that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It seems to me that it would be quite intolerable that one of our television authorities should be restricted in its hours and the other absolutely free. It may be that the two authorities might come to some understanding between themselves which they thought was fair, by which one stopped, as the B.B.C. does now, between 6 and 7.30, and the other at another time. The B.B.C., perhaps for laudable purposes, stop between 6 o'clock and 7.30. I do not know what their actual purposes are in stopping between those hours—whether it is for the children or whether it is for other reasons—but it would be intolerable if the fact that they did so enabled the commercial television to have an absolutely free run just before all the children of the country went to bed. I do not say that commercial television here will at all follow the practices that some operators follow in the United States. Let us suppose that they are perfectly decent. Nevertheless, there seems to be
  996
  something totally unfair in a compulsory clause which gives freedom to one of the authorities and not freedom to another.
  LORD WINSTER: With reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, has said, there is one question I should like to ask. As I understand it, the noble Lord read out a list of items displayed upon television—in America it is true—which American parents seem to have thought were extremely unsuitable for their children to look at. The thing that puzzles me is this: Why do the parents allow their children to look at it? It seems to me an extraordinary abdication of responsibility on the part of parents to wring their hands helplessly and to say. "We think it very bad indeed for our children to look at this programme, but we can do nothing about it." Surely, the remedy is in the hands of parents themselves not to allow their children to look at programmes which they think deleterious to the manners and morals of their children.
  LORD BRAND: Might I say, knowing something about the United States, that American parents are not all-powerful in the control of their children. I have talked to American parents who have told me that it is useless to forbid their children to look at television because they will just go next door and look at a television set where there may not be children, but where the inhabitants of that house are perfectly happy that the children should look at it. It is really very difficult, in America at any rate, to forbid children to look at television, and I think parents in this country might find equal difficulty once it gets going.
  LORD WINSTER: I can only say that, whether here or in America, I think it is quite deplorable that parents should expect the State to do for them what they ought to do for themselves.
  VISCOUNT HUDSON: With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, I venture to protest about this eternal ramming of America down our throats. We on this side of the House have, by Divisions, declared repeatedly and made perfectly obvious that we do not agree with it. The whole arguments on repeated occasions have been that we do not believe that England is going to follow necessarily the same lines as America. It is getting tiring to some of

  997
  us on this side to hear this repeated idea that because America do it we shall do the same thing.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I think we all agree that one of the great advantages of being a Member of your Lordships' House is that there are no Rules of Order, and there is not the slightest obligation on us to stick to the point. We are all, in spite of what the noble Lord said about my not being interested in what happens in America, delighted at any time to be lectured by the noble Lord about what he knows. He knows a great deal about broadcasting in America. I venture to join with the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, in the protest at the list which was read out by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, who must know, if he has looked at this Bill and if he has listened to the debates, that not a single one of those children's programmes that he has mentioned would be allowed on this network. It is true that one cannot always avoid crime plays. I was ill a short time ago and I looked in at television every day of the week for seven days, and every day I had to witness a crime play on the present B.B.C. network.
  EARL JOWITT: During Children's Hour?
  EARL DE LA WARR: I have forgotten the exact hour, but children are about at other times of the day than Children's Hour. I think the real point of this Amendment—it is a perfectly logical one—is that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. should be on the same basis. I must say that at first I thought the wise thing to do would be to accept this Amendment. Then I had second thoughts, and I think it would be much better to give the noble Lord his point, but to say that I do not think it is necessary or even proper that a Minister should have to lay down with responsible bodies, either the I.T.A. or the B.B.C., the exact hours or even quarter-hours during which they are to be allowed to broadcast. I am content to give the noble Lord a firm assurance that at some suitable time, when the B.B.C. licence may well have to be reviewed, I propose to change the licence of the B.B.C. so that I no longer control the details of their hours, but bring back my powers to what is in this Bill—that I should approve a maximum and a minimum time. I believe that is a much better
  998
  way of meeting the noble Lord and ensuring what the noble Lord, Lord Brand, quite rightly asked for: that the B.B.C. and the I.T..A. should be on the same basis.
  LORD CHORLEY: The noble Earl has taken one of the arguments of this Amendment and accepted it, but rejected the other which, to my mind, and I am sure to the minds of many of your Lordships, is perhaps the more important of the two—the need for protecting the children and their education That was treated really with contempt. I am sorry that he should have taken up that attitude; it seems to me to be a thoroughly reactionary one. I am sure that all educationalists are very worried and upset about this problem, not only on the other side of the Atlantic but in this country also. If it is to be handled in the light-hearted and almost cynical way in which the noble Earl has handled it, it is a bad look-out. There was a time when the noble Earl was interested in the problem of juvenile delinquency. It is bound up with this type of business, in cinemas and in other ways, and it is, I submit, a serious extension of this danger. I hope that noble Lords will be prepared to consider the matter on its merits in relation to this country and not necessarily in relation to the experience in other countries, because I can assure them that there is something very real here, and the B.B.C. has taken an enlightened attitude towards it in restricting this period. It is perfectly clear that it should be restricted on the new arrangement also.
  LORD STRABOLGI: May I say a few words to support the noble Lord, Lord Chorley? Every time attention is drawn to certain defects in American television programmes, noble Lords who support this Bill say, "Oh, but the same sort of thing happens on the B.B.C." That happened during the Second Reading and continually during this Committee stage. Is it seriously suggested by the supporters of this Bill that two wrongs make a right?
  EARL JOWITT: I cannot speak about parents, but I can say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, about grandparents. I can assure him that it is by no means as easy as he seems to think to say to the children: "I am very sorry but you must not see the television." It

  999
  really is a godsend for grandparents, before the children go to bed, that television is turned off. I can assure him of that, beyond any argument at all, and anybody in my position and, I strongly suspect, in the position of the noble Earl, would cordially agree with me about it.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Mine are much more difficult.
  EARL JOWITT: Perhaps the noble Earl's are better behaved than mine. But I would ask the noble Earl to think again about this. I attach importance to it. Frankly, I feel that the whole impact of television on children needs to be thought over very carefully. I believe that we are face to face with an important and grave problem here, and, for my part, I think it is all to the good that the Postmaster General should have the powers that he has and that are incorporated in the broadcasting licence for the B.B.C. of June, 1952. The Postmaster General perhaps will tell me and, I should like to know, whether he exercises these powers—as indeed he must, because the rule, as read out by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, is this:
  "The Corporation shall send out its programmes from such stations and during such hours as the Postmaster General may from time to time respectively in writing prescribe."
  So far as I know—I invite correction if I am wrong, because I do not pretend to be an expert on this matter—the Postmaster General has prescribed in writing the hours during which the B.B.C. broadcasts and, so far as I know (and it is a tribute to the wisdom with which the noble Earl has done it) there has not been the smallest difficulty or conflict between himself and the B.B.C. about this matter. I think it would be a pity now to alter the arrangement with the B.B.C.
  It is all to the good that he should have this control. Owing to the good sense of the B.B.C., he may never have to alter their wishes, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Brand, said, we must put the two in line. It is much better to bring the I.T.A. on to the same line as the B.B.C., the arrangement having worked very well, rather than to cut out the arrangement with the B.B.C. and let it be a "free for all." If there is a "free for all" in the way of competition, there is the grave danger that the hours may be extended. In that case I am quite certain
  1000
  that what most parents would desire may be lost sight of. This is not in the least a Party political question, but I think it raises social implications. I would ask the Postmaster General to think again about it, and to say that he will extend to the I.T.A. exactly the same provision as he to-day extends to the B.B.C., the provision which, during the last two years and over, has worked perfectly happily and well and, I believe, to the public advantage.
  VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: May I, as a grandparent, just say in one word that I cordially agree with what has just fallen from the noble and learned Earl.
  LORD LAYTON: Having supported the Government in their Bill for the last two days, and speaking, as the last speaker has spoken, as a grandparent, I would on this occasion support the views of the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition. I think that the times for the two bodies should be the same, and that in the early stages of the new scheme it is desirable to start from the present position. I have no doubt that, with experience, when perhaps some of the fears of some of the opponents of the Bill have been set at rest, it may be possible to extend the hours. If those fears are not set at rest, then we can think about it again.
  LORD WINSTER: May I, in a word, say that I deeply regretted to hear from the noble and learned Earl of the deterioration which has set in amongst grandparents. I can only tell your Lordships that if my grandfather said I was not to do something, I did not do it, and that was the end of it. But, according to the noble and learned Earl, grandparents are not what they were, and I am very sorry indeed to hear it.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Forgive me if I do not follow noble Lords with little pictures of my family life. I cannot help feeling that this discussion has gone just a little wide of the actual Amendment. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, even spoke in terms of appealing to me not to have a "free for all." If the noble and learned Earl will be good enough just to give his mind to the actual clause as it is drafted, he will see that I have complete power to lay down the maximum time during which there shall be broadcasts, and that may be six or seven

  1001
  hours a day. All I say is that it is quite unnecessary for a Minister, when there is a corporation with the responsibility of the B.B.C. and the responsibility which the I.T.A. will have, to say: "No, you must not go from 3 to 4 o'clock. I think it is better that you should go from 3.15 to 4.15." It is perfectly true that I have administered the licence during the last two years. I have been doing that and, of course, I must continue to do so as long as it is the law of the country that I am administering; but I venture to say that it really is utterly unnecessary.
  Somehow or other, this discussion has become linked entirely with the Children's Hour. There is not a word about the Children's Hour either in the clause or in the Amendment. There seems to be the extraordinary assumption that children are all in bed excepting between whatever the hours are—4 to 5 o'clock—and that they cannot possibly look at anything outside that period. It is utter nonsense. What we have tried to do is to produce a scheme that is going to give decent programmes throughout the day and programmes which we do not mind our children or our grandchildren viewing.
  EARL JOWITT: Is it not the fact that, so far as the B.B.C. is concerned and with their full concurrence, the Postmaster General has prescribed that there shall be no broadcasting between 6 and 7.30 o'clock in the evening, save in special circumstances?
  EARL DE LA WARR: It is perfectly true that I have been administering the law as it is and I will continue to do so. I should perhaps put the House right on one point, and that is that I have no power whatsoever to tell the B.B.C. at what hour they shall put on a children's programme. I have power only to prescribe the number of hours and the hours during which programmes shall be broadcast.
  LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE:It is perfectly true that there is nothing specific about Children's Hour in the Amendment, or about the hours between 6 and 7.30, but the sole purpose of putting down the Amendment was to try to persuade the noble Earl to stop all broadcasting during those hours. Apart from that, there is no point in the Amendment. We have heard a good deal about the effect on children. In view of the pathetic
  1002
  appeal that has been made, I will not revert to America, but, if you have commercial broadcasting between 6 and 7.30 here, you will inevitably get very much the sort of thing happening that I read out. I beg the noble Earl to accept this simple Amendment.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I need not repeat this; you will not get that. There is a perfectly simple issue before us. Noble Lords opposite do not trust anybody. They will not trust the B.B.C. or the I.T.A.—and we do. It is most complimentary of the noble and learned Earl that he should say that I am much better and wiser than are the Governors of the B.B.C. or of the future I.T.A. I do not want to be given the power to assert that supposed superiority.
  LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble Earl, with great respect, why he refers always to "the noble Lords opposite"? Many opponents of this Bill belong to the noble Earl's own Party.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: So far as I can understand this—and I was unable to hear the earlier part of the debate—what the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, wishes to do is to say that if the B.B.C. co not broadcast during a particular period, the I.T.A. shall not broadcast during that period.
  A NOBLE LORD: No.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think so. I am not sure in that case that I see the object of the Amendment. What happens, I understand—and I really cannot see what this has to do with children—is that to-day, when we have only one broadcasting business, the Chairman of the B.B.C. writes to the Postmaster General and says, "We do not want to broadcast during these hours"; and the Postmaster General, who is very obliging when he has only one authority to deal with, says, "Very well, there shall be no broadcasting during those hours." Now we are going to have two or more authorities. One of them, the B.B.C., may say that they do not want to broadcast during particular hours; the others may say they do. If the Postmaster General has power to make regulations for either, and he thinks it is a good thing that the I.T.A. should broadcast during certain hours, he will say "Very well, you may broadcast during those hours." He will not exclude

  1003
  the B.B.C. from doing it. If the B.B.C. do not want to do it, that is the affair of the B.B.C. I really cannot see why the viewing public should be deprived of seeing something at a time when one assumes they want to see something.
  EARL JOWITT: If I may say so with respect, the noble Viscount comes in, without having heard the argument, and then gets up and completely misrepresents the case. The case is simply this. Under the licence of 1952 the Postmaster General has the power to prescribe not merely the maximum time or the total time occupied, but also the hours. And, as he told us, the Postmaster General has prescribed the time, and has prescribed that there shall be no television broadcasting between 6 and 7.30 p.m. That carries with it, I think, the assent of all sensible people, and certainly the assent of the B.B.C. All we are asking in this Amendment is that the Postmaster General, who is taking power with regard to the I.T.A. to prescribe the maximum time per diem during which broadcasting may take place, shall also take power to prescribe, if he so desires, the times during the day during which broadcasting may take place. All we want to do is give to the Postmaster General a power which he may or may not exercise, as he thinks proper.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have not only read the Amendment since I came into the House but also have studied it very carefully before coming into the House. Let me read what the Amendment is—it is not what the noble and learned Earl has suggested it is. It seeks to insert:
  "and as to the hours of the day in which such broadcasts are to be given"—
  that is the I.T.A. broadcasts—
  "which shall so far as possible coincide with the British Broadcasting Corporation Television Service."
  In what I have said, and I am addressing myself to the Amendment, I do not think I have misrepresented what would be its effect—I do not know its intention. Today, the B.B.C. have said to the Postmaster General "We do not want to broadcast between 6 and 7.30 p.m., and therefore you should make an order
  1004
  against broadcasting in that period." But if this Amendment is carried, and the B.B.C. do not want to broadcast during the period, if the Authority will have to conform to what the B.B.C. do it means that the Authority will not be able to broadcast during that period. Exactly. Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, who, after all, is the author of the Amendment, agrees that I have read the Amendment right and the intention right. Regarding my absence when the Amendment was moved, I had an important engagement which prevented me from being here at the beginning; otherwise I should naturally have been here. I do not think I have at all misrepresented what is in the Amendment, or as Lord Simon of Wythenshawe says, what is the intention behind it. All I am saying is this: that if there is to be a general power to prescribe broadcasting hours, surely the Postmaster General ought not to be ordered by Parliament to make the I.T.A. do whatever the B.B.C. want to do; but if he is to prescribe hours during which the I.T.A. broadcasts, then the B.B.C. ought to be able to broadcast during the same hours.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I think the noble Viscount who has just spoken has missed the whole point of those who support this Amendment. It is thought by those interested in children and education that it is a good thing that for a short period in the day there should be no television. That is secured by the direction of the Postmaster General to the B.B.C. not to broadcast television between those hours. If the commercial system begins putting on a television programme during those hours the whole purpose will be destroyed—that is, to secure that during the time when the B.B.C. have no television programme in the afternoon the commercial people shall be in the same position. Those who know best about it consider that this is in the interests of children and their education, and it is to secure the continuance of that situation that the Amendment is put forward.
  On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 53.

  CONTENTS

  Aberdeen and Temair, M.

  Archibald, L.

  Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

  Brand, L.

  Mathers, L.

  Jowitt, E.

  Carnock, L.

  Pethick-Lawrence, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Chorley, L.

  Quibell, L.

  Lucan, E. [Teller.]

  Douglas of Barloch, L.

  Rea, L.

  Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

  Grantchester, L.

  Sempill, L.

  Elibank, V.

  Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

  Shepherd, L.

  Samuel, V.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Silkin, L.

  Waverley, V.

  Kenswood, L.

  Simon of Wythenshawe, L.

  Kershaw, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Liverpool, L. Bp.

  Lawson, L.

  Uvedale of North End, L.

  Layton, L.

  Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

  Ammon, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Rothes, E.

  Dunleath, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Ennisdale, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

  Winterton, E.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L.

  Foley, L.

  Portland, D.

  Astor, V.

  Freyberg, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Gifford, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Goschen, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Reading, M.

  Hudson, V.

  Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

  Margesson, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Stonehaven, V.

  Hore-Belisha, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Swinton, V.

  Leconfield, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Mancroft, L.

  Birkenhead, E.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Rathcavan, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

  Rochdale, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Braye, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Carrington, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Home, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Winster, L.

  Munster, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Onslow, E. [Teller.]

  Derwent, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): For the purpose of making a Statement on Kenya, I ask leave to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

  FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO KENYA
  3.55 p.m.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I apologise for having to interrupt the Committee proceedings for a few moments in order to make a statement on financial assistance to Kenya. On December 9 last year, my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary announced in another place that,
  1006
  although precise forecasting was difficult, the Kenya Government would need assistance of about £6 million if they were to maintain a reasonable level of liquid resources and continue to meet their obligations until the end of the United Kingdom financial year, 1954–55. He also said that if the present rate of emergency expenditure continued it was possible that more money would be required and that Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to review the position in good time.
  Unfortunately, this has proved to be the case. The rate of expenditure has risen. Moreover, it was well into 1954 before the security forces were fully deployed and a more accurate estimate of their cost was possible. This showed that earlier estimates were below the actual cost. The present rate of expenditure is of the order of £1 million a month, of which about one-third represents expenditure on military forces and operations: the rest is the cost of closer administration, the increase in the police forces, the cost of detention and rehabitation

  1007
  camps, and emergency public works. Although direct military expenditure will not rise in proportion, emergency expenditure is expected to rise to about £1¼ million a month over the next six months.
  The Colonial Secretary has again reviewed the financial position with the Minister for Finance and the Commander-in-Chief East Africa, and has consulted my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A further £5½ million will be required up to the end of March, 1955. This takes into account the extra revenue of £2½ million which the Kenya Government will derive from increases in taxation announced last April. It is expected that arrangements can be made by the Government of Kenya to provide for working balances by other means, and the sums do not therefore include any margin for this purpose. The expenditure during the last quarter of the Kenya financial year April 1 to June 30, 1955, which Her Majesty's Government recognise may continue at a similar rate, and which will be taken into account during the United Kingdom financial year 1955–56, is also not covered.
  In these circumstances Her Majesty's Government will be prepared, subject to the authority of Parliament, to provide a further grant of £4 million and a further interest-free loan of £1½ million in the present United Kingdom financial year as a contribution towards the cost of Kenya's emergency. It is understood that this assistance will be called on only to the extent that it proves to be needed. This further assistance will cover Kenya's immediate needs, but it is evident that even after it has become possible to reduce the present military commitment, Kenya's financial position will remain difficult. My right honourable friend has made it clear to the Kenya Government that they will be expected to take all practicable steps to increase their own revenues in order to meet their continuing commitments. The British Government's help is required—and it has been given—to bring the emergency to an end. If that help were not given, not
  1008
  only would the measures against the terrorists have to be reduced, but the social and economic programme, which represents the constructive plan for Kenya's future, would suffer an unacceptable set-back.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl for making this statement. We can all truthfully re-echo his hope that the emergency will soon be brought to an end; but in the meantime, so long as the emergency exists, it is unfortunately necessary to provide this extra money. Speaking for myself, on the spur of the moment, I feel that it would be a disaster if the money had to be found in such a way as to cut down the public services of Kenya, because were that done it would very likely accentuate the trouble. That is the last thing we want to do. Though I entirely understand what the noble Earl, speaking on behalf of the Government, has said, I only hope that the need for this extra money will soon come to an end.
  EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend can answer this question without notice: it would have been more reasonable to give him notice, but I did not know that he was to make a statement. Did the authorities in Kenya, before making this recommendation to Her Majesty's Government, consider the representations made, I understand, from unofficial European quarters in Kenya that money could be saved by greater use of the King's African Rifles, rather than European troops? Is the noble Earl aware that there is considerable criticism in Kenya at the use of European troops, some of whom are believed to be unsuitable for this particular type of jungle warfare, and that there is marked unofficial opinion there that more African troops should be used?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am glad that the noble Earl has brought up the point. I cannot answer his question without notice, but I am perfectly certain that the Kenya Government are examining every conceivable means whereby they can reduce that expenditure.

  TELEVISION BILL
  4.3 p.m.
  Committee stage resumed.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9:
  Grants by Postmaster-General to Authority
  9. The Postmaster-General may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay to the Authority out of moneys provided by Parliament, such sums, not exceeding seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds in any one financial year, as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to leave out Clause 9. The noble and learned Earl said: I move this Amendment in conjunction with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham and the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood. I am given to understand that Lord Hailsham is detained on professional business. I think it right that that should be known as the reason for his absence for the time being; it is for no other reason. He has been playing a lone and somewhat courageous part, and I should not like it to be thought that he would be absent for any reason but his professional duties. I am sure the noble Marquess will agree that I should make that plain. I do not know the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, nor those of the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, who is, of course, entitled to take his own line. I move this Amendment for the purpose of making plain at once that I rather like the grant of £750,000. I welcome the fact that, to that extent at any rate, the I.T.A. are free of advertising money.
  I move the Amendment merely to ask a few questions which the noble Earl the Postmaster General will be able to answer with the greatest ease. What is to be done with the £750,000? I apprehend (I may be wrong) that part of this £750,000 is to enable the I.T.A. to broadcast, or provide that there are broadcast, certain types of programmes in which the use of any advertising money would be thoroughly inappropriate. I have in mind particularly religious services. I may be quite wrong, but I feel that it would be undesirable that religious services (I hope there will be religious services) should be dependent on money derived from advertisements—indeed, I think it undesirable that there should be advertising on a Sunday. That is one way in which I hope the money will be spent, though
  1010
  about that I am not quite certain, having regard to certain earlier passages in our discussion. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me if that is right and on what other objects this £750,000 is to be spent. I am not opposed to the grant of £750,000; I like it. Indeed, I wish that it was more, and that there was no advertising revenue; but I am not in any way prejudging what Lord Hailsham and Lord Kenswood may think. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  'Leave out Clause 9.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  EARL DE LA WARR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl for putting his point so clearly and shortly, in asking for a statement on the purpose of this money. I have to speak with obvious care, as we are discussing hitherto unexplored fields. Naturally, the expenditure of this money given to the I.T.A. will depend a great deal on their policy, and on the calibre and amount of money behind the programme companies and the success—at any rate during the first few years—of their venture. Of course, the purpose of granting this money is that the whole scheme should not be entirely dependent on advertisements. First, it is there to help ensure balance, and your Lordships will see why I am talking rather conditionally. These companies may be of such high calibre, so well capitalised and with revenue coming in so quickly, that they can produce, right from the beginning, a completely balanced programme. If so, so much the better; why waste public money when their own revenues will give us what we want? But perhaps in the first year or two they will be building up slowly, and some of what we should consider the most important programmes may be difficult for them to provide and pay for out of advertisements. It will then be possible for the I.T.A. to decide whether a certain type of programme should go on and say to the programme companies: "We recognise that you cannot pay for these programmes out of your revenue and we, as the I.T.A., will make ourselves responsible for their provision."
  There are other types of programme, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, which (whether the companies have the money there or not) we do not want associated with advertisements. Although it is always difficult to think of examples, two obvious ones are, first

  1011
  events which I will describe loosely as "Royal occasions," an impossible phrase to define, but your Lordships will know what I mean. The second is religious services. There, the I.T.A. are likely to say to the company, "Whether you have the money or not, you cannot have advertisements. We are depriving you of revenue and for the moment we will make ourselves responsible for the provision of these services." In years to come these companies may become so prosperous that it would be right to ask them to put on these programmes at their own expense—after all, it redounds to their prestige, and there is no point in using public money where private money can meet the expense. That is a problem for the future, after the first few years. My own feeling is that if we are going to have these programmes put on as we want them to be put on, it is likely that this I.T.A. money will be required. That, briefly, is my answer to the noble and learned Earl. I conclude by saying this. Whether the whole of this sum of money is spent or not, or whether in the beginning all of it is spent and in later years, perhaps, not all of it will be needed, I regard the provision of the money as vital and essential. It is a basic part of this scheme that the I.T.A. should have this sum of money at its disposal, so that it will be possible for programmes to be put on that are not associated with advertisements.
  4.10 p.m.
  LORD KENSWOOD: This is, to me, one of the most distasteful parts of this anti-social measure. May I say at once that I do not agree with the attitude taken up by my noble and learned Leader, and I am sorry about that. I recognise the amount of work which Her Majesty's Government have obviously taken in building up this measure—the machinery of it is extremely well-planned though, be it noted, for a bad purpose—but it seems to me that they have not paid much attention to the secondary effects of the Bill. Let me explain. Here we are, on the one hand, asked to approve of the placing of public money at the disposal of the Independent Television Authority so that it may be able to pay its way and put on good programmes in order to compete with the B.B.C. What do we see on the other hand? On the other hand the B.B.C. has been heavily taxed
  1012
  by Administration after Administration to the tune of several million pounds a year so that it could not build up an adequate financial reserve. The B.B.C., in consequence of this high taxation by Governments, have not been able to put on the programmes which they would have wished to put on because they have not had sufficient funds. They have had to put on the same programme for the Light and Home Services, so depriving people in this country of the choice of programmes which they are entitled to by virtue of the money which they pay for their licences.
  Only to-day we read in the Press of another instance of an important servant of the B.B.C. being lured away—presumably by higher pay—and, in consequence, leaving the B.B.C. in the lurch and under the necessity of having to train someone else to carry on the programmes That is not fair, and I am sure that the Postmaster General, if he were to think about it again, would acknowledge that it was not fair. While I was in the B.B.C., one of the problems that confronted us all the time arose because of the way in which good engineers, whom we had taken great trouble to train up to a high pitch of efficiency, were, when they had reached that pitch of efficiency, lured away by offers of higher pay and went to work for other organisations. These were not necessarily broadcasting organisations. but organisations which could use their services. When these men were lured away, the B.B.C. had to start afresh, training new men to take their places. That was not because—and, very often, this is a charge that is made against the B.B.C.—the B.B.C. was a bad employer. The B.B.C. was a very good employer. The reason these men went was simply that the Government always insisted on taking away it might be 13 per cent., or 15 per cent., or, as it was at one time, 50 per cent., of the net licence fee. It was only because the B.B.C. was not allowed by the Government to have enough money that this unfortunate situation arose.
  Now, on the one hand, the Government are handicapping the B.B.C., and on the other hand they are fostering this rival organisation. It is not right, and it does not appeal to one's sense of fairness that that should be the case. It would be very easy for the I.T.A., if it were to get sufficient revenue, to lure

  1013
  away some of the finest artists and some of the finest technicians of every description, simply because the Authority had more money to spend. And the Authority would be in that position partly because some money was coming to them out of Exchequer funds. I must say that it offends one's sense of propriety. I had a second point, but for the moment it evades me. Perhaps, with the permission of the Committee, I may speak again later.
  EARL WINTERTON: I am sorry to have to controvert the noble Lord who has just spoken. He is a Member of the House to whom we all listen with much pleasure, even when we disagree with him. I regret to have to controvert him by telling him and other noble Lords that there is a parallel with the apparently inconsequent action taken by the Government. I see that the noble Lord wishes to speak again, and if he will allow me just to finish what I am saying I will willingly give way to him. There is an exact parallel in the case of the film industry. In the case of that industry the late Socialist Government—I am sorry: I should have said the Labour Government; I apologise for using the word "Socialist"—the Labour Government refused to reduce the entertainments tax which was doing so much harm at that time to the industry, and, in place of that, they provided a sum of money to produce films, which money they lent exclusively to one organisation. As your Lordships know from what happened a short time ago, that money has been lost. So I suggest that there is a very complete parallel. If the noble Lord wants to suggest that there is no parallel I will gladly give way to him.
  LORD KENSWOOD: Surely I said, in effect, that various Administrations have been unjustly "milking" the B.B.C. I was opposed to that process, whether it was a Socialist Government or not which was responsible.
  EARL WINTERTON: What I was trying to persuade the noble Lord and the Committee of was this. The noble Lord's suggestion seemed to be that this was an inconsequent action which should not have been taken, and I was submitting, with great respect, that someone on the Labour Benches should not complain, because that was what the
  1014
  Labour Government did in the case of the film industry. Mutatis mutandis the comparison is almost exact. I only wish to say this about the money which we are discussing—and I certainly would not wish to put the Postmaster General under the obligation of speaking again. I should have thought that the sum mentioned in the clause was perhaps an unduly modest one. My noble friend has very properly said that we are dealing with unknown territory in this matter. I am informed by some who are highly conversant with the entertainment world that considerably more than the £750,000 mentioned in this clause may be required—I am glad to see that the noble Lord opposite agrees—to establish this new body.
  In fact I must tell the Postmaster General, though I am a supporter of the Bill, that many people are doubtful whether the new Authority will be a financial success owing to the restrictions by which it is being hemmed about, largely as the result of opposition in both Houses of Parliament. I have no doubt it will please opponents of the Government—I see a smile on the face of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt—if it is subsequently discovered that, as the result of the acceptance by the Government of some of the suggestions put forward, the poor Hale thing has been smothered at birth. That is what some people, at any rate, think may happen, so I very much hope that my noble friend will stick to his figure of £750,000. Probably at some future time he may have to bring forward an amending Bill to increase it.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Kenswood. Ever since this Government came into office they have pursued a policy of economy—some say, petty economies—throughout the whole of the educational and cultural field. Many questions have been asked, both in this House and in another place, and I have asked several about one aspect—namely, the museums. Always the answer has been, "We are very sorry; we have every sympathy, but we cannot afford it." Now it appears that this enormous sum of £750,000 is to be made available annually under this Bill for a service which many of us think is neither necessary nor desirable. In my view, it

  1015
  is wholly wrong, and I hope the Amendment will be accepted so that the money may be used for more valuable purposes. If the Amendment is not accepted, then will the Government ensure that in future a similar generous treatment is accorded to our museums, galleries and other institutions which are at least of value to the nation? At present, if I may so, the neglect by Her Majesty's Government of these institutions is a major scandal.
  4.22 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Before the noble Earl speaks, I should like to say a few words on the merits of this clause. The Postmaster General was not very specific as to the objects on which this £750,000 a year—a vast sum, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has just said—is to be expended. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, spoke of religious programmes, and we all understand that no doubt a case will be made there; but he has not defined what the other occasions are to be, except to suggest Royal occasions. Why should the public subsidise these commercial television stations in order to enable them to give a competitive rendering or viewing of an occasion like, for example, the Coronation? The Government have told us again and again that the B.B.C. are not going to be interfered with; that no one need turn on the commercial television if he does not want to see what is presented, and that he can always turn on the B.B.C. The viewers who pay their £1 a year to the B.B.C., or so much of it as the Government leave to the B.B.C., can see these occasions, which are national occasions and would almost undoubtedly be presented by the B.B.C.
  Then we are told that this money is provided to enable the commercial stations to give a balanced proaramme. Again, may I ask the Postmaster General why he thinks that it is the duty of the public to present £750,000 a year to these people in order to ensure that these programmes are balanced programmes? What is the public interest in that? There is an interest for the owners of the stations, and for the advertisers who present the programmes, to obtain as large a public as they can; but if the public want a balanced programme, then let these people pay for it. Why should the taxpayer pay to present a suitable balance? I should be most interested to hear the answer to that question.
  1016
  I come back to what is my more important point, which I raised when the House went into Committee on the Bill, in regard to entertainments tax. It was not then possible to argue the point, and I gave notice by saying that we could argue it later. On that occasion I made the point that the B.B.C. were being mulcted of £2 million a year partly for the reason that they did not pay entertainments tax. The Postmaster General said that that was so, but he did not admit the word "mulcted" and said that "in consideration of" the fact that the B.B.C. did not pay entertainments tax it was not unjust for them to have to pay something to the Exchequer out of licence revenue. But the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said that the licence revenue did not belong to the B.B.C. at all: that the whole of the millions that came from the issue of licences is not the B.B.C.'s money; it is really public money. He even said that it is in the nature of a tax which goes to the Treasury, and that the Treasury can hand back to the B.B.C. whatever is thought to be necessary for B.B.C. purposes. That was his idea. He was perfectly clear and perfectly specific. But surely no one who goes to the Post Office and pays £1 for an ordinary radio licence regards the licence fee as in the nature of a tax. He regards it in the same way as he regards paying for telephones or electric light or gas—it is payment for service rendered. And this new notion that the whole of this revenue from licences goes into the Treasury because it is in the nature of a tax, and that the Treasury are then free to give over to the B.B.C. what they might think just or necessary, is entirely fallacious It is not so. The public pay £1 for sound, and more for a television licence, in payment for the programmes they listen to or view—and very cheap it is at the price.
  But what happens with regard to these commercial stations? They are entertainment; undoubtedly they are entertainment—education and information may come in, but entertainment is the main purpose. They compete with the cinemas and with the theatres. People sit at home and see plays and attractive programmes, but they are not paying any entertainments tax whatsoever. While the B.B.C. are mulcted of millions a year, partly because they do not pay entertainments tax, these people, the speculators in these entertainments, these programme

  1017
  companies, not only get £750,000 a year out of the taxpayers' pocket but are exempted from paying into the taxpayers' pocket what their competitors have to pay. That seems to me entirely indefensible, and I hope that in your Lordships' House and in another place questions will be raised year after year about why these commercial firms should be exempt from entertainments tax.
  I mentioned previously, and must mention again, that the advertisers themselves, through their own organisations, have declared that it is their considered opinion that not less than £5 million a year, and possibly up to £10 million a year, will be available from advertisements for these stations when there is a proper coverage over the country. These sums will bring enormous profits to the programme producers, and I cannot conceive why they should be exempted from entertainments tax, and why they should be paid £750,000 a year in order to make the programmes more attractive to keep together a large body of viewers.
  LORD SILKIN: My noble and learned Leader has said that there are various extremes of opinion responsible for this Amendment, and that so far as he was concerned it was largely exploratory I would say that a number of people are supporting this Amendment because they fear that the £750,000 may be used, either wholly or in part, as a subvention towards the programme contractors. It was for that reason, and to be fully assured on that point, that I imagine my noble and learned Leader put the direct question as to how this money was to be used. If I may digress for a moment, I would say that I associate myself fully with what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and I do not think it necessary to "paint the lily" because he said it so well. One would like to have a definite assurance that no part of this money is going to be used for the purpose of assisting the programme contractors. That would be repugnant to all sections of public opinion.
  But we are bound to recognise that Clause 2 of the Bill does put upon the Authority the duty of providing certain things in their programme: they have to provide a balanced programme and, if need be, they have to fill in any gaps that may arise through temporary lack of programme contractors, and so on. If
  1018
  they are to discharge those duties, I imagine that they must have funds available. I take it that the statement of the noble Earl, in reply to my noble and learned Leader, was to the effect that this £750,000 was needed entirely for the purpose of enabling the Authority to discharge their functions under Clause 2. If I am right and that is the assurance which the noble Earl has given to the Committee, then I personally would feel satisfied. But if there were any doubt about it, and any part of this money was to go in relief of the programme contractors' obligations, then I am sure the noble Earl would find a great many people who would be opposed to this grant.
  4.32 p.m.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): I have to leave the House for a few moments, and noble Lords will forgive me if I intervene now on this Amendment, because it raises a question of general importance. There are two points with which the Committee should be concerned. The first is the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, as to whether this is not really a matter of money which is being taken from the B.B.C., in effect, in taxation, and paid over to these companies—he may not have put it in exactly that form, but that is what would come to, according to him. The other is whether it is right, in any case, to pay £750,000 to this new corporation. I would take those two points separately. First of all, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, stated quite fairly the case that was put by my noble friend, Lord Swinton. But I would even now urge him to reconsider his position, because, if I may say so with all deference, I do not think his argument is valid. What, in effect, he said was that the licence fee is a tax imposed for the purpose of maintaining an efficient broadcast system, and that all the money which comes from that source should go back to the maintenance of that system. That is what I understood the noble Viscount to suggest, because he complained that £2 million had not been given back.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I should not call it a tax; I should call it a fee.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Well, a fee. I suggest to the Committee, with great deference, that that is not

  1019
  really the position. Some of us are fortunate enough to own a motor car, and we pay a licence fee in respect of that motor car. But it is not really to enable the roads to be more satisfactorily maintained. I often wish it were used for that purpose, but in fact it is not. I believe it has been laid down on numerous occasions by Parliament that the money received from motor car licence fees should go into the general pool of the Treasury. Or somebody may prefer to own a dog, instead of a motor car, and if he has a dog he pays a licence fee for it. But that is not used for the convenience of those who own dogs. In the same way, a man may buy a television set or an ordinary radio receiving set, not in order that he may listen to the B.B.C.—he may dislike the B.B.C. programmes, and devote himself entirely to foreign programmes. But he would still pay the fee. He pays the fee because he has got a set. That licence fee is paid into the general pool of the Treasury.
  On the other hand, Parliament, in its wisdom, set up the B.B.C. and decided that it must be given a revenue, and out of the general national pool Parliament decided that this large sum should be made available to the B.B.C. As I understand it, that is really the origin of the revenue of the B.B.C. The fact that £2 million is not paid to the B.B.C. is because Parliament, rightly or wrongly, thought that they could do without that £2 million, and that it could be better used for some other purpose. That is the case I put, with all deference, to the Committee on that broad general point.
  I come now to the other matter, which is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, and others. As I understand it, they say: "Why, in any case, should £750,000 of public money be paid to this new Corporation?" That argument only shows how difficult it is for any Government, with the best will in the world, to please everybody. I remember well the earlier debate, in which the point was made with great force, I think by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and others, that the great difference between the Press and this new Corporation was that the Press was only partially dependent on advertising, whereas this new Corporation would be wholly
  1020
  dependent on advertising. Some of us said that there were some organs of the Press which were 80 per cent. dependent on advertising. "Yes," they said, "but 80 per cent. is not the same as 100 per cent." We thought that there was some substance in that point, and, at any rate, as this was an important section of opinion, we felt that we might try and meet their preoccupations on the matter. Therefore, in order to make that concession—and it is a concession which, if I remember rightly, on Second Reading the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, fairly recognised—this £750,000 was made available, not as a gift to advertisers, but to free the I.T.A. from entire dependence on the advertiser. That is the purpose for which it is given.
  I believe The Economist said recently that it was a subsidy not for, but against the advertiser. Other noble Lords here do not take that view, and they are entitled to their opinion. But it only goes to prove what I said in my speech in the earlier debate: that, whatever may be said about the Government's view, there is no uniformity of view against it. The noble Lords who so loudly criticise this scheme are absolutely rent amongst themselves as to an alternative. We have the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who thinks that £750,000 is all right; we have the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, sitting behind him, who thinks it is all wrong. I do not think it is possible on this difficult question to please everybody; but I do believe that this £750,000 was inserted in answer to a valid argument put forward by critics of the Bill, and it was because we felt that that argument had merit that we felt justified in doing it.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We have been a long time on this Amendment, and I shall be as brief as possible in putting forward a point that has not yet been made. I should like to put it in the form of a suggestion, which I would ask the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, to consider. It is about the use of this grant of £750,000 a year to the Authority. The noble Earl said that the main purpose of the grant was to pay for the provision of a balanced programme, if that balance were not provided by the commercial companies. A balanced programme is a programme of entertainment, instruction and information—I believe those are

  1021
  the three elements in a balanced programme. Clearly, the commercial corn-panics will provide plenty of entertainment. Therefore, he only possible lack of balance will be in instruction and information, and it is on that side that the Authority may have to supplement what the commercial companies are doing.
  There are some items of information and instruction with which advertisements can suitably be associated, and other items with which they cannot. As has been pointed out, it is obvious that advertisements cannot be associated with religious programmes or public appearances of Her Majesty in performing important State functions; and advertisements have rightly been precluded from programmes of that kind. But suppose the Authority has to provide some serious music, some talks on science, art, or important political events in the Commonwealth or other parts of the world. Suppose that is the instructional element in the programme which the Authority has to provide, either itself or through the agency of a commercial company. In that case, could not the Authority be authorised to take advertisements? Under the Bill as it stands, no programme put on by the Authority—whether put on by the Authority itself or through the agency of a commercial company—can be a programme which will include advertisements. Clearly, if the Authority were able to include advertisements in items with which advertisements could suitably be associated, then less public money would have to be spent. It is not going to be an obligation on the Authority to spend £750,000 a year. On the contrary, I have no doubt that the noble Earl hopes that as little as possible of this money will be spent. Surely, a useful way of saving as much as possible of this grant would be to allow the Authority to include advertisements in any part of the balancing programme with which advertisements can suitably be associated. That is the suggestion I should like the noble Earl to consider.
  LORD KENSWOOD: I feel extremely pleased at being a Member of a very indulgent House, so that your Lordships will probably allow me to finish my speech. I will not do that, because my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has touched on the very point I wanted to make. Only a year ago in this House my noble
  1022
  friend Lord Huntingdon deplored the fact that money was being saved by Her Majesty's Government to the extent, if I remember rightly, of about £3,000 a year, to the sacrifice of the embellishment and preservation of ancient buildings. There are several claims on public funds which cannot be met by Her Majesty's Government. I wish to bring forward a claim which, at the appropriate moment, will amount to between £3,000 and £7,000 a year. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will bear this discussion in mind and have a bad conscience about the £750,000 so that they may be moved to grant the sum of between £3,000 and £7,000 for which I shall ask, not for a frivolous undertaking but for a serious matter which will redound to the undoubted benefit—and if think every Member of the Committee will agree to this—of people after the middle period of their lives. I should like to go on to counter, if I may say so, the irrelevant arguments of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who has left the House. I will not do so because it would be entirely useless.
  4.45 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER: I am sure your Lordships will feel great sympathy with the object which the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, has put before us in the concluding remarks of his speech. I have become rather confused about this Amendment by the Fact that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House suddenly introduced the question of dogs. It is true that we pay dog licences. I do not know that the State confers any benefit upon dogs from the revenue received in that way, but we pay the licence fee in order to get some pleasure out of our dogs—and very expensive it is, in view of the present cost of feeding stuffs for dogs. 'But out of this £750.000, I take it that it is the intention of the Government that the public will receive some repayment for their money in the shape of entertainment.
  I feel that the support for this Amendment is part of the general opposition to the Bill. I wish to say, with great respect to those who oppose the Bill and the opinions they hold, that I feel the basis of their objection to the Bill is the idea of any commercial participation whatever in television. That goes side by side with

  1023
  the admission of the immense potentialities of television and the part that television must play in the national life in future. Having regard to the admission that television may play this great part in our national life in the future, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that the sum of £750,000 is such an immense sum. Setting it against the possibilities of television in the future, I myself should not regard it as an enormous sum. In fact, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, that the sum has been put at a very modest figure, and it will not surprise me, as I gather it will not surprise the noble Earl, if that figure has to be increased in the future.
  I would also point out that the clause lays down that the Postmaster General may pay out this sum only with the consent of the Treasury. I have had some experience of trying to get the consent of the Treasury for expenditures, and, as I know your Lordships will agree, it is by no means an easy job to obtain that consent. The Treasury is a very efficient and difficult watch-dog to get by. In view of what I regard as the smallness of the sum involved, and the fact that it can be paid out only with the consent of the Treasury, I confess that I can see no point in the arguments which are brought to bear against this clause.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I keep a nervous eye on the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, because I want to be careful not to render myself liable to condemnation for reiteration from the Front Bench. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, will forgive me if I do not promise him that I will intervene with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a quite undefined sum of money for, as yet, a quite undefined purpose. I think the Committee would be satisfied if I dealt with one or two pure facts, and answered one or two questions.
  First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked me a definite question. I should like to reply to him quite definitely by saying that this money cannot be used on programmes outside the confines of Clause 2 (2). I think that is the point he raised. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me another question. He said: Could not the finance available under Clause 9 be either saved or increased in value by allowing the Authority to take
  1024
  advertisements under Clause 2 (2)? First of all, let us be quite clear that advertisements can be taken under Clause 2 (2) (b), where they are filling a gap, but not under Clause 2 (2) (a). I tried to make this point clear on Second Reading. The whole purpose of this £750,000 is to make the scheme less dependent upon advertisements. Therefore, if we provide this money, and we have this power under Clause 2 (2) (a) in order to be able to present schemes that are free of advertisement, and then allow the Authority to take advertisements in connection with them, it is a complete contradiction of the whole purpose of what we have put before your Lordships.
  There is only one other point—it is purely factual; there is no argument at all with which I should like to deal. The noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, implied that the B.B.C. were being very badly treated as regards the financial resources allowed them, and that, with the taxation to which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, referred, and this £750,000 to the I.T.A., they were being starved. Let me give the position. During the last year the B.B.C. have had £12 million a year at their disposal. Next year it will be £17 million. The following year the amount is likely to be in the realm of £18½ million, and the following year over £20 million.
  LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the Postmaster General a short question, about which I did give him notice? Is it the intention of the Government that the Authority should commission original works out of this £750,000. I have in mind the sort of magnum opus which would be too big for an advertiser or a programme contractor to wish to undertake—similar to some which have already been covered by the B.B.C. Is it their intention that some of this money should be used for that purpose, because, if so, I think it would 20 some way towards justifying it?
  EARL DE LA WARR: Yes, they can certainly use it for that purpose.
  EARL JOWITT: It could be?
  EARL DE LA WARR: Yes.
  EARL JOWITT: I do not think the area of disagreement between myself and my noble friend Lord Kenswood is nearly

  1025
  so large as he imagines. Frankly, I think this is a most appalling way in which to spend £750,000. Think, for instance, of what you might have done if you had devoted £750,000 a year for some years past to the National Gallery or the Tate Gallery. To my mind, to spend £750,000 on this thing is utterly and absolutely lamentable. I further express my agreement with what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said about the differentiation in treatment between the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. I must say that I thought the exposition of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, of the matter was quite convincing—but that is by the way. The dilemma in which I find myself placed is this. Here, I am to have imposed upon me this I.T.A., with its companies, advertisers and all the rest of it. The whole outfit I hate and detest. I have to ask myself this question: Is this institution better with or without £750,000? I do not think I like spending £750,000 on that at all, but, speaking for myself, I feel that the more this institution can get out of the tentacles of the advertisers, the better for everybody; and, as I think that this £750,000 does give them a chance to breathe freely occasionally, if I must have this institution at all, I would rather have it with this subvention than without.
  To that extent only—I do not know whether I differ from my noble friend Lord Kenswood about that—do I approve the payment of the money. But let me make it plain, so that my position may not be misunderstood, that I regard this as an appalling waste of public funds. I could without the slightest difficulty suggest a dozen better causes to which to devote the money. We have spent much time on this clause. We have talked of
  "shoes and ships and ceiling wax and cabbages and kings",
  dog licences, motor cars and so on. Having spent all this time on it, I will now seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to
  Clause 13:
  Accounts and audit
  (4) The said report shall have attached thereto the statement of accounts for the year and a copy of the report made by the auditor
  1026
  thereon and shall also include such information relating to the plans, and past and present activities, of the Authority, and the financial position of the Authority, as the Postmaster-General may from time to time direct.
  EARL DE LA WARR: This Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 11, leave out ("Accountant and Auditors") and insert ("Accountants").—(Earl De La Warr.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.55 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had given Notice of his intention to move, in subsection (4), after "include" to insert
  "a copy of any notice in writing given under section six of this Act (save in so far as the Postmaster-General may certify that it is not in the national interest to disclose the contents of any such notice) and"
  The noble Earl said: This Amendment, fortunately, does not raise any matter of principle. It can be dealt with briefly. First I must apologise for the form of the Amendment. There is a mistake in the drafting. The second line of the Amendmend should read "under section seven," and not "under section six." Indeed, I think it is a badly drafted Amendment. I should like to explain the purpose of the Amendment and to ask the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, whether he agrees or disagrees with that purpose. The purpose of the Amendment is to make effective the accountability of the Postmaster General to Parliament for the use of the very important powers which are to be given him or which he is now asking for in the subsections of Clause 7. May I mention two of these powers to show how important they are? One is
  "The Postmaster-General … may … by notice in writing require the Authority to broadcast … any announcement … and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply with the notice."
  In subsection (2) the Postmaster General is given a power of veto over any particular broadcast proposed by the Authority. That subsection says:
  "The Postmaster-General may at any time … require the Authority to refrain from broadcasting any matter or classes of matter …"
  et cetera. What I am suggesting is that, if and when these powers are used, Parliament should be aware of the fact that they have been used.
  This could be done if the Authority were instructed to include in its Annual Report a copy of any directions given to it by the Postmaster General under these subsections. I said "any"; I ought to qualify that word. Naturally, I should wish to except any directions which, if published, might be contrary to the national interest. That is why this exception is specified in my Amendment. For example, it might embarrass our relations with some foreign country if a particular notice were published. I hope I have explained the purpose of this Amendment. I am sure the noble Earl will agree in principle that it is desirable that Parliament should know when these important powers are exercised. I hope he will tell me whether, if he cannot accept this Amendment, he could accept another Amendment which would make his accountability more definite. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 24, after ("include") insert ("a copy of any notice in writing given under section seven of this Act (save in so far as the Postmaster-General may certify that it is not in the national interest to disclose the contents of any such notice) and").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  EARL DE LA WARR: I rather think there is a minor misunderstanding here. Of course, it is desirable that as much as possible should be in the Annual Report, but one has to consider in detail the nature of the directions that are likely to be given. I should say that nine-tenths of them are going to be heard as we hear them every morning if we listen to the B.B.C. We hear police news—for example, about an accident at a crossroads in which a motor cyclist has died, and we are asked, "Will anybody having seen the car please telephone Scotland Yard." Or somebody's mother is ill in a hospital, and would the son please go and see her. Those are all notices which are put out by some public department. Loss of dangerous drugs from a doctor's car; that, again, is the sort of thing with which these directions will be concerned. Otherwise they deal with important matters of policy, probably some rather difficult and delicate matter of foreign affairs. Most of those notices are likely to be on the negative side, directing the B.B.C. not to refer to certain matters.
  1028
  I am not sure whether it is done directly or whether it is done through me, but if the Foreign Secretary or the Government requested them not to mention a certain matter because it might embarrass us with America or Spain or somewhere else in the world, then obviously it is desirable that the matter should not be published. That is the only other sort of direction that is likely to be given. Therefore, I should have thought one could have relied on the I.T.A.'s desire to make their Annual Report as interesting, informative and complete as possible, without putting on them this obligation. However you redraft this clause, I think it is really bound to come to what I say.
  LORD WINSTER: I venture to express the hope that the Postmaster General will hesitate to take to himself any blanket powers to withhold information from the public. My own impression is that the cloak of secrecy has gone too far already. If I understand the Amendment aright, I can only hope that the Postmaster General will resist it.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I certainly shall not press this Amendment. It is badly drafted and would go further than I intended. But I still think there is some substance in the point I made. I shall consider it myself between now and the Report stage. I am sorry if the noble Earl is not ready to discuss this matter, but I shall try to put up a more satisfactory suggestion at the next stage of the Bill.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I am quite prepared to discuss any matter with the noble Earl, but I think, in the light of what I have said, he is likely to find himself in agreement with me after discussion.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am glad to hear the noble Earl is ready to discuss it, because I think it is worth discussing. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, in subsection (4), after "Authority," where that word occurs a second time, to insert:
  "as the Authority may think fit and such further information relating to those or other matters."
  The noble Lord said: Subsection (4) of Clause 13 provides that the report to be rendered by the Authority
  "shall have attached thereto the statement of accounts for the year and a copy of any report made by the auditor thereon and shall also include such information relating to the plans, and past and present activities, of the Authority, and the financial position of the Authority, as the Postmaster General may from time to time direct."
  In the first place, it seems to me that the duty should be laid upon the Authority to give such information or, indeed, to withhold such information as the Authority may think fit. At present, as I read the subsection, the Authority are under the obligation to include only such information as the Postmaster General may from time to time direct them to include. That means that there will be a very limited report unless the Postmaster General directs that certain information shall be included; otherwise it would not be so included.
  The purpose of my Amendment, therefore, is to put the obligation upon the Authority to include such information as to plans, past and present activities and financial position as the Authority may think fit. The Authority may have very good reasons for including or withholding certain information, and it seems to me that the obligation ought to rest firmly upon the Authority in the first instance, subject to the Postmaster General having an overriding right to compel the Authority to include such further information relating to these matters, or, indeed, any other matters, as the Postmaster General may front time to time direct. The purpose of the Amendment, therefore, is to put the obligation in the first place upon the Authority to give or withhold information as it may think fit, subject to the overriding power of the Postmaster General to compel the inclusion of further information on any of those matters referred to in the subsection. It seems to me a useful Amendment and one which would relieve the Postmaster General from the obligation which he would otherwise be under to direct the Authority as to the information which it should include in the annual report. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 26, after ("Authority") insert the said words.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I quite appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, says, but I think the Bill already fully covers that point. I would direct his attention to the subsection immediately before:
  "As soon as may be after the end of every financial year, the Authority shall prepare a general report of their proceedings …"
  which is a perfectly clear obligation on the Authority; and that report will be presented to Parliament. In order to make quite certain they do not make an entirely inadequate report which does not contain information that is essential, the subsection is added giving the Postmaster General power to say what it shall include. But I want to make quite clear that that is in no sense a direction as to their plans, past and present or future. It is something saying that it shall include certain spheres of activity. Nor has the Postmaster General in any way the right to exclude, so there is no possible question that the Postmaster General can act as a sort of censor and prevent the I.T.A. from making a fair and open expression of its views. I think, in point of fact, the noble Lord's point is really entirely covered. He need not have any anxiety—the I.T.A. will have full power to include anything it wants to. The reserve power of the Postmaster General is only there to ensure that it does not make such a brief and inadequate report as Parliament would not accept, especially on the financial side. I think the noble Lord's anxieties can be allayed in that respect.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I understand the Government are satisfied that the report will contain the fullest possible information. That being the case, with your Lordships' approval I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and First Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule:
  Rules as to Advertisements
  2. The amount of time given to advertising in the programmes shall not be so great as to detract from the value of the programmes as a medium of entertainment, instruction and information.
  3. Advertisements shall not be inserted otherwise than at the beginning or the end of the programme or in natural breaks therein,

  1031
  and such rules as may be agreed from time to time between the Authority and the Postmaster-General or as the Postmaster-General may in default of agreement determine shall be observed as to the intervals which must elapse—

  (a) between periods given over to advertisements; and

  (b) between any period given over to advertisements and any period given over to a broadcast of any religious service, or to any such other broadcasts or class of broadcasts as may be agreed upon by the Authority and the Postmaster-General or as the Postmaster-General may in default of agreement determine.

  5. The charges made by any programme contractor for advertisements shall be in accordance with tariffs fixed by him from time to time, being tariffs drawn up in such detail and published in such form and manner as the Authority may determine.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: On behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I beg formally to move this Amendment, in order to give the noble Earl opposite an opportunity of making his reply.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 13, at end insert:
  ("1. No testimonial or other commendation founding or purporting to be founded on professional or other special knowledge or experience or on personal experience shall be included in any advertisement unless the person on whose knowledge or experience the testimonial or other commendation is or purports to be founded has verified the testimonial or commendation by affidavit deposited with the Authority at least one week before the testimonial or commendation is included in the advertisement.")—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I take it that the noble Earl does not want a long reply, and I will not make one. This Amendment does raise an extraordinarily difficult question in regard to the accuracy of advertisers' claims. I have only to think of one, "Guinness is good for you"—the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, is not here. It is very difficult to get an affidavit one way or the other. Some doctors and people would agree and some would deny it. If the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, were here he would hotly deny it. We think that this problem, which is undoubtedly important, can be adequately covered by the Amendment which we accepted last night, No. 77. By that Amendment the Advertising Advisory Committee, who must for their own protection have high professional standards,
  1032
  have their attention directed towards misleading advertisements. We think that that is by far the most effective way of bringing this rather difficult subject into line. Frankly, the proposals here are rather clumsy and I do not think they will help very much. If that explanation satisfies the noble Earl I should be grateful if he would withdraw the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I cannot, of course, speak for my noble friend, who is not here, but I personally am perfectly satisfied that the object of this Amendment is met by an earlier Amendment which the Government accepted. That Amendment was not in the Bill when this Amendment was put down. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.11 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved to insert as a new Paragraph 1:
  "1. There shall be no advertisements on any Sunday, Christmas Day, or Good Friday."
  The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friends, Lord Rochester and Lord Mathers, I beg to move this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is absent on medical grounds, and my noble friend Lord Mathers is out of the House at the moment. On their behalf, I beg formally to move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 13, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
  EARL DE LA WARR: In simple words, this Amendment seeks to ban advertisements on all Sundays, on Christmas Day and on Good Friday. Of course, we must all respect very deeply the feelings of those who are strong Sabbatarians, and who naturally feel, as I think all Christians feel with some especial strength, that certain great festivals should and must be kept quite separate from the ordinary business of everyday life. Nevertheless, we have to consider rather carefully the problem with which we are dealing. With regard to Sunday, throughout the United Kingdom Sunday papers are circulated; they are full of advertisements, and I think one needs to be strongly convinced of a case for differentiating between one medium of advertising and another. With regard to Christmas Day and Good Friday, I am told by my Scottish friends that those

  1033
  days are not regarded even in Scotland as purely sacred days.
  What we have in the Bill is the strong and quite essential safeguard that there must be no advertising in connection with religious services; we shall also have our Advertising Advisory Committee, which will be advising the Authority closely on matters such as this. I should be very surprised if they did not give the advice—I think it is the example of Australia which should be followed—that where, in fact, there are advertisements over the air, as there are in the Press on Sundays, then there should be special regulations concerning them. I feel that any programme company, even without control from an advisory committee and from the I.T.A., would see to it that if they desired to put out any advertisements on those days, they would naturally be of a character in harmony with the spirit of those days. Therefore I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment, but I will naturally undertake to assure the noble Lord, most sincerely, that I personally will keep my eye on this matter in my dealings with the I.T.A. and, through them, with the advisory committee.
  LORD MATHERS: I have listened to part of the noble Earl's reply to the case that might be put for this Amendment. I should first of all apologise profoundly to the noble Earl and to the Committee for not having been here when this Amendment was called. The Committee are aware how quickly the last few items have gone, as compared with the time we have taken over other matters. I look upon this as an important Amendment. This is a matter about which I am most anxious, without necessarily supporting anything that might be said or done by the organisation that sets out particularly to maintain the sanctity of Sunday. I want to see Sunday in this country kept clearly distinguishable from other days of the week, and one way in which that distinction can clearly be demonstrated is by cutting out advertisements on television on Sunday.
  The noble Earl, just after my return to the Chamber, made reference to the fact that there are Sunday newspapers. I would remind him that, while advertisements appear in the Sunday newspapers, those papers are not produced on Sundays; and if they do not wish to, no one needs to buy a Sunday newspaper. But
  1034
  there is a desire to use a television set in the home and it seems to me that if there were much in the way of advertising on a Sunday it would detract from the sanctity of that day. The noble Earl seemed to think that he had a good scoring point against me, in saying that Christmas Day and Good Friday were not observed in Scotland in the same way as they are South of the Border.
  EARL DE LA WARR: On that subject I certainly did not want to score off the noble Earl; I simply made the point.
  LORD MATHERS: My reply to that is, that this is a United Kingdom Bill, and I am providing for what I believe to be the, wish of those who want to see Sunday, Christmas Day and Good Friday kept separate and apart from the other days on which advertising will freely take place. While Scotland is in some respects, although not entirely, not up to the standard in regard to the observance of Christmas Day and Good Friday, that is an old-standing difference that is gradually being broken down, and in a matter of this kind people South of the Border would surely wish to see everyone treated in the same way as themselves.
  The object of this Amendment is to maintain the sanctity of Sunday. There are those who claim that we should not be too regardful of Sunday. Foreigners come here and are inconvenienced because of the way in which we adhere to certain prohibitions on Sunday. Surely that is part of the charm of going to other countries, of finding other practices and experiencing the existence of those other practices. There is no great argument in that regard. From the beginning, neither my noble friend Lord Rochester, who is unable to be here, nor myself had any great hopes of being able to convince the sponsors of this Bill and get this particular Amendment and some others passed by your Lordships' House. I feel that if the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill has said the last word I may yet find some support for the view I have expressed. Apart from that, I realise the necessity not to press this particular Amendment to a Division.
  5.20 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are getting this matter a little out of perspective. I understand the noble Lord's point of view quite well; he would keep to the full

  1035
  Sunday observance in which some of us, in our early days, were brought up: he would not have cinemas, concerts and so on, but would keep Sunday as a day apart. That really goes to the question not just of whether there should be advertisements but of whether there should be a non-Sabbatical programme on a Sunday. That matter was decided. The B.B.C. produce a certain number of religious programmes on Sunday, as these people will, with the advice of the committee, and on Good Friday and Christmas Day. At the same time it was long ago settled, rightly or wrongly, in accordance with what was the general feeling of the country, that there should be no embargo on secular programmes on Sundays and Holy Days. Really the issue is: should we have those programmes or should we not? Well, we do; so the question then is whether or not there should be advertisements, because, if there are these programmes, the advertisers are providing the finance. You have the Philharmonic Orchestra performing, indirectly paid for by an advertiser. There can, of course, be no advertising closely following on to the religious part of the programme. But I think the noble Lord ought to put down not that there should not be advertisements on Sunday or Good Friday but that on such days there should not be any programmes of the kind the B.B.C. or this new Authority will produce.
  EARL JOWITT: It is a pity we cannot agree. The Government might meet us to the extent that there should be no advertising up to a certain hour on a Sunday. I was brought up in that way; my father was born a Quaker and I have generations of Quaker ancestry; and I am thankful that I was. Perhaps we make a mistake in not differentiating Sunday sufficiently from other days of the week. I should have liked to differentiate much more between them and not have advertisements on Sunday, but is it not possible to agree? I should certainly have supported the noble Lord, Lord Mathers had he gone to a Division on this Amendment. We must remember that some people, whose consciences we all respect, feel very deeply about this; and of course the effect of this form of advertising is right inside the home. It comes as you are sitting in your chair; you see it in your own house. To a large
  1036
  number of people that will be a matter of distress. The great thing in this life is to try to be tolerant of each other's point of view, so far as we can. I should very much have liked to see some differentiation between the Sunday and weekday programmes. I suggest we might say that there shall be no advertisements before an evening hour—eight o'clock or something like that. Is there no chance that the Government will do that? It is not a Party question at all; there are all sorts of people, in all parts of this House, who feel as I feel, and I believe that in that way the Government might help to meet a real difficulty.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I find myself very much in agreement with the noble and learned Earl, though that does not often happen. The Government should be able to do this; or, at any rate, if they cannot avoid having advertising on Sunday they should make it start at a much later hour of the day. As the noble Earl has said, many people feel very deeply on this matter and I think the Government should do something about it.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I fully agree with the noble Earl. It is important to deal with this in a spirit not only of tolerance but of great respect to the deep feeling which exists. I have already given an assurance that I will draw the attention of the I.T.A. to this matter, in order that they should give it special consideration. I feel that one has to go rather further than this Amendment suggests. After all, the bulk—say, 90 per cent.—of what occurs on Sunday, or any other day, is going to be programmes and not advertisements. It is just as undesirable to have completely unsuitable programmes as it is to have very few advertisements. I will give an assurance that I will discuss the whole matter with the I.T.A., when they are appointed, and ask them to keep it very specially in mind and discuss it with me.
  EARL JOWITT: Does the noble Earl agree that he will have discussions to see whether it is possible to insert something in the Bill?
  EARL DE LA WARR: No; I said that I would take the matter further and, without any further discussion, give a firm undertaking that, as the Minister departmentally responsible for the work of the I.T.A., I would put myself in

  1037
  direct contact with them on this and request them to take account of these feelings, not only with regard to advertisements but also with regard to the type of programme shown. The problem is very happily dealt with, on the whole, by the B.B.C., although sometimes there are things on Sundays that we should not like to see or hear. I will bring the matter before the I.T.A.
  LORD MATHERS: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for the forthright way in which he has replied, and in view of his latest statement I feel now that I could not possibly bring any pressure. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.29 p.m.
  LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved to insert as the first paragraph of the Schedule:
  "1. No advertisement shall be permitted which is directed (whether or not in conjunction with any other purpose) towards promoting or calculated to promote the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor; and in this rule 'intoxicating liquor' has the same meaning as in the Customs and Excise Act, 1952."
  The noble Lord said: I come now to something much more controversial and which caused me on Second Reading to take up the whole principle of advertising over the air. While we are providing for this new instrument of publicity, we cannot, we dare not, use this instrument to the danger of the vast mass of our population. I think that to publicise and present drink advertisements would be to do something that would render this new development a curse to the country. We know of the ravages caused by the use of intoxicating liquor at the present time. We see it ruining homes. I do not think anyone will deny that it is a consequence of the part which alcohol plays in affecting the lives of many thousands of our people that so many homes are ruined. We see our industrial effort being injured by people who are not fully competent to carry on their work at the highest possible pressure. We look at the accident figures, and particularly at those relating to accidents on the roads. The accidents which we see recorded are very frequently due—much more frequently, I suggest, than the statistics are able to show—to people who are not in full control of their faculties, in consequence of the consumption of alcohol. The result
  1038
  of their indulgence is that they get involved in road accidents, and swell the terrible figures of fatal casualties and injured people.
  The consumption of drink in this country has reached a very high level, and it is unfortunately the fact that convictions for drunkenness have recently been on the increase. I am sure we do not want to contribute further to the regrettable rise in the statistics relating to drunkenness. Yet here we are carrying advertisements for alcohol into the homes of our people and bringing them right to the fireside. What the effect will be on our young people of the matter that is put forward in these advertisements is something which we must consider very seriously, and we must realise the responsibility which we are taking upon ourselves in allowing such a powerful instrument of propaganda to become an effective medium for advertisements of this nature in this country. It is a question of recognising our stewardship of great resources, of recognising our Christian duty with regard to those resources and recognising our responsibility for preventing harm from being done in the body politic. There is no gainsaying the fact that much harm can be done—and I fear that much harm will be done—by making it possible for this great evil to be further foisted upon our people. I hope that here there is a sufficient realisation of the harm that drink already does, to cause your Lordships to say that, so far as this new instrument of propaganda is concerned, it shall not be used to further the interests of those who seek to increase the sale of this curse. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved.—
  Page 19, line 13, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Mathers.)
  LORD KENSWOOD: I rise as a non-teetotaller to support my noble friend, Lord Mathers, on this Amendment. I may say, at once, that I feel very strongly about this matter. I do not drink in this country because there are many things which I think it is more important for me to spend my money upon, but at times I go to France, and then, as I am told that the water there is not good for one, I do occasionally drink wine. The point I wish to stress is this. I very much resent that young people should be induced to consider taking strong drink at an early age. There may not be much

  1039
  harm in merely stating that: "Blogg's beer is on sale" or "Sprogg's whisky can be obtained," but this advertising does not rest there. The dynamic of advertising is to make people use the particular commodity advertised much more extensively than they have been doing hitherto. And in this particular connection, it will be in so many cases young people to whom the damage will be done. Young people will be led to think that it is a fine thing to drink a certain beer, or that certain wines—certain port, for example—is good for them, and that it stimulates them to bigger effort.
  It is irrelevant, so far as my case is concerned, whether these advertisements tell the truth or whether they tell dastardly lies. The important thing to me is this. Young people take to drink and in a few years they become addicts; they cannot give it up. It is in that way, to my mind, that really serious damage is done. As my noble friend, Lord Mathers, has said, people who are so affected become less worthy and less valuable citizens than they might otherwise be. It does not concern themselves only if they get drunk, it concerns the whole community, especially at a time like this, when we have all to put our shoulders to the wheel and produce as hard as we can. I will not prophesy what the noble Lord opposite who is going to reply will say, but I hope very much that he will agree to this Amendment because it is going to affect the whole nation. I hope that there will not rest on the consciences of the Government the knowledge that they may be responsible for even a handful of drunkards in the future—people who have been induced by the blandishments of advertisers to take to drink at an early age and have become unable to break themselves of the drink habit.
  5.37 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: One can respect, even if one does not agree with, the views of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers. But he did not, if I may say so with respect, devote himself so much to this Amendment as to advocating the general banning of advertisements on drink. He brought forward no justification for the selection of this television medium as the one in which there should be a ban on drink advertisements as compared to a ban on such
  1040
  advertisements in newspapers, in periodicals or in posters. What he was really saying was that there should be a general ban on drink advertisements. The reason that there is not is that the community does not wish to have that ban. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, I feel, thinks that the community should be willing to ban all drink advertisements. But the community really likes to drink gaily, moderately and in an orderly fashion. There are always exceptions to every rule, but so long as the community as a whole drinks moderately, gaily and reasonably, I do not see why there should he advocacy of a particular ban for this new medium.
  It is not only in advertisements that shocks must come to the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, because in what I call the substance of programmes, there is just as much danger—or should be in the eyes of Lord Mathers—as there is in having drink advocated in advertisements. The noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, has rightly said how proud he is of the B.B.C. and of his association in the past with that organisation. He also told us, just now, of the dangers of the advocacy of drink on the air. He has held up the B.B.C. to us before now as an example of the high standard and taste of what should be produced. I wonder whether the noble Lord has had read to him the criticism in the Daily Telegraph of a new television play shown last night by the B.B.C. called Dear Dotty. Unfortunately, I did not see it. The critic writes:
  "This first episode, most of which was concerned with who could drink a pint of beer in the shortest time, can best be described as humour with tears."
  I suggest that the noble Lords who put forward this Amendment should remember the parable of the mote and the beam, and not try to put forward something which is not acceptable to the community as a whole.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: I feel strongly that television should not be used for drink advertisements, for the simple reason that it is in the home. They will be shown directly to children at home and put children in the way of thinking that drink is quite an innocent thing—as it is, for those who have control. I am not a teetotaller myself and never have been, but I am not at all in favour of bringing something into the

  1041
  home which would advertise the use, value and attraction of drink. It seems to me an unnecessary thing to do. It is not necessary from the point of view of the drink trade. Heaven knows! there are enough advertisements for drink all over the country, in the newspapers and on the posters. I think this is an Amendment which the Committee should support and incorporate in the Bill.
  LORD WINSTER: I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, said about the bad quality of water in France rendering the consumption of wine necessary. I was interested because I read recently of a Frenchman who was advocating that children's allowance should be increased at the age of seven, and when asked why, said that it was because at the age of seven it became necessary to begin disinfecting the kidneys. I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, said and most sincerely agree with him when he spoke of the homes ruined, the industrial effort damaged and the road accidents increased owing to the consumption of alcohol. The noble Lord is quite right. But he really cannot say that the excessive consumption of alcohol is due to advertisements. He cannot say that if somebody sees "Guinness is good for you," he will proceed to drink so much Guinness that he goes home and begins to beat up his wife and children. He cannot say that these disastrous reselts are due to advertising. If the proposal before us was that all advertisements in the newspapers and on the hoardings and everywhere else were to be prohibited. I would most certainly go into the Lobby in support of such a proposal.
  LORD MATHERS: May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that when I see an instrument to my hand that gives an opportunity of making such a proposal, I will use it, But I am not provided with such an instrument now. We are dealing here with a new means of propaganda and I want to see that that new means of propaganda is not used to increase the evils about which noble Lords are agreed.
  LORD WINSTER: I indicated my great sympathy with the noble Lord in the purpose of his Amendment, but what the Amendment amounts to is discrimination against one form of advertising alcohol.
  1042
  I cannot agree to discrimination against one out of a great many forms of advertisement. Again, I find it difficult to believe that short and perhaps occasional advertisements of somebody's beer on television will make somebody looking at it say, "By Jove! I must go out and get drunk immediately." That is very doubtful, indeed. I go three-quarters of the way in support of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, but I am bound to say I do not think it would be just or fair to pass this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I hope we can come to a decision on this matter. I would say briefly why the Government cannot accept this Amendment. I ask the Committee to have some sense of proportion. I am a little shocked, as a father and a grandfather, at the suggestion that nobody can keep his children in order. My old friend Lord Haden-Guest was horrified to think that if children saw advertisements for drink they would become drunkards.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: I do not believe that for a single moment. But here we are introducing a medium especially attractive to children which will advocate drinking.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord ought to be logical, as he usually is, and say that drinking cannot be advertised at all. Why is it not equally shocking and tempting for children, as they walk to school, and see the delightful advertisements of Guinness with the nice animals who balance things on their noses? I daresay children spend a great deal more time looking at the first-class Guinness advertisements than they will in listening to the tiny little bit of advertising that is going to come on television. I do not believe children are going to take to drink. I do not go so far back as this—it was in the days before my time—but there were academic establishments where the daily breakfast consisted of a hundred lines of Virgil and some small beer. They produced some pretty good people from those schools. But I will not go so far as to advocate that.
  What this Amendment means, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has said, is a complete discrimination against a class of advertisement, which can be placed in other media. People can advertise their

  1043
  drink in newspapers. It is also entirely illogical. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has very appositely found in one of the daily papers what the excellent and highly moral B.B.C. televised last night. It was a competition (I do not know whether there was a small prize of negligible value to be awarded) to see who could drink a pint of beer in the shortest time. If that is all right in the main structure of the television programme, it lacks a sense of proportion to say we must not advertise drink. Think of the many things that would have to be cut out. We should have to bowdlerise Shakespeare a good deal further. We should have to cut out these words of one lovable character in one of his great speeches, addressed, not to your Lordships' House but to some other assembly:
  "Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
  It would have to be carried as far as that. Let us have some sense of proportion and a reasonable amount of freedom in this country. We are a relatively sober people and our children are pretty good and decently behaved. We do not get that by prohibiting advertisements for drink on television, but by what we called earlier—though we may have to strike it out—the British way of life. It would not be the British way of life to say that no advertisements of beer are to be allowed on television.
  5.50 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am a strong supporter of this Bill, but I am rather horrified to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, suggest that every type of advertisement which is allowed in this country is always suitable for television.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I did not say that.
  VISCOUNT ASTOR: The noble Viscount implied it. The noble Viscount implied a discrimination against a particular item which can be advertised elsewhere. It is perfectly legitimate to advertise laxatives, carminatives, trusses, rupture appliances, ladies' bust bodices, but can we imagine that these things are going to be selected necessarily for advertising in the home? I hope sincerely that the I.T.A., in selecting the
  1044
  class of advertisement, will allow some discrimination. The question is whether one should discriminate against alcohol. I come from a family of teetotallers, and I am not one myself—I could not quite hear that remark of the noble Viscount; I do not know whether I am congratulated on the change or not.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I only said "That is why the noble Viscount is not a teetotaller."
  VISCOUNT ASTOR: I can assure the noble Viscount that I have the greatest possible respect for the opinions of my parents. The point we ought to consider is this. Curiously enough, in the United States there is a far greater control of advertisements than there is in this country. There they have a body called the Federal Trade Commission, which vets advertisements. You cannot make an unsubstantiated claim in an advertisement in America without the risk of an injunction against you. You cannot make a claim for a hair restorer in advertisements in America unless some evidence can be produced that it does restore hair. Our standard of advertising in this country is much slacker than it is in America. What we should do is to make sure that the claims which advertisers make on television, whether for drink or anything else, can be substantiated. They should not say that a glass of wine every day is beneficial for health if it is clearly untrue; they should be confined to the strict truth as to what they say about the products.
  EARL JOWITT: I am not a teetotaller, but I shall certainly support my noble friend Lord Mathers if he takes this Amendment to a Division, as I think he will. I say that for this reason—and it will apply to this and some of the succeeding Amendments. I think we are under a duty to consider the social consequences of what we are now doing. Do we want to see the amount of money spent by this nation on drink increased, or not? If we see the amount of money spent on drink increasing, is that a matter for congratulation, or not? I believe that it is not. That being so, I look at it in this way. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Winster (I do not think he is now here), the reason why people advertise is to increase the sale of their commodity. I am certain that a firm like

  1045
  Guinness do not advertise in the excellent way they do unless they think they are getting a return out of it, and that people buy more Guinness because they know the name, and so on. These advertisers who are going to advertise drink will do it because they hope and believe that by using this medium for advertisement their sale of drinks will increase; and they will therefore spend a great amount of new money, which is not spent in the papers to-day, on advertising drink. If their case proves to be right, then the amount spent on drink will go up. I do not believe it is in the public interest that the amount of money spent on drink should go up. That being so, looking at the social consequences of this, I shall support my noble friend Lord Mathers if and when he takes this Amendment to a Division.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Can the noble and learned Earl tell us why he is not against all advertisement of drink, if he is so anxious that nothing should be done to increase the money spent on drink?
  EARL JOWITT: There are two reasons. First of all, that has been allowed for a great many years.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Well—
  EARL JOWITT: Is the noble Earl trying to catch a cricket ball, or what? When you allow something for a great many years, you approach it from a totally different angle from that from which you approach something new, something that is being allowed for the first time. Secondly—and this is my answer—I think this is a peculiar kind of advertisement. This is an advertisement which comes right inside the home. That is why I personally differentiate between this type of advertisement and any other.
  EARL DE LA WARR: May I ask the noble and learned Earl whether The Times does not come into the home? I have here an issue dated June 10 in which there is an advertisement for Dubonnet. I have The Times in my home, and so do many other people.
  EARL JOWITT: You do not often see grandchildren reading The Times—certainly not in my home.
  LORD SANDHURST: I suppose I had better declare my complete disinterest in this matter by saying that I am a wine
  1046
  merchant and I have no intention, even if I am allowed, of advertising on television. But there is a point on this Amendment which has not yet been touched on, and I should like to put it to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. How is he going to interpret the bracket? Where is the ban going to begin, and where is it going to end? To my mind, without the bracket this Amendment would be farcical; and with the bracket it is completely uninterpretable. I will read it to your Lordships, in case you have forgotten it. It says:
  " (whether or not in conjunction with any other purpose)."
  If I am a producer of beer, I might possibly undertake to encourage motor racing as a form of bringing my beer before the public—it has been done before, and there is no reason why it should not be done again. Am I not to be allowed to advertise my races on television because of my connection with beer? Similarly, if you take any racecourse in the country, it relies to a large extent upon the bars to bring in a profit. Therefore, because the race meetings are going to encourage people to drink, they must not advertise on television. Every year the News of the World runs a national darts competition. Darts, as your Lordships know, is one of the games Which encourage tine drinking of a pint of beer. In some competitions you find the players are playing cheerfully for a half-pint or a pint on each "leg." Are the News of the World to be barred from advertising their national darts competition on television just because the publican who keeps the house where one particular round is to be played will, as a result, sell more beer?
  I suggest to your Lordships that, quite apart from anything else, this is not a feasible proposition. I am not in the least advocating that the advertisement of drink qua drink is a good thing. But I do say this—and I question whether anyone can deny it: I doubt whether the advertising of any particular drink puts up the consumption of drink, as a whole, by one glass. What it may do is put up the consumption of one particular drink by one glass at the expense of another particular drink of the same type—and there is a great deal of difference between the two. I do not believe that advertising induces people to drink; it merely encourages them to drink one particular

  1047
  type of drink. They are going to drink anyway. In any case, I suggest that, as it stands at the present moment, this particular Amendment could not be administered.
  LORD MATHERS: I feel that this matter has been sufficiently ventilated. I am sure that every noble Lord here could voice his own particular opinion about it. To me this is a great moral issue, and having the opportunity of voting on a
  6.10 p.m.
  LORD KENSWOOD LORD KENSWOOD moved to insert as a new Paragraph 1:
  "1. No advertisement shall be permitted which is directed towards promoting the sale or consumption of tobacco."
  The noble Lord said: I hope the noble Viscount will forgive me for beginning with a slight "spill-over" from the last debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, mentioned me in connection with the B.B.C., and asked us to preserve a sense of proportion. I hope the noble
  1048
  matter of this kind I could not feel that I had done my duty if I allowed this matter to pass without at least registering a protest against what is obviously going to be carried into effect as the result of the setting up of this new advertising medium.
  On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 59.

  CONTENTS

  Airlie, E.

  Haden-Guest, L.

  Merthyr, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

  Pakenham, L.

  Jowitt, E.

  Henderson, L.

  Pethick-Lawrence, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Kenswood, L.

  Quibell, L.

  Kershaw, L.

  Sempill, L.

  Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

  Lawson, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Samuel, V.

  Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

  Silkin, L.

  Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

  Sinha, L.

  Ammon, L.

  Mathers, L. [Teller.]

  Strabolgi, L.

  Burden, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Rothes, E.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Foley, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

  Winterton, E.

  Freyberg, L.

  Gifford, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Portland, D.

  Davidson, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Hore-Belisha, L.

  Aberdeen and Temair, M.

  Hudson, V.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Margesson, V.

  Leconfield, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Swinton, V.

  Lloyd, L.

  Reading, M.

  Mancroft, L.

  Willingdon, M.

  Aberdare, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Baillieu, L.

  Rathcavan, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Remnant, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Blackford, L.

  Rennell, L.

  Birkenhead, E.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  St. Just, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Braye, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Home, E.

  Brocket, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Munster, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Onslow, E. [Teller.]

  Dunleath, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  Viscount will himself preserve a sense of proportion with regard to the B.B.C. I have never said that the B.B.C. is perfect. Nobody has pretended that it ever was perfect, and surely it must be allowed to slip up now and again. That is all I wish to say on that.
  With regard to my Amendment, I have smoked, but the moment I found that I could no longer afford to do so, I stopped. That was sixty years ago. I may say that my father had something to do with my stopping, because he discovered that he was subsidising me in my bad habits. I have never regretted that. I have never felt that I could afford to pay for

  1049
  smoking. I am convinced that millions of people in this country also cannot afford to smoke, and millions of people in this country cannot stop smoking. A few years ago, when the tax became so very severe on tobacco, many people tried to give up smoking, but they had to come back to it. Surely something that makes addicts, that compels people, particularly young people, to form habits which they later regret but of which they cannot break themselves, should be prevented. I know of the advertisements in America and Canada. I apologise for mentioning them, but they are the only advertisements I have heard over the radio. They are so very seductive that one almost cannot help following the advice of the "star" announcers, because they do it so well. I am afraid that, by permitting advertising of tobacco on television, we shall make still more people addicted to the smoking habit, a habit which, as I say, they cannot afford but cannot give up.
  There is one further point before I sit down. When this subject was debated in another place I think the Assistant Postmaster General would not give a decision on this matter. It was debated purely from the point of view of health. If I remember rightly—and I apologise if my memory plays me false—the matter was relegated to the Ministry of Health. May I ask the noble Earl, or whoever replies, whether the Ministry have yet been able to come to any decision on it? I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 13, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Kenswood.)
  LORD MATHERS: At the risk of being looked upon as a "crank," I rise to support my noble friend Lord Kenswood in this particular Amendment. I think there should be a considerable measure of opinion in your Lordships' House in favour of an Amendment of this kind. The advertising of tobacco, cigarettes and all the rest of it, might be looked upon as a work of supererogation. The habit is so universal to-day that you find yourself the "odd man out" when you take a strong line of not indulging in this particular habit. Perhaps the greatest argument against smoking, and against running the risk of directing young people into the habit of smoking, is the
  1050
  economic one. It is expensive to smoke, as many people do. I have frequently told people, trade union friends of my own, when they have been thinking about the need for increased wages, "Well, you could give yourself an increase of wages of a guinea a week, or whatever it is that you spend in smoking, by cutting out that bad habit."
  It has serious effects upon people. I am certain that people cannot give of their best physically if they are addicted to smoking. There is the fact that smoking is the indulgence in a narcotic poison, in just the same way as alcohol is a narcotic poison. There is the insidious way in which it becomes a habit—people try to break themselves of the habit but fail to do so. It is no comfort to us to know that Mark Twain said on one occasion that it was all nonsense to say that you could not stop smoking—he had stopped hundreds of times. That, of course, is what quite a number of people have done. They have stopped on many occasions, but they always start again. That shows the insidious nature of this—what I look upon as a social evil and a dirty habit, one that is not conducive to anything that is worthy. These bodies of ours were given to us to treasure. We are told that we are made "in the image of God." It seems to me to be an unworthy thing to soil those bodies in the way in which they are soiled by the taking of these narcotic poisons. I look upon smoking as second only, in evils of this kind, to the curse of drink.
  EARL WINTERTON: I do not want to delay the business before us, but I was astonished to hear the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, has delivered, just as I was astonished to hear his former speech. I thought we were living almost in Cromwellian times when I heard him speak, rather than in the reign of Her present Majesty. Because he and others dislike alcohol and tobacco, he thinks there should be no public advertisement of anything of that sort under this Authority. I do not propose to attempt to answer his arguments, which I think are wrong. He seemed to suggest that the most inimical thing in the world to one's health is smoking. I do not know whether he has observed the Prime Minister, who does not suffer from ill-health and who has been a heavy smoker all his life. I

  1051
  hope the Government will think two, three and a hundred times before they ban, by this Bill or any other Bill, advertisements in regard to smoking, or anything to do with smoking, merely because a minority of people in this country believe that it is inimical to health. That fact has never been proved.
  LORD HAMPTON: I had not intended to intervene at all in this debate, but during the last three days I have been "worked up" at the thought of a situation arising, on which, so far as I can see, this unfortunate Authority will be wrapped up in a cat's-cradle and unable to have their own mind. There is nothing more certain in this world than that the Postmaster General will not bother me by asking me to be a member of that Authority; but if he did, in spite of the handsome emoluments I should feel very much inclined to refuse, because if all the Amendments which have been proposed, from the opposite side and from this side, had been allowed, I really do not see what there would be left for the unfortunate Authority to do. It seems to me to be rather like going to Cruft's, paying £1,000 for a prize dog and then chaining him up for the rest of his life in your stable. There would be no object in having this Authority if they were wrapped round with all these embargoes on what they have to do, and when. Surely we ought to let them have a bit of their head. After all, presumably the members will be men of considerable eminence and experience. If you are going to get such men—and it will not be easy for the Postmaster General to select them—surely they must be given a little latitude in how they run their show.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I feel very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, because I think he has spoken words of great common sense, which have been singularly absent from our discussion. The noble Lords, Lord Kenswood and Mathers, dislike smoking. One respects their sincerity. But their logical position is that all advertisements on smoking should be abolished. I am sure the noble Lord will bring in a Bill to that effect: it would be a perfectly logical conclusion from what he has said. I am bound to say that I think he is being a little dictatorial when he says that because he
  1052
  thinks smoking is bad for people, they should not do it. Whatever he says about the economic argument may not be quite so true as he thinks. If everybody gives up smoking, the person who would really lose would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he would have to find some source of revenue to make good that loss.
  VISCOUNT ASTOR: May I ask has the noble Earl heard, and does he agree with, the statement of his colleague, the Minister of Health about the coincidence of smoking and cancer?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Nobody has mentioned cancer so far, and it is an entirely different point. I am not in the least worried about it. I wonder whether really the anxiety on this subject is not greater than it need be. After all, we have been smoking in this country for a very long time; and whatever the effect of smoking, it has not, I think, materially altered the reduction in the mortality rate. The mortality rate has steadily decreased, as your Lordships know, for a considerable period, and very notably in the last twenty years. If smoking has had a great effect it has not been sufficient to alter the speed of that reduction. I do not think we should consider banning tobacco advertisements unless we also ban other advertisements. If you are going to take that line, then you must ban smoking from all television programmes—that is the logical conclusion. If you see anybody smoking, that is an invitation to smoke just as much or more so, than any advertisement.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Astor brought up the question of cancer. Perhaps I might mention what the position is. The Government are agreed that it is not possible to come to a final and definite conclusion as to the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. Much more research and information is needed before anything firm on the subject can be said. Many investigations are taking place, both in this country and abroad, and consideration must be given to the general effect of atmospheric pollution on health. A great deal of research is being carried out, and considerable sums are being expended on this research, including a large sum which was made available by tobacco companies. If we were to-day to agree to a ban on tobacco advertisements on television, it would immediately lead the public to conclude

  1053
  that the last word on tobacco smoking and cancer of the lung had been said and that the causal relationship had been proved. We are not in a position to do so, and it would be unfortunate if we did. For all those reasons, I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he would withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD KENSWOOD: I will withdraw the Amendment, although I disagree almost entirely with what the noble Lord has just said. I think the statement is quite illogical and unfounded. Nevertheless, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in Paragraph 2, to leave out "a medium of entertainment, instruction and information." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment and if the noble Earl opposite can give me good reasons why the Government drafting is better than mine I shall be perfectly satisfied. This paragraph of the Second Schedule lays down that the amount of time given to advertisements shall not lessen the value of the programmes. That is obviously a most essential provision. What it says is that the
  "amount of time given to advertising in the programmes shall not be so great as to detract from the value of the programmes as a medium of entertainment, instruction and information."
  Surely that last line is unnecessary. Why not put a full stop after "programmes"? If those other words are retained and have some meaning, I should have thought the only meaning was to limit the generality of the word "value" by excluding anything that somebody might want to put into a programme that was not entertainment, instruction or information. There is, of course, a great deal of difference of opinion about the exact meaning of the word "entertainment." Some regard it as covering everything and some regard it as having a narrower range. From the point of view of economy of words and avoidance of obscurity, I hope it may be possible to leave out the words I am proposing should be left out. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 18, leave out the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has brought up a
  1054
  number of extremely interesting points in the course of this Bill.. I must say I was fascinated to know what was the point he had in mind here. I did not know. He says the word "value" is in some way limited by the words "entertainment, instruction and information." I hardly know what of value is likely to be put out on television which will not be covered by one or other of those categories. I would say to the noble Lord I do not think he has made out a case that the Amendment will improve on the present drafting of the Bill. I must say I have one objection to his drafting and it is this: if we took out those words, the word "value" might have quite a different meaning from the meaning I think he has ascribed to it. It might mean commercial value to the advertiser. It is possible to give it that interpretation, and it is for that reason that I should be grateful if the noble Earl would withdraw the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am not very much impressed by the first argument of the noble Earl, but I am by the second. It had not occurred to me that the word "value" might have that other interpretation and without this qualification would be ambiguous, and in view of that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.28 p.m.
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, in paragraph 3, to omit all words from and including "such rules" down to the end of the paragraph, and to insert:
  "rules (to be agreed upon from time to time between the Authority and the Postmaster General, or settled by the Postmaster General in default of such agreement) shall be observed—

  (a) as to the interval which must elapse between any two periods given over to advertisements;

  (b) as to the classes of broadcasts (which shall in particular include the broadcast of any religious service) in which advertisements may not be inserted, and the interval which must elapse between any such broadcast and any previous or subsequent period given over to advertisements."

  The noble Lord said: This is almost entirely a drafting Amendment. The intention of it is to make clearer the meaning of paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule, and the point which it is intended to make clearer is that rules must

  1055
  be laid down defining the classes of programmes in which advertisements will not be inserted; also the intervals which must elapse between those particular broadcasts and advertisements belonging to other parts of the programme. That is the drafting part of the Amendment. There is one minor change which the Amendment makes in the meaning of this part of the Bill, and that is that the making of these rules will be mandatory and not optional. That is a provision which I should imagine will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 and insert the said words.—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: As the noble Lord has said, this meets an undertaking given by the Home Secretary in another place to make these regulations mandatory; otherwise they have substantially the same meaning as they had before. The rules, however, will include both the insertion of advertisements and the intervals between broadcasts and the preceding and subsequent advertisements. This is not a question which might have been discussed under the Bill as drafted, but in the Amendment it becomes part and parcel of the rules, and I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
  EARL JOWITT: I feel that this Amendment is a slight improvement, but I should like to ask a question on this particular part of the Second Schedule. The phrase "natural breaks" is rather worrying me. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who described to us how at a play—Hamlet or some such play—in the interval between the scenes the curtain came down and Hamlet appeared in his costume, saying that he could never carry his part through if it were not for somebody's beer. Is that what is to be done in what are called "natural breaks"?
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am not guilty of recounting that story.
  EARL JOWITT: Well, somebody told me that—I thought it was Lord Samuel. But that is what I think we ought to avoid. Would the rules prescribed by the Postmaster General deal with such a situation? May I take another very simple illustration? There may be a
  1056
  boxing match going on. Will advertisements be allowed in the intervals between the rounds, or is that something which would not be allowed? I should just like to know.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am advised that this question is one which will come well within the terms of the rules. The noble and learned Earl's fertile imagination has conjured up some curious examples, from Hamlet to the boxing ring, but as Lord Hampton has reminded us, we cannot tie up the matter too much. It is certainly the intention that these things shall be done in a manner which is seemly. In a boxing match it would be quite normal in most cases—I do not see any particular objection myself to advertising between the rounds. There are certain "between the scenes" breaks in Hamlet and I see no objection to doing so then, if it is an interlude. But here I am expressing my own opinion, and it is wrong of me to do so, because it is for I.T.A. to take up that matter and to include those things in the rules.
  EARL JOWITT: Would the noble Earl see any objection to advertisements being put over by Hamlet in his costume as Hamlet?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think that is excluded by the Bill. It would seem to be connected with advertising, and you will find that that is statutorily excluded.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: It has not been my experience but I am told that sponsors have even inserted advertisements in the breaks between the movements in a Beethoven symphony.
  EARL WINTERTON: We all have the greatest sympathy with the noble and learned Earl and with the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party who wish to save the late Mr. Shakespeare or his heirs and successors the embarrassment of having advertisements appearing between two parts of Hamlet. But they seem entirely to have ignored the fact that if one goes to practically any theatre in London one sees advertisements between the Acts. I rise only for the purpose of saying that if I were not in your Lordships' House I should use the phrase—and I am not using it—that all these questions are, in the best and real sense of the term, "pernickety" and seem to suggest that this new Authority, the

  1057
  viewers and the British public in general, are unable to distinguish between what is and what is not proper; they are based on the assumption that there is something terribly wrong in advertising. Those of us who have been in politics have spent most of our time trying to advertise ourselves. I cannot understand why there should be this attitude that there is something wholly abhorrent and inimical in advertising, and I entirely accept what my noble friend Lord Hampton said on an earlier Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  6.35 p.m.
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved a manuscript Amendment to subparagraph (b) of paragraph 3, after the word "service" to insert "and of any appearance of Her Majesty." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this manuscript Amendment. It relates to the existing Bill before the acceptance of my last Amendment. The Amendment seeks at page 19, line 27, after the words "religious service" to insert "and of any appearance of Her Majesty." In the Amendment that I have just moved those words would come in the second line of sub-paragraph (b), after the words "of any religious service," which are in brackets. The object of the Amendment, which will be quite clear, is that any appearance of Her Majesty would, so far as advertisements are concerned, be treated in the same way as a religious service. I think the principle behind the Amendment will be perfectly clear to the Committee and will require no further words from me. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 27, after ("service") insert:
  ("and of any appearance of Her Majesty").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
  EARL DE LA WARR: I certainly see no objection in principle to this Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD TERRINGTON): This Amendment will have to be moved as an Amendment to the last Amendment.
  EARL JOWITT: I do not think we can do that. We have passed that Amendment and, if I may say so, it is not very convenient to do it in this way. I do not
  1058
  think for a moment that there is the smallest difference between the two sides of the Committee on this matter—it is only a question of framing the right form of words. If my wording is wrong or that of my noble friend is wrong, the Postmaster General can deal with the matter.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I think it would be better to deal with the matter on Report. Then the noble and learned Earl can say what has to say on his Amendment, and we can agree to something at that stage.
  EARL JOWITT: I think that might he the better way.
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.38 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved to add to Paragraph 4:
  "and further as to the proportion which the time given for advertisements shall bear to the total transmission from any given station"
  The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to give power to control the proportion that the time spent in advertisements bears to the total transmission from a given station. I would ask the Committee to note the word "transmission." We have not used the word "programme," because that word has come to be used in so many different senses, by different persons and on different occasions, that I think it is the cause of much misunderstanding and misconception on this subject.
  The Committee will remember that the Postmaster General and other noble Lords spoke yesterday of a national programme covering the whole country—that means the entire day's or week's transmission from any stations using the same frequencies. In the Radio Times one reads "Programmes for Monday," and "Programmes for Tuesday"; that means the transmission on all services or all wavelengths for that day. In another sense it is used to refer to one item in a programme—one item in the day's transmission, short or long. In the Radio Times one can also see a list of programmes to note for the week, and under that a list of individual items, concerts, plays and the rest, that are specially brought to the notice of readers. Finally there is the use of the

  1059
  terms Light Programme," "Third Programme," and so on to distinguish between the different transmissions. There is urgent need for someone to devise terminology to remove that source of confusion. I assume that in Paragraph 3 of these rules, in the second line, before the last Amendment, the word "programme" must be used in the sense of one item of broadcasting. That rule lays down that advertisement may appear only at the beginning or end of one such item, or during natural breaks in the items.
  We come now to a question on which very little has been spoken or written: what is the money value of advertisement time in this system? Obviously, nothing can be known for certain, but somebody must have made some thorough investigations and calculations as to what the cost will be. The only figure I have seen, not for this country but for the German service, was referred to in a letter in the Press some time ago, in which it appeared that £1 a second was the approximate market value of advertising time on television. That means £60 a minute, £600 for a ten-minute "spot," and £300 for five minutes. It is obviously to the advantage of the programme companies to sell as many of these "spots" as they can, and the only restraining factor appears to be public taste.
  The noble Earl who is to reply will no doubt say that the public will indicate soon enough if the proportion of advertisements going on the air is excessive or more than they can stand. There are ways for the public to make their views known to the programme companies, but those who go to the trouble of telephoning the B.B.C., or writing, are a very small percentage. A vast majority of people sit and suffer, or, if necessary, turn off the knob, unknown to the producers of programmes. Even if public taste were to act as an effective restraint, Her Majesty's Government have not left everything to public taste. This Bill, in every other clause, imposes some restraint on the programme companies or the I.T.A., so Her Majesty's Government do not trust the public all that much. They are, quite rightly (we agree that they should), putting restrictions in the Bill as a protection for the great mass of the public who do not feel strongly enough to make their views known to the broadcasting companies. It is clear,
  1060
  therefore, that the proportion of advertising time is a subject which might well be laid down in these rules. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 31, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think this Amendment unnecessary, because if the noble Earl will look at the beginning of the Schedule he will see quite clearly there that the amount of advertising time
  "shall not be such as to detract from the value of the programmes."
  That is a beginning. Secondly, we have the controls that we have already discussed, in regard to intervals between certain programmes and intervals between the advertisements themselves; and we have in other places dealt with the quality of advertisements. One cannot go on indefinitely tying it up. The noble Earl says the only restraining factor is public taste. Is the noble Earl so frightened of that? There is no more solid evidence. I think that when the noble Earl sees this scheme working in practice he will be astonished at two things, although I am speaking without knowing; first, the shortness of some of the advertisements, and, second, the length of others of an entirely different type. Some will be documentary or semi-documentary. If Torquay or Scarborough put on a documentary, it might be very interesting, but it would still have a certain attraction and advertising value. Such a programme as a shoppers' guide, which would be popular with the ladies, might go on for a quarter of an hour or so. It will all be strictly advertising, although very informative. It is quite impossible to work in an item of that kind with any rigid line, and it would be quite wrong, I think, for the noble Earl to press this Amendment. This is a matter in which the self-interest of the advertiser, the desire for a good programme by the programme contractors, the central responsibility of the I.T.A. and the good sense of the public will prevent advertising from putting on too much "puffing." I hope that this Amendment will be withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: I think the noble Earl is being optimistic. He has given us a rosy forecast of the way in which the system will work. As he has

  1061
  said that a number of advertising programmes might extend to almost documentary length, that reinforces the need for some control over the total proportion of transmission time given over to advertisements. One wants to keep a balance between entertainment and advertisement; however, Her Majesty's Government have made up their minds on this matter, and I am not prepared to press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS had given notice of an Amendment to add to Paragraph 3:
  "Provided that any rules agreed or determined under this paragraph shall be made by the Postmaster General in the form of a statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament."
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment was to provide that any rules made in regard to matters referred to in the Second Schedule should be subject to the statutory instrument procedure, and should have the approval of both Houses of Parliament. It seems to my noble friends and me a matter of detail which ought to be left to the Authority, particularly as there is provision in Clause 4 (3), whereby the Second Schedule itself (which includes this provision as to rules) may be amended by statutory instrument. In those circumstances I do not move this Amendment.
  6.50 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, after Paragraph 3 to insert:
  "4. No advertisement shall be permitted of any article consisting of or comprising a substance recommended as a medicine."
  The noble Earl said: I want to stop advertisements of so-called "medicine." I believe that people in this country are much too medicine-minded. I am in favour of throwing physic to the dogs, and of taking medicine from time to time, as you want it and as prescribed by your doctor. There are all sorts of pills—pink pills, white pills, blue pills and yellow pills—and people spend vast amounts of money dosing themselves with pills. I believe that they would be very much better off if they did not take pills as they do. Let them eat good wholesome food, have a run round the park, take the dog out for a walk, and
  1062
  take medicine when it is prescribed and not otherwise. I do not want to increase the sale of pills and the like. I assume that the aim of advertising is to increase sales—otherwise there is no point in advertising. The patent medicine "boys" consider that by advertising their patent medicines they will induce the public to spend more money on such things. I do not think it is socially desirable that more money should be spent on medicines. I am not a fanatic about this matter, but I venture to think that to-day we do spend too much money on medicines, and that we should be more healthy if we did not spend quite so much.
  The tendency, I suppose, of advertising such things in television programmes will be to induce more people to buy more pills. I do not think that is in the least desirable. I do not know whether I can get any support from other quarters, but I should very much like to make it illegal to advertise these patent medicines. I should add that I am conscious of the fact that there is a medical committee, or a committee which is going to have medical men on it, and I am certain that no one will be allowed to advertise anything containing noxious or lethal substances—that goes without saying. I believe that under the standard code of advertising no one is allowed to advertise a cure. I do not think anyone will be permitted to employ the sort of advertisements which we used to see, which contained pictures showing what you used to be before you took somebody's pills and what you became after taking a short course of the pills. Even so, although the committee will have power to stop flagrant cases, yet they will not be able to stop anyone advertising his medicine as being worth so much, or anything of that sort. For these reasons, I suggest that we might consider ruling out patent medicines. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 31, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  6.53 p.m.
  LORD HORE-BELISHA: This really does justify the criticism made by my noble friend Lord Winterton of the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken, that he sometimes reduces this debate

  1063
  to a most pernickety level. He has administered a good deal of medicine himself, in the course of this debate, and has made some considerable draughts on our patience. In view of the rebuke which he administered to me yesterday, I almost hesitate to speak in his presence. Rising to the lofty heights to which his dialectical ability has taken him, he set himself up as an arbiter of taste, and told me that when I had been longer a member of this House I should better understand the usages of debate. It is true that I have not been very long with the noble and learned Earl in this House, but I was for more than twenty years with him in another place. I have watched his political career with some closeness, and I should like to assure him that there is nothing in it, either in his manners or his general demeanour, which inclines me in the least to take him as a model of decorum. I hope that he will reserve his somewhat dowager-like admonitions for other people on other occasions.
  LORD MATHERS: Will the noble Lord allow me—
  LORD HORE-BELISHA: I would ask the noble Lord to forgive me for one minute. This Amendment was destroyed by the noble and learned Earl himself when he said that there is to be a committee charged with these matters. We have listened to some very long speeches from the noble and learned Earl, in the course of which he has told us that this advisory committee, as far as he is concerned, will be beyond reproach and trustworthy. And on this committee concerned with advertisements will be representatives of the British Medical Association and the Ministry of Health. Therefore the Amendment is completely inconsistent with the noble and learned Earl's argument. But political consistency has never been one of the virtues of the noble and learned Earl.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: I should like to say how greatly I agree with what was said by my noble and learned Leader in moving this Amendment, to the effect that advertisements of medicine should not be allowed on television. I support the Amendment, not for the reasons which I gave in regard to alcohol, but because in the last few years—since, in fact, the National Health Service came into operation—there has been a great increase in
  1064
  the number of medicines on sale. They have all kinds of elaborate names—indeed, in some cases their titles are extremely polysyllabic. There has also been an increase in the consumption of medicines—which is rather curious—instead of a decrease. One certainly does not want to have that increase continued. At the present time there are a very large number of what I will not call patent medicines, for that they are not, but special medicines, put up by special manufacturers of drugs, which are widely circulated. Samples are sent to all doctors in the country and it is suggested to them that they should use them. A good many of these medicines, so long as they are not poisonous, can be bought by anyone who goes into a chemist's shop. It is a bad thing that people should take large quantities of medicine; it is a bad thing that they should do this without first consulting a doctor as to what is the matter with them. So I cordially agree that it would be very desirable to exclude all advertisements of medicines from the programmes.
  LORD KENSWOOD: I very much agree with my noble friend who has just sat down. I remember some half-century ago reading a book—it was either Three Men in a Boat or Three Men on the Bummel, I forget which—in which there was a description of what happened when one of the men concerned got hold of one of those medical books (I am not sure of the proper description; I think it is called pharmacopoeia or something of that sort) and on reading it found that he had every disease mentioned in the book except housemaid's knee. These advertisements for medicines are based on that psychological fact. They drum it into you that you have something wrong with you, in order to induce you to buy the medicines. Last year, some friends of mine came over from Canada and stayed with me. They are intelligent and well-educated people, but when they found that they had forgotten to bring with them supplies of the patent medicine which they were in the habit of taking they became very frightened. They were terrified the whole time lest they should get something out of the list of diseases which they had been brought up to expect if they did not take this medicine.
  I think this particular type of advertising is most pernicious, because it makes people disease-conscious. They buy all

  1065
  sorts of things which possibly have not much value in themselves one way or another, and in consequence do not do any great physical harm, but which do a great deal of mental harm because the moment persons who have been consuming such things leave their particular pet medicine aside they immediately become miserable and unhappy and possibly contract the very illness which they hoped to stave off. I support, as strongly as I can, the plea which has just been made with regard to patent medicines.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I must confess to finding myself rather amazed when I heard what noble Lords on the other side had to say on these subjects. When I was young I was brought up in the belief that the Party of the Left was the Party which was always struggling for the liberty and freedom of humanity. Yet I do not believe that Hitler or Stalin ever went to the lengths to which noble Lords opposite have gone in trying to run other people's lives to-day. I have the greatest dislike of patent medicines. I hate the idea of people living more and more on pills. The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, said that they ought not to be able to buy them without going to a doctor. I do not say the noble Lord has a vested interest, but I do not think there are any worse offenders in recommending the use of patent medicines than some doctors.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: When people go to the doctor now, they get their medicine for one shilling only. It is not a serious matter.
  EARL DE LA WARR: They get just a few more pills because they can get them for nothing. But in regard to this matter I think the noble Lord and I are completely at one. The question is, whether it is for him or me to stop people buying or seeing advertisements of patent medicines. Actually it goes further than that—it is whether it is for us to choose the media through which advertisements should be presented to the public. I oppose the noble and learned Earl's Amendment, but I would understand his logic if he were to introduce a Bill to provide that no patent medicines shall be advertised because they are bad for people and encourage them to waste their money. But why pick on the new television?
  I welcome this Amendment for one reason only: it gives me an opportunity
  1066
  of referring formally to what has already been referred to by Lord Jowitt and Lord Hore-Belisha—namely, the member of the advisory committee belonging to the medical profession, because I think it is important to reassure the public on this matter. I think there has been some anxiety. Without going into details, perhaps I may read to your Lordships a short extract from a letter I have received from a representative of the British Medical Association. It is as follows:
  "Thank you very much for sending me an advance copy of the line the Government propose to take. I have since read the account of the debate in Hansard and agree that this protects the position in which we are interested."
  That means that the British Medical Association are completely satisfied with what we have proposed. I would also mention that the Ministry of Health will be represented on this Committee, as your Lordships are aware. I hope the noble and learned Earl will not press the Amendment.
  EARL JOWITT: I wanted to give it a run but I did not anticipate for a moment that the noble Earl would accept it, and I most gladly agree to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to insert after the first sub-paragraph of paragraph 5:
  "Provided that, save in special circumstances, charges shall not be related to the contents of any programme."
  The noble and learned Earl said: I must try to be very brief this time. On the Second Reading I got a statement from the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton (I do not have it by me and I am quoting from memory), to the effect that he thought it undesirable in the public interest that advertisers should have any influence on the programme—I hope I am quoting it with sufficient accuracy. I think that is the Government view; it is certainly my view. The noble Viscount hesitated before he gave me an answer, but then he did answer. That being so, I want to strengthen the hand of the Postmaster General. I do not think there is anything between us. I take it he agrees with that answer. There are special circumstances—for instance, if a man pays a large sum of money to televise a Cup Final, perhaps he would desire to have a longer time—but, as a broad general rule, I should suppose that the Postmaster General

  1067
  would agree that it is undesirable that the advertiser should control or influence programmes. That is the object of this Amendment. I am not very happy about the drafting of "in special circumstances." I have not attempted to define what special circumstances are. I commend the Amendment to the Committee and beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 38, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  EARL DE LA WARR: We have to thank the noble and learned Earl for having put his point extremely clearly and briefly, as he so often does. Of course, the Government are completely at one with him in what he said. Throughout this controversy we have said that there should be no sponsoring—to use the colloquial term. We have no intention of allowing advertisers to influence the programmes. But there can be another relationship: it may well be that the programme could influence the advertiser. That means, as the noble and learned Earl said, that if an advertiser wishes a programme at a peak hour, he has to pay for it. I talk in peak hours because the method of measuring is going to be based on listening habits, not on programmes. Just as the front page of a newspaper is worth more than the back page, so will the peak hour cost the advertiser more. It is bound to be so. Therefore, although I think that on the face of it the Amendment is attractive, it is, to my mind, a little unreal. I think we should all agree that advertising tariffs must be related to the day of the week and the time of the day at which the broadcast takes place, because the potential audience naturally varies in size and type. What will determine the actual, as opposed to the potential, size and type of audience—and it must be remembered that it is the estimated actual audience on which advertising tariffs must be based? The main factors will be the habit of listening to one or other of the networks, which must depend on the general quality of the programmes rather than the particular event. Clearly, the contents of the programme must affect the size and type of audience and this must influence advertising tariffs.
  1068
  I am not sure I have made that clear, but what I am trying to say is that this is not a clear and simple point. There is not one answer to what is going to be the value of a particular hour. What is bound to happen is that the programme contractors and advertisers will join together to encourage joint listener research, such as there is in America—they call it the Hooper rating. On those estimates of the number of people who are listening at different hours, presumably the charges must be based. That is what happens now in a cinema where it can be more definitely calculated. For example, the advertising charge on some of the big circuits is about 10s. a minute per 1,000 viewers. That is easily established because it is known how many people have gone into a cinema. In the case of television, the estimates will have to be arrived at by the Hooper rating—just as with the Gallup poll you can ask people broad questions, and they will give you the answer "Yes or "No"; but nobody can really tell you exactly why they give that answer, and nobody attempts to assess it. All you get is the fact of the number of people who answer. On that will depend the charges, and that must be influenced throughout by the content, the quality and the style of the programme. For this reason, I feel it would be rather nonsense to insert the Amendment.
  LORD GIFFORD: I always felt that one of the great benefits we should get from this independent television was that from time to time we should be able to see on television in this country some of the great world celebrities whom possibly the B.B.C. cannot afford. If we are going to have these celebrities, then their salaries have to be paid. Therefore I think undue binding down of a standard charge is most undesirable.
  EARL JOWITT: I put in the words "in special circumstances" to cover that case.
  VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: I should like to say, by way of supplement of the argument that has been put forward so clearly by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, that it was the expectation, encouraged by what passed prior to the emergence of the Bill from another place, that the clearest possible provision would

  1069
  be made to ensure that there should not be, at any rate in general, a direct relationship between the content of a programme and the charge to be made for advertisements in close association with the programme. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is substantially in agreement with the arguments that have been advanced, and I think it is unfortunate that he has not been able to express such agreement, if in fact it exists, in definite words in the Bill.
  LORD SALTOUN: It seems to me that the value of an advertisement to an advertiser is fixed by the number of people he can reach, and all programmes vary in the number of people they reach. If the programme is going to reach a large number of people, there is bound to be a great deal of competition to advertise on that programme. If that competition is going to be settled on a money basis, then everything is fair and above board and you know what is being paid for what you get. But if there is no money standard, varying with the number of people commanded by a programme, then I think you will find that people will try every possible way to get the place in the programme that they want. I do not think that is good legislation. Where you make a cash payment, it is all right; but where people want badly to get something and there is a great deal of competition not fixed by money, then you sometimes get undesirable results.
  EARL JOWITT: I am afraid that what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said is only too true, and for that reason I fear that the advertisers will control the programmes and that the programmes will have to conform to the wishes of the advertisers. That, I frankly confess, is why I personally object to advertising. However, in view of what the Postmaster General has said, for which I am grateful, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, after Paragraph 5 to insert:
  "6. No advertisement shall be permitted in any programme which includes an appearance of Her Majesty the Queen."
  The noble Earl said: All Parties are agreed that no advertising should be associated with a public appearance of
  1070
  Her Majesty the Queen. It is the purpose of this Amendment to get that agreement in the Bill. The Government gave a pledge in another place that they would prohibit the inclusion of advertisements in any programme in which Her Majesty was going to appear. All I am asking at the moment is for this pledge to be placed in the Bill. I am well aware that my Amendment is wrongly worded, and it is probably in the wrong place. All I am asking the noble Earl to do is to say that he agrees in principle with the Amendment, and that an appropriate Amendment will be introduced on the Report stage. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—.
  Page 19, line 42, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  EARL DE LA WARR: We are, of course, all in complete agreement with this point. We have got the powers in the Bill, and we have already given the pledge. At one time I had hoped to leave this matter out of the Bill, for the simple reason that I thought it was something that we in this country could take for granted. Conditions vary so much—for example, just a flash of Her Majesty, Her Majesty making a speech, and her appearance at the Cup Final obviously require different treatment. However, there was some pressure in another place, and some anxiety expressed. Now, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has expressed that anxiety here—and indeed, the noble Lord who sits behind me. I accept the point in principle that something should be put in the Bill, and perhaps we can discuss the matter between now and the Report stage.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.17 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, after Paragraph 6 to insert:
  "7. No advertisement shall be permitted which is inserted by or on half of any association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes."
  The noble and learned Earl said: I should like the guidance of the Postmaster General on this point. We did agree an Amendment earlier, No. 47, which, to some extent, covers the ground here,

  1071
  although to what extent I am not quite sure. Amendment No. 47 said that
  "there shall not be included in any programme broadcast by the Authority … any item … which gives or is designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes."
  This Amendment is something rather different. This Amendment deals with the possibility of certain charities themselves buying time. I am quite sure the noble Earl will agree with me that that is undesirable. We all know that certain rival charities are devoted to the same most laudable objects. One may be rather richer than the other, and they may be, and often are, keen rivals. If one of the charities were to buy time at the expense of the other, I feel that that would be a misfortune. I should like to know whether the Postmaster General agrees with me; if he does, whether he thinks he can guard against it; whether he thinks he has guarded against it or, if not, what he thinks he might do to guard against it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 47, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  EARL DE LA WARR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl for giving me the opportunity of explaining this point. I would say straight away that I am in full agreement that it is undesirable that charities, certainly in present circumstances, should buy time. We have not put that specifically in the Bill, but we have provided machinery whereby it can be prevented by the Authority, on the advice of a committee. I think that is possibly the best way to do it, because it leaves the matter flexible, and it may be that circumstances will change over the years. Exactly how it will work is that no charity can go on the air without the sanction of the Authority. As your Lordships know, there is an Appeals Committee of the B.B.C. As the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are going to share their Religious Advisory Committee, I should advocate it as a wise idea that the Appeals Committee of the B.B.C. should be asked to advise the Authority in this matter.
  EARL JOWITT: Are we not at cross-purposes? As I understand it, the Appeals Committee of the B.B.C. decide
  1072
  whether time should be given free to certain charities—they want to see that the charity is a good one, and so on. There is no analogy to this Amendment with the B.B.C. The Appeals Committee cannot deal with a matter which does not arise.
  EARL DE LA WARR: There could be no buying of time except with the authority of the Appeals Committee, and as the Appeals Committee will, in fact, advise against that, all that they will do is advise the Authority on the allocation of time for free appeals. I think in that way we get what the noble Earl wants, but in a rather more flexible way.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: Is there anything in the Bill to prevent a charitable organisation from going to an advertising organisation and buying time?
  EARL DE LA WARR: Yes; the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Bristol would have that effect.
  LORD GIFFORD: Sometimes a commercial corporation gives advertising space to a charity. What would be the position if a commercial advertiser took a certain amount of time and paid for it, and then said to a charity in which the managing director of that company was interested, "I am going to give that time to you"?
  EARL DE LA WARR: This would all have to go through the machinery of the Appeals Committee. Perhaps I may explain why. Supposing there is an allocation of time to "the Week's Good Cause." We know that there is a section of the public who put aside a certain fund each year for distribution between these various appeals. It may well be that the appeal which is adjudged by the Appeals Committee the most worthy will be making its appeal on Sunday. In the meanwhile, there is another charity, certainly not an unworthy charity, but one which has great funds at its disposal and can spend £3,000 or £4,000 on a popular documentary, and they would take the whole of the money. I think that would be distressing to the religious world.
  LORD GIFFORD: My point is that the charity would spend nothing.
  EARL DE LA WARR: It would always be possible to take the matter up with the Appeals Committee.
  EARL JOWITT: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. I hope he will keep his eye on this point. If this happened it would be a bad thing. It may be that his machinery is adequate. I hope it is. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved, after Paragraph 6 to insert:
  "7. No advertisement shall be permitted which promotes or is directed or calculated to promote any form of gaming or wagering, to which section eighteen of the Gaming Act, 1845, applies, or any unlawful lottery."
  The noble Lord said: May I deal with this Amendment and Amendment No. 104 together? They relate to the general question of gambling, which is a great evil in this country to-day. I think it must be agreed by all who study what is going on that this is a great evil, and causes a great deal of misery and unhappiness. It is something that we should not seek to increase in this country. That is what is before us in this Committee to-day. We are asked to take upon ourselves the responsibility of adding to the possibility of increasing this evil by drawing people's attention to it, and by allowing those who run the great gambling concerns to buy time and seek to add to their already great profits by inducing more and more people to fall under the spell of this "get-rich-quick" idea, which is at such very long odds indeed.
  I think I am justified in saying that this is a moral question, and I remain quite unperturbed at any slighting reference to "grandmotherliness" or anything of that kind. There are many people in this country who, if we could save them from the evils that come through drinking, smoking and gambling, would be very glad indeed. If we could manage to save them from being attracted to these unprofitable things, and leave them free from the risk of the taint getting into them, free of the urge to fall victims to this unworthy appeal which does not raise their moral standard in the slightest degree, and which is a doubtful thing from the point of view of their gaining any material advantage and is certainly injuring our position in industry, it would be a good thing. I am quite certain that, in many cases, a great deal of time is wasted on studying form and seeking how best to put money
  1074
  on one project or another. It is a remarkable thing that some people who can hardly do more than sign their names are able to look at these things and study them, and can indulge in all the ramifications of pool betting and the like. It is a deplorable thing that these practices are so rife in the country to-day, and we should be doing a good turn, especially to the younger generation, if we prevented them from being induced by advertisements which could be put over by this new Authority. If they could look back and put themselves in the position in which they were before they were induced by these advertisements they would be very glad indeed. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 47, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Mothers.)
  EARL JOWITT: My noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough hoped to be here to deal with this Amendment, on which he feels strongly. He wanted me to call your Lordships' attention to this matter. The recent Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, which was presided over by Mr. Willink, dealt with this evil of gambling and said particularly that it was essential that a bookmaker should not be allowed to send circulars to young people under the age of twenty-one. With that recommendation, I feel sure we shall all agree. Therefore, it seems an odd thing that though a bookmaker may not send a circular to a young person under twenty-one, there is nothing to prevent a bookmaker from coming into the home circle and, by means of a television advertisement, doing exactly that which the Willink Committee thought it so important he should not do. I do not want to restrict the liberty of the subject unduly. That is an old taunt, of course: anybody who is in favour of any limitation of licensing laws will always be pointed out as a person who wants to restrict freedom. It is all a question of a reasonable and sensible compromise. I should have thought that there was a case here which the Government ought to consider, because they must consider not merely the amount of money they will get from this television but whether on the public as a whole this has a beneficial or a harmful effect. I should have thought there was a real case for supporting the

  1075
  noble Lord, Lord Mathers, and that if these advertisements came, as they often will, to the notice of children, it might do a great deal of harm. I support the noble Lord, Lord Mathers.
  LORD SALTOUN: I have great sympathy with the noble and learned Earl, but I cannot help feeling that the Amendment is too widely drawn. I should like to leave out the words, "or is directed or calculated to promote." Otherwise, the Amendment might ban the advertising of a local race meeting or anything like that.
  LORD AMMON: I wish to support this Amendment, from a different angle. Anyone who is in contact or association with young people, or is mixed up with them in many large industries, cannot but be aware of the extremely bad moral effect of the gambling habit. I feel there is a great deal of difference between the actions of people doing things entirely on their own and the giving to those things, to a certain extent, of the imprimatur of the Government. This is one of the dangers which largely accounts for a good deal of the moral lapse in our society. In my own experience, I have known numbers of youths who have gone astray and been led to methods of dishonesty when once they have got caught up in this gambling habit. Although I do not believe or suggest for a moment that it is possible to make people morally good by legislation, nevertheless I am strongly of the opinion that the Government themselves can do a great deal to make it harder to do wrong and easier to do right than is done at the present time. It is from that point of view that I hope this will be viewed.
  There are many cases I can recall where there has been a weakening, shall I say, of the moral fibre, going back on some of those inhibitions which, to many of us, have seemed a little arbitrary. But you cannot stop there. Directly you begin to weaken, then you have to give way even further; and so you go on, and the process grows in volume, in power and in harmfulness. One of the great difficulties that one will often find among the working-class people is the success they experience on many of these pool gambles and that sort of thing. There are people who, without any effort, merit or work, are able to draw to themselves
  1076
  large sums of money. That in itself is bad for the morals of the nation. It is not good business, so far as the State is concerned, that these large sums of money should be wasted in the manner in which they are. I am pleading more for the protection of our young men and women and large numbers of others, perhaps with a weakness in character in one way or another, who find it difficult to keep out of temptation which can, and does, lead them into bad ways. I hope that the Government themselves will not do anything which will advertise and make it easier for them to continue in those ways. I support the Amendment.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, will not mind if I say that, when he starts a speech by saying that "this is a great moral problem," I wait to be told what I am not to be allowed to do—whether it is in regard to drink, tobacco or betting; or, in the case of the last Amendment by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, the taking of medicine. We are back to the same old problem. There are certain things that many people consider to be great social evils. All who have spoken have made quite clear what they feel. We had an apology from the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, for the absence of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. I, too, was sorry that he did not come, because, if he objects so strongly to this, and he wants to use his great influence on this House and this Government in this direction, I should have liked to ask him why he does not use that influence on a paper that is associated with the great movement with which he has been connected all his life—I refer to Reynolds' News, the Sunday newspaper.
  I have here some of the advertisements that appear in that paper:
  "Post your Ascot bets to Shermans to win more."
  "Sensational new plan supplied free for the only 5-match treble chance pool on Zetter's Australian football coupon."
  It is very difficult to find words, without being discourteous, to describe what must seem to us, shall we say, an extraordinary lack of clear thinking. Outside the House, we might use other language. I think "lack of clear thinking" would be a fair way of putting it, when the noble Viscount, who all his life has been

  1077
  associated with the Co-operative movement (I do not say he is a director of this paper or anything like that, though he must still have immense influence on their policy) as a great elder statesman comes to your Lordships and asks you that you should not permit the advertising of anything to do with betting. Perhaps he has tried to persuade Reynolds' News not to insert these advertisements, but it has had no effect. Perhaps that is by the way.
  EARL JOWITT: I just want to say that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, is not here to defend himself because he had to leave to catch his train. The noble Earl will forgive me for reminding him of our Standing Order No. 28:
  "… whosoever answereth another man's speech shall apply his answer to the matter without wrong to the person …"
  That is a valuable principle to bear in mind, particularly when the noble Viscount is away. The noble Earl is rather suggesting that the noble Viscount, in putting down his Amendment, is a hypocrite because he is a member of the Co-operative Society and there are written advertisements for these things in Reynolds' News. There is no real analogy between a newspaper advertisement and an advertisement that goes into the home. The case made can be answered by saying that it is quite wrong, without making any charge of hypocrisy against the noble Viscount.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I make no charge at all. The worst thing I said was that I thought it showed a slight lack of clear thinking. I am at a slight disadvantage. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, did put his name down, and put it first, to this Amendment, and it was not unnatural, therefore, that I assumed that he would be here in order to move it himself. Perhaps that is beside the point. We are really back on the old problem of "Why pick on television?" That has never been answered yet. I am not going to repeat the arguments, but that is really the point at issue. Betting advertisements are allowed elsewhere, not only in Reynolds' News. Those advertisements are carefully controlled already, both by law and by the joint committees between the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the advertisers themselves. There is even
  1078
  stronger statutory machinery here set up for ensuring at least the same control. I am afraid, therefore, I repeat myself; but while noble Lords may feel inclined later to introduce some general legislation about advertisements on betting in any medium, I cannot accept the Amendment restricting that limitation to television.
  LORD LAWSON: I have taken practically no part in the debate on this Bill, but I confess I cannot let this subject pass without a word. I have never attempted to lecture anybody about gambling—I know how useless it is. I have been bitten by that dog myself, and so I know the thrill of it. I also know that you are never satisfied until you get it; you are certainly not satisfied when you do get it; and you are just about never happy until you lose it. This is another matter altogether. I am astonished that, with the evidences of widespread gambling in many forms before him, and also with the knowledge of the effects it has upon national life, the Minister should rise and quote what is in newspapers in the way of advertisements for gambling. That is no comparison with the impact on a youngster in the home through television. There is no comparison at all. That the Government should be directly taking part in a matter of this kind for promoting gambling is a most astounding thing. I speak very strongly upon this subject, because I have seen directly the effect upon men and the effect upon homes, and how people can become the victims of it and have very little control of themselves.
  If I may say a personal word, I would tell your Lordships that when I was somewhat of a student, or becoming a student, in the mine, I obtained a certain book called Decline and Fall, and I used to go to gambling schools at the week-end—and they kept me declining and falling. Everyone knows that one of the worst fevers, one of the most difficult fevers to get rid of once it gets hold, is the gambling fever. I really am astonished that any Minister representing the Government in this matter should compare these things with the ordinary advertisements in a newspaper. Here you have a little room, and a little box that you look into, and someone is urging a youngster to get something for

  1079
  nothing, one of the most dangerous diseases in any country. I formed the opinion about certain countries through which I travelled before the war that the trouble with them, and the trouble which indirectly affected us adversely during the war, was that the country had got the spirit of expecting something for nothing all the time. So I say that I think the noble Earl has not at all faced up to this question. I do not know that the Government has faced up to it, and I am hoping that at some future stage this matter may get more serious consideration than it appears to have had from the Government Benches up to the present.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I had not intended to take part in this debate, and I cannot pretend to be an expert on gambling and betting. I cannot say that I never bet; I have a bet once a year on the Derby, but I am not a regular follower of form. The fact remains that newspapers not merely advertise betting but have special correspondents, the object of which is to advise their readers which horse will be the winner. Why do they do that? Not from a merely academic interest in the running and breeding of horses. They do it to sell the paper. Every paper does it—I am not going to criticise one more than another. The most respectable papers do it, and the better the correspondent the better pleased they are.
  I do not think any of us can take a very high moral tone on this question. Personally I am not in favour of preventing people from doing what they want to do, even though I do not always approve of what they do. I think that if we got into that mood in this country it would be a bad thing for the country. I must say that in holding that view I find it rather difficult to draw the sharp differentiation which noble Lords opposite do sincerely draw between these other modes of advertisements for betting and this particular one. I think it would be a logical point of view if the noble Lord had made the speech he has made in a general debate on betting, asking that it should be abolished; I think that would be perfectly logical. But I cannot myself see any real difference of principle between the two media, and I should have thought that to differentiate against these particular
  1080
  companies in respect of a thing which is, perhaps not approved, but always regarded as perfectly legitimate and enjoyed by the readers of newspapers, would be to deny that thing to those who enjoy this particular form of entertainment. I would support this Amendment, though as I say I am not an enthusiastic gambler myself, nor do I think it is particularly good for the country to gamble.
  LORD MATHERS: When the noble Marquess says he will support this Amendment, does that mean he is prepared to go into the Lobby in favour of it and lead his supporters? That is what he said; he is in favour of the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not in favour of the Amendment. I am not in favour of the differentiation which is made; that is what I meant. I fully appreciate the sincerity of people who have taken a different view. I do not take that view myself.
  LORD MATHERS: It must have been a slip of the tongue, but the noble Marquess did say he supported the Amendment, and it was a delightful thing for me to hear. I thought, "Here is something we are going to get at last, because the Leader of the House is going to support us."
  The noble Earl who is conducting the proceedings on the Bill asked, "Why pick on television?" and the noble Marquess, too, said that this attempt to ban these advertisements should be made generally and not in isolation in connection with this particular new instrument. But that is what we are dealing with, and these other observations are not germane to what we are dealing with here this evening. The noble Earl professes that these points have not been answered. I have been wasting my time, because I have already said what I am saying now more than once to-day in this debate. What struck me most forcibly about the noble Earl's remarks in reply to the discussion—and he will forgive me for saying this—was that he had a very poor case when he dragged in things that had nothing to do with the matter; and I regretted exceedingly that he made reference to my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who very much regrets his absence. He was urging us not to delay things but to get on quickly because he

  1081
  lives a considerable distance out and he wanted to get his train. Unfortunately, he was prevented by circumstances from taking his place and moving this Amendment. I have done my best to speak for him and to indicate to the Committee what I feel about this Amendment. I look upon this matter very seriously indeed, and while I know that numbers are against me and that I could not possibly succeed in getting this Amendment accepted if I took it to a vote, yet I am not prepared in the circumstances to say that I withdraw it. I must leave it to the majority in the Committee to negative the Amendment. I am very anxious indeed to have accepted this particular point of view, and I cannot depart from it but must submit to being overwhelmed by the numbers that I know are against me.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  7.51 p.m.
  LORD MATHERS: I beg to move this Amendment. What the Committee have already done with the last Amendment I leave them to do with this one.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 47, at end, insert—
  "7. No advertisement shall be inserted by or on behalf of any person in so far as he carries on the business or vocation of a promoter of pool betting or of a bookmaker or of communicating forecasts of races; and in this rule 'a promoter of pool betting' and 'a bookmaker' have the same meaning, respectively, as in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1947, and the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934."—(Lord Mothers.)
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of his intention, after Paragraph 6 to insert:
  "7. No advertisement shall be inserted by or on behalf of any person carrying on the business of a moneylender."
  EARL JOWITT: This is an Amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. It is quite obvious that this principle applies a fortiori to the last two Amendments. The Committee have not given us the last two Amendments, and I take it that they are not going to give us this one. Therefore I will not move the Amendment.
  Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Third Schedule:
  PURPOSES FOR WHICH PROVISION IS TO BE MADE IN CONTRACTS WITH PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS.
  1. For enabling the Authority to require the provision by the programme contractor to them in advance of scripts and particulars of the programmes or any part thereof, including advertisements, and of full details of the technical arrangements for obtaining visual images and sounds which are to form the programmes or any part thereof.
  7.53 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in Paragraph 1, after "advance" to insert, "or within three months after broadcasting." The noble Earl said: It will be the business of the Authority to supervise the programmes shown by the programme companies, and to see that they carry out the rules which are laid down in the Bill. The Third Schedule, very rightly, provides them with the means of exercising effective supervision. The first paragraph of the Schedule which I am proposing to amend, gives them the right to include in a contract the obligation on the programme company to provide them, if they so desire, with scripts of plays or films, or whatever it may be, in advance of the inclusion of those items in their programmes. But there is no obligation on a programme company to provide the Authority with any items of that kind after it has been included in a programme.
  Let us take a simple case. Suppose that a film is shown in a television programme, and that a day of two afterwards the Authority receive several letters from members of the public saying that that film was indecent or offensive. Clearly, the Authority ought to be able to ask the programme company to let them see the film or play; they ought to have the right to ask the programme company to let them read through the script of the item. What my Amendment sets out to do is to put the companies under an obligation to provide the Authority with material after, as well as before, it has been included in their programmes—only for a period of three months, because I do not think a longer period would be reasonable. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 20, line 10, after ("advance") insert:
  ("or within three months after broadcasting.").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  EARL DE LA WARR: I think it is quite clear from what the noble Earl said, that this Amendment is meant to improve the structure of the Bill, although I am not sure that he has appreciated what it means. It is by no means normal or general to keep a record of every programme, and in the case of television it is an extremely expensive process. In Paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule, the Bill gives power to the Authority to ask for the keeping of records; but as the Committee will remember, we have had some discussion on this point, which refers back to Clause 5 (5), where the Authority must first have some reason for feeling that it is likely to be necessary. This Amendment means that we shall be cutting out Clause 5 (5) and the need for the Authority to apprehend some breach of the contract; we shall be saying that in every case these records have got to be kept. This inquiry may relate to any programme. From what the noble Earl said, I do not think that he was meaning to do that. It would impose an immense burden. It is not merely a question of trouble, which is a different matter, but one of expense to the companies. I think perhaps that, as I have given the noble Earl that point, he may feel that he does not wish to press the matter.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am afraid that what the noble Earl is really saying is that technical difficulties will make it impossible—or if not impossible very difficult—for the Authority to carry out their obligations in the matter of supervision, obligations that are placed upon them by this Bill. I do not want to argue the matter now any further; I will withdraw the Amendment.
  EARL DE LA WARR. It is good of the noble Earl to withdraw it, but I should not like him to feel that that is quite the position, because I see no reason at all why a company should not be put to the trouble and expense of doing this if they have given to the Authority some reason for apprehending a breach of contract. I would support that very strongly. What I am saying is that it would be a pity, to make them do so when there is no reason.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I did not want to delay the Committee any longer, but surely the best reason, or at least a good reason, for apprehending a breach of contract would be in the fact that a large number of persons said they thought
  1084
  that a certain film or play was offensive, or contrary to good taste, or whatever it may be. I should have thought that was a perfectly good reason, and that it would be possible for the Authority to act upon an allegation of that kind. If the noble Earl would be willing to discuss this matter with me between now and Report, as I am not satisfied—he appears to be willing to do so—I should be greatly obliged. In any case, I have already indicated my intention to withdraw the Amendment.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I should not like to give any undertaking in regard to this point, but naturally one is always open to discussion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Remaining Schedule agreed to.
  EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to add to the Bill as a new Schedule:
  ("FOURTH SCHEDULE
  SPORTING EVENTS, ETC.
  1. Television broadcasting facilities in respect of an event to which this Schedule applies shall not be granted by the promoters to the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Authority, or any programme contractor, except in pursuance of a request made to them in accordance with the following provisions of this Schedule.
  2. Any such request shall be made in writing not later than five clear months before the day on which the event is to take place, and shall specify—

  (a) the general nature of the facilities required by the party making the request; and

  (b) the station or stations which that party proposes to use for the television broadcasting of the event.

  3. If in the case of any such event as aforesaid requests are made in accordance with this Schedule both—

  (a) by the British Broadcasting Corporation; and

  (b) by the Authority or any programme contractor,

  each party by whom such a request is so made shall, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, be entitled to such television broadcasting facilities (within the terms of his request) for broadcasting that event from the station or stations specified as aforesaid, and upon such terms and conditions, as may be agreed upon between all of those parties and the promoters of the event, or as may, in default of such agreement, be determined by arbitration.
  4. The promoters of any event in respect of which requests have been made as mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Schedule may, at any time not later than three clear months before

  1085
  the day on which that event is to take place, give notice in writing to all parties by whom those requests were made declining to grant any facilities in pursuance of those requests; and where such notice is given, the said requests shall cease to have effect for the purposes of this Schedule, and except with the consent of each of those parties no television broadcasting facilities shall be granted by the promoters in respect of that event.
  5. The promoters of any event in respect of which requests have been made as aforesaid may, at any time not later than four clear months before the date on which that event is to take place, give notice in writing to all parties by whom those requests were made declining to grant facilities in pursuance of those requests except upon conditions requiring such arrangements to be made in connection with the television broadcasting of the event (from whatever stations) as will preclude the reception of adequately clear visual images throughout the area lying within a specified distance (not exceeding twenty miles) from the site where the event is to take place; and where such notice is given, the said requests shall have effect as requests for facilities subject to the conditions specified in the notice, and except with the consent of each of those parties television broadcasting facilities shall not be granted by the promoters in respect of the event otherwise than subject to those conditions.
  6. Any request made for the purposes of this Schedule in respect of an event may be withdrawn by notice in writing given to the promoters at any time not later than three clear months before the date on which that event is to take place; and in any such case the said request shall cease to have effect for the purposes of this Schedule, and the provisions of paragraph 3 of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to the event as if the request had never been made.
  7. Any sum awarded by arbitration under this Schedule to be paid by any party for television broadcasting facilities shall, except so far as may be otherwise provided in the award, be recoverable notwithstanding any failure by that party to exercise those facilities, unless the request has ceased to have effect under any of the foregoing provisions of this Schedule; and the powers of the arbitrator in any such arbitration shall include power to vary any contract previously concluded, or any award previously made, between the promoters and any other party by whom a request has been made in accordance with this Schedule in respect of the same event.
  8. References in this Schedule to an event to which this Schedule applies are references to that event as taking place on any particular occasion; and in relation to any such event which occupies more than one day, references
  1086
  in this Schedule to the days on which the event is to take place are references to the first of those days.")
  The noble Earl said: I think the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and I agreed that we should have discussions in regard to this matter. Accordingly, if the noble and learned Earl will agree, I will move this as a consequential Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  After the Third Schedule, insert the said new Schedule.—(Earl De La Warr.)
  EARL JOWITT: We are going to have a look at this matter: given a little more time we shall be able to consider it. This is the last of the Amendments. May I congratulate the noble Earl upon having steered his ship into harbour? I only wish that it were a better ship and a better harbour. However, we all recognise that he has clone what he could to meet us, although we are not very well pleased with what we have obtained.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I know that this is a Bill on which noble Lords have very strong feelings, and I think we can congratulate ourselves that we have got it through—with the exception of one or two little moments of controversy—in a very happy manner.
  On Question. Amendment agreed to.
  House resumed.

  NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL
  The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.

  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
  The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  House adjourned at eight o'clock.