Lords Sitting of 20 July 1954

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  WALSALL CORPORATION BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FOREIGN EXPORT SUBVENTIONS
2.37 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they contemplate any relieving action with regard to export subventions at present being used by various countries either by way of differential rates of exchange or, more particularly, with regard to direct export subsidies being granted by France to her exporters in competition with exports not so assisted from the United Kingdom.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Question of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, as it first appeared on the Order Paper, asked what retaliatory action Her Majesty's Government contemplated. The noble Lord has changed the wording of the Question and now asks what relieving action is contemplated. I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government do not at the present time contemplate any retaliatory action. As regards relieving action, as my noble friend will be aware, our policy has been directed to securing the withdrawal of export subsidies by the countries which apply them. To this end, we have taken the lead in arranging for this question to be examined in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and we are presently considering whether to raise it in the forthcoming review of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We are also ready, in all
1174
appropriate cases, to discuss the matter direct with other Governments. In this connection, my noble friend Lord Barnby will no doubt have noticed, with satisfaction, the text of the recent joint statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the German Minister of Economic Affairs.
LORD BARNBY: While thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him whether he will make representations in the proper quarter regarding the action of Uruguay in the matter of multiple exchange rates, which continues to be a menace to this country, and the continuance of export subsidies, particularly those given by France to her exporters in competition with our industries? Will the noble Lord urge that there appears need of Government action in both cases?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, the Uruguayan problem has been a vexed one for some considerable time. We are doing everything we can to obtain a satisfactory solution with regard to the French problem, and I will certainly bring the observations which the noble Lord has made to the attention of my right honourable friend. I think I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend is already well aware of the matters upon which he has touched.

METAL EXPORTS TO CANADA
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I should like, with the indulgence of the House, to apologise for an error. On reference to Canada House, I learn that the figure of 800 million dollars in my Question should have been 1,800 million dollars, that being the amount of exports of metal products from the United States to Canada. This country at present gets only a small share of metal exports to Canada.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, following the visit to Canada by the President of the Board of Trade, they can announce any action or plans to help expand exports of metal products to Canada to replace in part the present approximate 80 per cent. or some 800 million dollars in such

1175
categories imported annually from the United States of America; and further, what proportion of the Canadian home market it is thought reasonable should be retained for their own producers.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as my noble friend will appreciate, the industries of this country are free and they make and announce their own plans. United Kingdom metal products range from heavy capital equipment to light consumer goods. Our opportunities in the Canadian market are many; the field is wide open to us; and, indeed, our engineering industries are most active in that market. There are, of course, certain difficulties but many of these can be solved by persistent salesmanship and by careful study of the requirements of the Canadian market on the part of our exporters, assisted by the growing awareness on the part of Canadians that it is in their own interests to increase their purchases from the United Kingdom. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade lost no opportunity to stress this during his recent visit, and I can assure my noble friend that, for their part, Her Majesty's Government are giving all the advice and help they can to exporters in overcoming any difficulties as they arise. With regard to the second part of the Question, I should not think it appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to say what proportion of the Canadian market should be retained for Canadian producers.

MYXOMATOSIS IN SCOTLAND
2.41 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, seeing the importance of avoiding cruelty to animals, they are aware that Mr. William Milne, of Durris, Aberdeenshire, has recently imported rabbit carcases from England infected by myxomatosis, with the intention of spreading disease among rabbits on his land, and whether, since this is contrary to the recommendations of the Carrington Committee, which have been accepted by the Minister of Agriculture, immediate steps will be
1176
taken in the Press and over the B.B.C. to make known the official view, so as to prevent further incidents of like nature which cause days of indescribable suffering before death; and, furthermore, whether, taking into consideration experience gained in England, immediate action will be taken to confine the spreading of the disease in Aberdeenshire, and to burn all infected carcases.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, my right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland have asked the Myxomatosis Advisory Committee to consider, at a meeting which it is holding later this month, these and other suggestions made for preventing or discouraging the deliberate spreading of the disease.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I suggest that this matter should be treated more urgently than that, since this disease is running very rapidly through different parts of Scotland? If I may I would draw your Lordships' attention to a report that was issued fairly recently by the senior veterinary officer of the National Veterinary College of France, where rabbits have been decimated by that disease. The report states that on account of its extreme cruelty, and also because, in the long run, immunity is likely to be developed, the disease should not be encouraged. Just before coming into your Lordships' House I was handed a letter from the head ghillie of Craigievar, Aberdeenshire, my home, in which the following occurs:
"I telephoned yesterday and was informed that several people had actually called at Durris for infected rabbit carcases …"
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am loath to intervene on this very important subject, but it is a very strict rule in this House that questions must be questions, and not statements. If the noble Lord has a matter with which he wishes to deal at greater length, it is always open to him to put down an unstarred Question, which could be discussed. That would allow him to develop his subject. I think it will

1177
be agreed that it is not in accordance with the practice of the House to make very long statements on Starred Questions.
LORD SEMPILL: I beg your Lordships' pardon. I will take the advice of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and will put down an unstarred Question.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may we take it that the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland are definitely opposed to the spreading of this disease to Scotland?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers, may I ask that the Government will treat this matter as one of urgency, as my noble friend Lord Sempill suggested in his remarks a moment ago?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Myxomatosis Advisory Committee are meeting next Monday and this is being treated as a matter of urgency. With regard to the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, the Advisory Committee have already pointed out that they are strongly against the deliberate spreading of the disease by the Government. They are now being asked to consider what steps if any, should be taken against the spreading of the disease by private individuals.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may we take it then that the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland are opposed to the spreading of the disease in Scotland?
LORD CARRINGTON: I happen to be Chairman of the Myxomatcsis Advisory Committee and it would be wrong for me to make up my mind on what is right or wrong before I have even met my Committee.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that this inducement of disease is looked upon with repugnance by a large number of people in this country?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, yes, indeed; and in the first Report of my Committee we were strongly against the spreading of the disease, because we thought it was most inhumane.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I take it from what the noble Lord said that the Advisory Committee are not reconsidering their decision to allow the disease to take its natural course?
LORD CARRINGTON: That is so.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

TELEVISION BILL
2.47 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
The independent Television Authority
(7) Before appointing a person to be a member of the Authority, the Postmaster-General shall satisfy himself that that person will have no such financial or other interest (and, in particular, no such financial or other interest in any advertising agency or in any business concerned with the manufacture or sale of apparatus for wireless telegraphy or other telegraphic equipment or in any business consisting or intended to consist in whole or in part in entering into or carrying out contracts with the Authority for the provision of programmes or parts of programmes) as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as member of the Authority, and the Postmaster-General shall also satisfy himself from time to time with respect to every member of the Authority that he has no such interest; and any person who is, or whom the Postmaster-General proposes to appoint to be, a member of the Authority shall, whenever requested by the Postmaster-General so to do, furnish to him such information as the Postmaster-General considers necessary for the performance by the Postmaster-General of his duties under this subsection.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Independent" and insert "New" [Television Authority]. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not desire in this Report stage to fight all the old battles over again. I am sure that will be a relief to noble Lords on the other side of the House. I should like to acknowledge that since our last meeting we had a chance of meeting the Ministers opposite and, as it has always proved in my experience, the meeting was of value. I think I may say that noble Lords opposite seemed really to desire

1179
to get as near to us as they could, without sacrificing anything which they thought in any way vital; and I should like to pay acknowledgments accordingly.
On the last occasion I moved that we should leave out the word "Independent" and insert "Commercial." Here we have a point which does not in any way go to the vitals of the Bill. The objection which I have to the word "Independent" is that to ignorant people who know little about this subject, if this new body is described as the "Independent Television Authority." it implies that whereas this Authority is independent the B.B.C. are a dependent Authority. In truth and in fact, both these Authorities are equally independent of the Government—that is to say, that in either case the Government can, if need be, exert their authority and order both of them, although, in practice, the Government never do that, or never have done that, save in the case of emergency, when everyone would agree that the Government were justified. In practice, the B.B.C. have been allowed to develop with complete freedom and I hope and believe that the Television Authority will equally be allowed in practice to develop freely.
I maintain the point that I raised on the last occasion, that it is undesirable to use the word "Independent" in the one case because it inevitably impresses people with the fact that the B.B.C. are not in that category. Here is a point where I had very much hoped the Government would have been able to meet us, but they have not. It is true, if I may say so (and the noble Earl the Postmaster General will stop me if I am being indiscreet), that the Postmaster General was quite willing to do away with the word "Independent" and simply call it "the Television Authority"; but as both he and I pointed out, obviously that would be a matter for the B.B.C. to consider, and it was for the noble Earl to approach them. I gather that he did approach them and they said that they would rather have "Independent Television Authority" than simply "the Television Authority," because if we refer to the new body as "the Television Authority" it would fairly imply that the B.B.C. were not a television authority at all. I can well understand that they would prefer the
1180
"Independent" to that. So that possible way out of the difficulty did not prove satisfactory.
On the last occasion I suggested the word "Commercial." I pointed out that to my mind there was nothing derogatory about that term, and that it was not meant to be so. The noble Earl countered that by saying that now the Authority is to have a grant of £750,000 a year from the Government, it will not be entirely commercial—though I think it is true to say that the word Commercial had been turned down before the grant of £750,000 was agreed to. As the word "Commercial" was not suitable, I did my best to suggest alternatives. I noticed from Clause 1 of the Bill that the function of this body is to provide for broadcasting services additional to those of the B.B.C., and I wondered whether "Additional Television Authority" would do. I suggested "Alternative Television Authority"; I suggested "Competitive Television Authority"; I suggested "Second Television Authority," and I think one of the least innocuous I suggested was the "New Television Authority." After all, there is nothing derogatory about the word "New." The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I are both fortunate enough to have been educated at New College, and though New College is now a pretty old college, we do not mind still calling it "New College." After all, we refer to the New Testament and, so far as I know, there is nothing derogatory in the word "New" in that context. What would be the harm in calling this the "New Television Authority"?
I have never advanced the ridiculous claim, which I believe the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, once thought I had, that it is the duty of the Government, because they are in a great majority in this House, to accept any Amendment proposed by the Opposition. I do not suggest anything so ridiculous. But I do feel that it is the duty of the Government when they are rejecting an Amendment moved in this House by the Opposition, to tell us why they do so and to give us a good reason. I think it is obvious to all men who look at this matter that, for the reasons which I have given, there are objections to the word "Independent." Why not put in the word "New" in contradistinction, so

1181
that there is the B.B.C., the old Television authority, and also the "New Television Authority"? Or, if you like, put in the word "Second," or some other word. Is there no other word which can be suggested which will distinguish this Television Authority from the B.B.C., and which will not, at the same time, by implication, necessarily suggest that the B.B.C. is more dependent on the Government than it really is? I had hoped that I should be able to get some concession from the Postmaster General on this point. So far, I have not succeeded, but I still hope that, even though it is the fifty-ninth minute of the twelfth hour, he will see reason. This would cost him nothing; it would not interfere with the Bill, and it would make people feel that it was being a little fairer to the B.B.C., who, not unnaturally, object to this Authority being called "Independent," because that seems to imply that the B.B.C. is not. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("Independent") and insert ("New").—(Earl Jowitt.)
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Earl for what he has said about our discussions; I agree entirely with him that they have been productive. With regard to this particular Amendment, I made it clear in those discussions that my mind was far from closed. Moreover, I agree with the noble and learned Earl that this is not a fundamental point, although there is certainly a little feeling about it. My own view is that the independence of the B.B.C., which has now been in existence for some thirty years, is so established that it is not open to as much challenge as some people think. Nevertheless, I recognise the feeling, and with that in view we have tried hard in this matter. We took the dictionary of adjectives, and went through it: we tried "indefatigable." "indignant," "impecunious," "indigent." However, we did not feel that anything we found really met the point. Then I suggested to the noble and learned Earl, as he has said, that we should try "Television Authority." I did not see anything against that; but as we were going into this entirely in order to meet the position of the B.B.C., we both felt that we should leave the matter open
1182
until we had consulted them. I did consult them, and their answer is, as the noble and learned Earl said, that they would feel, if we called it "Television Authority," that it suggested an Authority superimposed on their televising activities.
Therefore, we are back to where we were. I cannot feel that the words "New Television Authority" would be entirely satisfactory, although it may satisfy us for a few months. I know the story about New College, but that, of course, is an old story. I feel that we must have a good and serious reason to ask Parliament to go back on what has already been decided. There is a further reason why even the "New Television Authority" might be a bad suggestion, from the point of view of the B.B.C., in that it might suggest that we were dissatisfied with the B.B.C., and that we were now supplanting the B.B.C. by another body. We have gone thoroughly into this matter and, for the reasons have given, I would ask the noble and learned Earl not so press me on this particular point.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl would consider using the word "Auxiliary," and call it the "Auxiliary Television Service" which does, as a matter of fact, exactly meet the case. This will be a service auxiliary to the service provided by the B.B.C. I suggest that that is an adjective which is not derogatory, either to the B.B.C. or to the new Authority. Would the noble Earl consider that suggestion?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I do not think the word "Auxiliary" would do. We have the Auxiliary Air Force; that is a noble title, and we all understand what it is. But that is auxiliary to the Air Force. What is this auxiliary to? It certainly is not auxiliary to the B.B.C.; it is an alternative to the B.B.C. I should have been happy to leave out the word "Independent," and call it "the Television Authority," in spite of the fact that when referred to by its initials somebody might mix it up with the Territorial Army. But the B.B.C. did not like leaving out the word "Independent." The word "Commercial" will not do, because, although the producers are commercial, this Authority is not. If we took the suggestion of the noble Lord,

1183
Lord Winster, and put in "Auxiliary" we should not have an ally on either side, because the B.B.C. would object, and I am sure that the Television Authority would object to being called "Auxiliary" to something: in that way we should please only the noble Lord.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, what would be the objection to the use of the name "Advertisement Television Authority," not "Advertising" but "Advertisement Television Authority"?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, would it not be a good thing to adopt the name given just now by the noble Viscount who spoke for the Government, and call it the "Alternative Television Authority"?
EARL JOWITT: The word "Alternative" would be perfectly satisfactory to me. I am sorry that the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, does not show any sign of movement; it would cost him nothing to move on this. I venture to think that we have not had a very good reason why he will not move.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I agree that the word "Commercial" as applied to the Authority might be a misnomer, but would not the noble Earl reconsider whether "The Authority for Commercial Television" would meet the views of all Parties?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
2.59 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (7), after "parts of programmes" to insert:
"or in any business, corporate body, partnership or organisation advertising or advertised in any programme broadcast by the Authority."
The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, we discussed this Amendment on the previous occasion, and I move it again to-day because I think there is not much between us here. I believe that the real difficulty is that the Postmaster General is anxious to avoid any form of rigidity in his structure. It may be that he will be able to meet us by making some statement as to what his intentions are. I know, being opposite to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that that may perhaps sound like heresy, because just as there was at one time a Member of the House of Commons called "Single-Speech Hamilton," I always thought that
1184
the noble Viscount would come to be regarded by posterity as "Put-it-in-the-Bill Swinton." Perhaps he will not mind, however, if the Postmaster General makes a statement, which may satisfy us and will not offend unduly against the susceptibilities of the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There are exceptions to the best rules.
EARL JOWITT: I move this Amendment, although I do not expect the noble Earl to accept it, in the hope that he will be able to make some statement which will allay my misgivings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, after ("programmes") insert the said words.—(Earl Jowitt.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, although the noble and learned Earl was good enough to say that he does not expect me to accept this Amendment, I feel that the House is entitled to a statement of the Government view, not only on the Amendment but on the interpretation of the clause as it stands. If your Lordships will turn to Clause 1 (7), which deals with the appointment of members of the Authority, you will see that it lays down that I must satisfy myself, before appointing a member of the Authority, that he
"will have no such financial or other interest … as is likely to affect prejudicially"—
I am using the words of the clause—
"the discharge…of his functions as member of the Authority …"
and, in particular, that he shall have "no such interest in any advertising agency", radio business or programme-contracting business. Your Lordships will remember that these last words were in brackets, and we had some special discussion on them. When we had our discussion in Committee the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who, I think, was speaking to the Amendment—although it had been down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, whom we are pleased to see back with us now—proposed to add to the three categories that were mentioned in the subsection a further category; which is the point of this Amendment, namely, any interest in an organisation or business advertising on television programmes.
I have looked carefully into this point, and I have come to the firm conclusion

1185
that the subsection as it stands completely meets any situation that can arise. The wording already provides that I have to satisfy myself that the members I appoint should have no such interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge of his functions, and I am quite clear that, if, for instance, the chairman of the Authority, or a member of the Authority was also, say, the chairman of a company which advertised extensively on television, that would be a case of an interest which would be considered prejudicial. His appointment would not, therefore, be permissible under the terms of the clause as it now stands. That is the point on which I think the noble and learned Earl wished me to satisfy him.
On the other hand, a director of, say, one of the "Big Five" banks would not be debarred from being a member of the Authority just because the bank might occasionally advertise on the I.T.A. programmes. I think your Lordships will agree with me that that would be going a great deal too far. This Amendment, however, would produce that result; and it would, in fact, if this medium became a popular method of advertising, debar anybody who is in business at all. For that reason, I would suggest to the noble and learned Earl that the Bill, as drafted, covers the point that he is anxious to have covered. At the same time, with regard to the words in brackets which it was suggested might be left out—the three particular categories of people who should not be on the Authority—those are categories that concern individuals or companies which will be so deeply involved in contracts and in particular relationships with the Authority that in no circumstances could they become members of the Authority. Therefore, I think it is best to leave the exclusion there.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for making that statement, and in view of it I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3:
General provisions as to programmes and publications of Authority
3.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to satisfy themselves that, so far as possible, the programmes broadcast by the Authority comply with the following requirements, that is to say—
(a) that the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British;
1186
(e) that a proper proportion of the films and other recorded matter included in the programmes is of British origin;
(3) Nothing shall be included in any programme broadcast by the Authority, whether in an advertisement or not, which offers any prize of significant value, whether competed for or not, or any gift of significant value, being a prize or gift which is available only to persons receiving that programme, or in relation to which any advantage is given to such persons.
3.5 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, this Amendment is one to which I attach considerable importance, and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to meet me. I said on the previous occasion that paragraph (a) had no precise meaning. The words that I want to leave out are:
"that the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British."
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I believe the noble and learned Earl is speaking to the wrong Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: We are on Amendment No. 3.
EARL JOWITT: I beg your Lordships' pardon.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, perhaps I may follow my noble Leader's good example—his example is invariably good—in not repeating arguments which have already been expressed in Committee. In moving this Amendment, I would only say this. Its object is to place programme companies, as well as the Television Authority, under a legal obligation to observe the rules regarding television programmes laid down in Clause 3. I should not be in the least unhappy if some other way of placing them under a legal obligation were to be suggested. For instance, I should be perfectly satisfied if, in the terms of the contract made between the programme companies and the Authority, a provision were included which placed them under a contractual obligation to observe these rules. If this alternative way of putting them under a legal obligation is preferred by the Government, I will gladly withdraw this Amendment. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 31, after ("Authority") insert ("and in relation to any programme or part of a programme provided by a programme

1187
contractor, it shall also be the duty of that programme contractor").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, when the noble Earl rose, I looked anxiously at the Woolsack to see whether my legal ally was there. I see that unfortunately he is not there to support me. I have looked into this matter very carefully, and to begin with I am quite satisfied that there might be confusion if in the Bill we put the responsibility on both parties. I should like to give the noble Earl a very firm assurance of what he asks. Not only does it follow in the contract, and not only does Clause 6 (1) lay down that it should go into the contract but in addition I give the House a firm assurance that I will myself give this personal attention with the I.T.A., and make quite sure that the matter is dealt with fully, as the noble Earl has suggested.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.8 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (1), to omit paragraph (a). The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, in the undue exuberance of my verbosity, I am afraid I got off to a false start. We have now reached the Amendment to which I was speaking before. This Amendment proposes to leave out paragraph (a) of Clause 3 which says:
"that the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British."
The meaning of that is very obscure if, indeed, it has a meaning. I do not know what "the tone and style" means. But in so far as it has a meaning, I regard it as wholly mischievous. I do not know whether we could sit and listen to a programme of Beethoven, Bach or Mozart, or anything of that sort. Perhaps it would be conditioned by whether the conductor was a British conductor—by Sir Malcolm Sargent, "Yes"; by Mr. Toscanini, "No." I simply do not know where, under this paragraph, we begin or where we end. Therefore, I propose to leave out paragraph (a). In order to make it easier for the noble Earl to accept this Amendment, I propose in the next Amendment to make some slight alteration in the words of paragraph (e), so as to make it obvious that what we are after is that a proper proportion of the programmes
1188
should be of British origin and by British performers. We do not want all the programmes to be performed by foreign artists, but we do want a proper proportion. I hope that when I come to that Amendment it will give some satisfaction to the noble Earl and induce him to accept, as I think he will, the leaving out of paragraph (a). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, leave out paragraph (a).—(Earl Jowitt.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Earl, like Aureole, is apparently not always quite amenable to starter's orders; nevertheless, I am glad to be able to inform him that he is a winner in this race. We have had a good deal of talk about this matter. We are all after the same thing. Last time I put up as stout a defence as I could of the words, although they occurred to me as being of doubtful meaning; but, as the noble and learned Earl knows, there is great anxiety, quite naturally, on the part of live performers that they shall be given the best possible chance. I agree that the words in paragraph (a) are not very well designed for that purpose. Then we hit upon the rather simple idea—I really do not know why it had not occurred to any of us during the time that we were studying this Bill—that the real place to safeguard the British character of the performance is in paragraph (e), which all your Lordships accepted. That paragraph deals with films, and states:
"a proper proportion of the films and other recorded matter"
should be of British origin. We agreed that that was the right place in which to put in a provision for the protection (if I may so call it) of live performers as well. That is the form of the Amendment which follows. By this provision I think we shall be safeguarding what I may call the British character of the programmes and also the British performers, whether they be people who perform on the films and whose performances are recorded, or people who give a live performance which is shown directly on television. I must say that it is a distinct improvement—I will not call it a compromise—on what we had in the Bill, and I am glad to accept it. I am much obliged to the noble and learned Earl for his help.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I formally move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, leave out from ("that") to end of line 4, and insert ("proper proportions of the recorded and other matter included in the programmes are of British origin and of British performance;").—(Earl Jowitt.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, there is a short drafting point on this Amendment which I wish the Government would consider. I do not at the moment see the advantage of the words "recorded and other" in this new Amendment. I think they may be a little mischievous. The history of this matter is that paragraph (e), which it is now proposed to amend, originally did not contain the words "films and other recorded matter." As it was desired by those who arrived at the compromise which has just been described to include in paragraph (e) a provision dealing with live performers as well, they appear to have tried out the formula "recorded and other matter." My feeling is that if this new Amendment is designed to achieve the purpose that all matter, whether recorded or not, should be included, among those to be given the protection of the phrase "proper proportions…of British origin "the word "other" in this connection is not sufficiently wide where it follows the word "recorded." If it is really designed to cover all matter, whether recorded or not, it ought so to be stated. I should like the Government to consider that point, because if, as I think, the word "other," where it occurs after the word "recorded," is limited by the word which precedes it, the Amendment may not even now have achieved an ideal solution.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is quite clear what we mean. We mean to bring in both the live performers and the films. The Parliamentary draftsmen went very carefully into this matter to get the right words, and, as I am at present advised, we need to have in both "recorded" and "other": the "recorded" refers to the film and the "other" refers to "any other performance." But I will certainly have the Parliamentary draftsmen look at it again and ascertain whether there is any better form of words which we could put down; but I am told that "recorded" and "other matter" are
1190
mentioned separately to make it clear that different proportions may be proper for each.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I see.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: it may be that you should have a higher proportion in films and a lower one in live programmes. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, gave the instance of a performance of The Ring. Some proportion of that particular performance should be British. The words have been very carefully considered and I will consider them again. I think the draftsmen are right; the words are needed as they are because there may be a different proportion according to whether the programme is what I may call "live" or "dead." That is the reason why the words were put in that form. If nothing is done on the Third Reading, then the noble Viscount may take it that the lawyers are satisfied that this is right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.18 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection. (3), to leave out "whether in an advertisement or not." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the Committee stage an Amendment appeared upon the Marshalled List in my name accompanied by that of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and that Amendment was moved in my absence by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. I would apologise now to the House for my absence upon that day but I think the House is fully acquainted with the reason. I read the debate carefully and I redrafted my Amendment in order to meet the points raised by the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inch-rye, because, although I do not think that the programmes on the B.B.C. which have these trivial cash prizes have any real merit, there may be others who hold a different opinion. I see no reason why those programmes should not continue. From the Postmaster General's explanation, I could see that if the Authority and the B.B.C. are to be treated equally, the Amendment as drafted would rule out from the B.B.C. broadcasts such programmes as Wilfred Pickles' "Have a Go" and others where some insignificant cash prize is given.
What I have tried to do—and may I have your Lordships' permission to deal with Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 at the same time, as they hang together?—is to distinguish between prizes in programmes and prizes and gifts in advertisements, as I think they represent two separate problems. I believe I carry the noble Earl the Postmaster General with me, because, in his remarks on the Committee stage, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 188 (No. 93), col. 889]:
"The real 'give away' programme is most undesirable."
In my active days in industry and commerce, I lived through the terrible period of the late 1920's and the early 1930's, when the gift and prize system ran through British commerce like wildfire. All sense of values and prices was lost in a wild scramble to give away gifts and prizes in advertisement competitions. And it all started with the insertion of a coupon in a packet of cigarettes—not by one of the big manufacturers, but by one of the smallest manufacturers in the country. It went on and on until the prizes offered in these competitions for the collection of coupons and other things like that went to fantastic values. Shops were opened where these prizes were on exhibition. About 500 to 1,000 motorcars were included in the prizes, and charladies became the owners of motor-cars which eventually found their way through the black market to the ordinary public. I have no objection to char-ladies owning motor-cars if they acquire them through the legitimate channels of trade—if what is told me is correct, with some of the wages they get I should think many of them own motor-cars.
This type of competition played absolute havoc with the ordinary channels of trade in this country. As I say, values and prices were prostituted to an attraction of coupons. I am certain that Her Majesty's Government do not want a recurrence of that kind of thing. Eventually, the situation became most serious, because every cigarette manufacturer in this country was dragged down to the same level. It is no good saying that the manufacturer need not come into a thing of this kind. This is the most vicious circle you can have, and the pace is always set, I will not say by the most unscrupulous but by the most undesirable
1192
elements in any section of trade or industry; and in self-preservation the large and stable manufacturers have to come in too. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, pointed out what an objectionable thing it is to have offered on any television programme a prize or a gift, when people are listening to the programme not for its intrinsic value but because of the prizes they can win and the gifts that they may get. When I looked at the words "of no significant value" I was reminded of the history of this matter as I have given it to your Lordships—how it first started by a simple coupon in a packet of cigarettes, in itself of no value. Eventually, those coupons became as valuable as one pound notes. In these two Amendments I have tried to safeguard the position outlined by—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Let me be sure that I understand the noble Lord. If the coupon, which was of no significant value because it was merely a piece of paper, contained on it an undertaking to provide a motor-car, that would be a clear breach of this Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There are plenty of ways of getting round that. But it was not only one coupon, it was a collection of about a couple of thousand coupons. The coupon need have no advertising matter on it at all. I think I am at one with the Government on this question. The Government do not want to bring back into industry—and I am sure everybody in industry would be against it—the pernicious practice which upset all the legitimate channels of trade when this epidemic spread in the late 'twenties.
LORD WALERAN: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, as I do not follow him? Presumably the people who had the motor-car to give away to the person who had collected enough coupons, had to buy the motor-car through the normal trade channels? Presumably when the car was manufactured it went to a wholesaler. If that wholesaler sells it at a discount, surely it is inside the trade itself that this practice can be stopped.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It did not work that way. These motor-cars were sold direct from the manufacturers in huge quantities to the people who ran the competition; they never

1193
came through the ordinary channels of trade. I was right in the middle of this thing, and I know. It started in a very small way. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, cannot carry his mind back to the late 'twenties, but other noble Lords can, and they will probably remember the shops on the main streets of our provincial towns where dinner and tea services and handbags were set out in display as prizes that could be given for entering into a competition, the entry form for which was contained in a packet of soap. I quite agree that the Government cannot be a judge of morals, and I do not wish them to be a censor; but I think that, while they may have got so many safeguards, this is an additional safeguard to prohibit competitions from being advertised in any advertisements on this independent or commercial television programme, or whatever it is to be eventually called. I think I have said enough. The Postmaster General is with me, because his very words were that "the real 'give away' programme is most undesirable." I think I have covered this point in this Amendment. If the drafting, which is my own, poor that it is, is not acceptable, perhaps the noble Earl can suggest better drafting; but I think I have said enough and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 38, leave out ("whether in an advertisement or not").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
EARL JOWITT: I feel that I ought just to apologise to the Postmaster General. When we had our discussions I did not raise this point, because it was not present to my mind. We had moved to delete the words "of significant value" so that we might prohibit the giving of prizes or anything of that sort, but the Postmaster General pointed out to us the Wilfred Pickles programme, and the form of certificate given to competitors for beating the panel in "What's My Line?" and that sort of thing. It is obvious that one does not want to stop that. It was not until I saw my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth and his ingenious brain suggested it that I realised that the real point here was to distinguish between the programme and the advertisement, and to have a stricter code in regard to the advertisement than would apply to the programme. In that way, small things of
1194
little value could be dealt with in the programme but would be forbidden in the advertisement.
It is the fact, as was pointed out by my noble friend, that you may have a coupon which merely entitled you to enter into a competition, or even a certain number of coupons which allowed you to enter. It would be most difficult to say whether or not that was" of significant value" unless and until you knew how many people were competing or what the odds were. The suggestion of my noble friend is therefore that it is better, so far as the programmes are concerned, to look at them and simply say that in programmes there may be prizes, so long as they are not "of significant value," but that in advertisements there may be no prizes whatsoever. I apologise to the Postmaster General and to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, for not having raised this point when we had our discussion, but, as I have said, it was not then present to my mind. My noble friend pointed out to me that the way to look at this was to differentiate between the programmes, on the one hand, and advertisements, on the other. As my noble friend said, if the drafting is faulty in any way it is open to the Government to put it right for us and move an Amendment on Third Reading. I think that there is a good point here, and I commend the Amendment to your Lordships for consideration.
3.30 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, it was good of the noble and learned Earl to apologise, bat I certainly do not fed that these discussions which we have in an informal fashion ought to preclude anybody from bringing forth further points. Even though we profess to go into all the points raised in the subject, obviously some points may occur afterwards—it may be that they have been overlooked. There is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has made a most genuine attempt to alter the original Amendment in order to modify it in the light of some of my criticism; but I should still prefer not to accept it. We agree completely in principle, but I do not want to be driven, in accepting a principle, to the point of being silly. I gave instances before of some of our gambling laws. With deference to the Home Office, those laws are rather reduced to the absurd. The noble Lord has now made modifications and

1195
has made it clear he has no fears at all that the actual programme will be abused. I am glad to hear that, because it has always been clear to the Government that there was no danger at all that the gift or prize system used in some places abroad could break into the programmes of the I.T.A. through the present safeguards.
But although the noble Lord's Amendment is different, he has not yet hit upon the real point. After all, what is the danger of the "give away" programme? It is—whether the gifts are given in the programme or in the advertisement—that, if they are of any significant value at all, the programme contractor might get away with presenting pure rubbish to the public, simply because people will listen to the programme in the hope of a prize. It does not make any great difference at what point in the programme (I am now using the word "programme" in a general sense, including the advertisement) the gift is inserted. On the point raised during Committee stage by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, as to how we are to assess the meaning of "significant value," that is quite easy: that is a matter for the Authority itself to decide; therefore they will have that completely in their hands.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, reminds your Lordships of certain events in the advertising world which took place some time ago. On that I will make two points. The first is, that that matter seems to have been dealt with by the good sense of the advertisers, the Press and the trade themselves. We no longer hear of that problem. Secondly, not only has that problem more or less solved itself but it has done so without the assistance provided here, the powers of the I.T.A.; therefore I do no think it is quite fair to introduce that example. I have said that we are not disagreeing in principle; it is really a question of how far we should carry this matter. I am advised, for instance, that the cigarette card would have to be taken out of the packet of cigarettes; that what might be a useful cookery book to the housewife would be precluded. I therefore hope that, in spite of the very genuine effort that the noble Lord has made to meet points of criticism I raised, he will not press this Amendment but will accept from the Government their assurance that
1196
in principle we are in agreement with him, that we will see to it that the views of this House are put very strongly to the Authority.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for the very conciliatory and helpful manner in which he has spoken. I will, however, press him a little on this point because, although the matter on which he spoke was eventually reconciled by the industry and the trades themselves, it was done only after a terrific amount of damage had been caused. The arts and subterfuges of the advertiser are legion, and he could very easily get round this clause in the Bill. I would give another precedent to the noble Earl. He will remember the free insurance offered by the newspapers, and similar offers. That sort of thing can break out again. This is the first time we have had in this country an authority as powerful in advertising as this Television Authority will be. The noble Earl is not on good ground when he argues that, as this problem found its own level thirty years ago, it is likely to find such a satisfactory level in the future. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, gave an illustration of the offering of gifts. That kind of thing could go through this country, like a forest fire, in no time; and the noble Earl would then have to take very stringent action, if he so desired, to stop it. I am only suggesting that it is better to lock the stable door before the horse has bolted and done irreparable damage.
Will the noble Earl accept this suggestion, as perhaps some of the implications of the point raised by my noble and learned Leader may not have been present in his mind? Will the noble Earl, if I withdraw this Amendment now, enter into discussions with us? We are so near, because we both have the same thought in our mind and the same desire to prevent these practices. Will the noble Earl, therefore, between now and Third Reading, have discussions to see whether we can become reconciled and whether the drafting can be improved to meet the points that both of us have in mind? If he will do that, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should hesitate to give that undertaking because I do not like giving an undertaking which

1197
I believe has not the least prospect of being fulfilled. There were a number of points that we genuinely wanted to discuss, and on which we came to a fruitful solution in our discussion. All this has been fully considered. We should not be likely to find words acceptable to the noble Lord. We are all at one that there are to be no prizes "of significant value," but I am told that if it were laid down that there could be no reference in an advertisement to any prize, that would not only prevent contractors from advertising prizes—which would obviously be quite wrong—but would stop other things. For instance, somebody sells salt. Irrespective of what they may be advertising on a particular occasion, they may ordinarily put in a little plastic salt—
A NOBLE LORD: Cellar.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, not a salt cellar, for that would be "of significant value." They would put in a salt spoon—I believe Cerebos or somebody do it. If we took the noble Lord's words, or words meaning the same thing, that would prevent Cerebos Salt (if I have the name of the firm right) from saying in an advertisement, "It is very good salt for you, and if you buy a tin or a carton of it you will find a nice little spoon inside," although they have not invented that prize for the purpose of this advertisement, but are offering it as the ordinary habit. The noble Lord would say that is a perfectly proper thing to stop. But, of course, such gifts as this are not like coupons for motor-cars. I was also told—and I was shocked to hear it, but the lawyers have told me—that if the "Co-ops" were to advertise, it would prevent their making any reference in their advertisement to a "divi." A "divi" is not a prize given on that particular advertisement, but I gather from those who deal with the "Co-op" that, in addition to the excellence of the stuff they supply, the fact that customers can get a "divi" is an increased attraction. The "Co-ops" would not like it if you were to say there can be no reference to the fact that a customer dealing with the "Co-op" can get a "divi." I do not think there is much prospect of our agreeing on this matter. But I thought it fair to put that point, because I do not think we could meet it by saying there would be complete exclusion.
1198
I would also remind the noble Lord that there is going to be an advertising advisory committee, and they, no doubt partly animated by the unpleasant experience which both advertisers and trade had and to which the noble Lord alluded in his opening speech, will be careful to see that proper standards are maintained. While I am sure that that will be their intention, the Postmaster General will also certainly give them and the Authority the direction that this is a matter to which they should particularly address their minds.
EARL JOWITT: Perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount a question. If it is right that this provision would preclude any reference to the "Co-op divi," I think we can all agree that there is nothing insignificant about the "Co-op divi," and I suggest that that would be excluded from the Bill already.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not think so, because the point is that the prize must be given as part of the performance, whether it is in the body of the deed, so to speak—in the performance which is given—or in the advertisement. You must not say, "I am here and now offering you this." If the "Co-ops" were advertising and said, "If you deal with the 'Co-op,' it is the practice of the 'Co-op' to give you a 'divi'," I am told that that would be prohibited if I accepted the noble Lord's Amendment. I am not professing to give a legal opinion. "off the cuff." I did inquire, because on the face of it I was rather attracted by this proposition, but I was told that it certainly would prevent the instance I gave, when it is the ordinary habit of a firm to give a salt spoon with a packet of salt, and it would also prevent the "Co-op" from saying, "It is our habit to give a 'divi'."
LORD HENDERSON: Surely there is a difference between the "Co-op" giving a dividend and some other firm offering a prize or gift. The dividend is not a prize or gift; it is part of the ordinary trading arrangements.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not saying it is not. I am not saying anything against the "Co-op"; the noble Lord will understand that. What I am saying is that I am told—I will not vouch for it, because it is a rather quick opinion, but given by competent lawyers—that if you inserted these words it would stop the

1199
"Co-op" from saying, "We have the excellent habit of giving a 'divi'." I am not sure. In any case, the Postmaster General will have a look at this point, but I should like to warn my noble friend that I do not think there is the faintest prospect of his being able to accept it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House. I am grateful to the Government for this promise. Of course, the noble Viscount has really made my case. The salt manufacturer to whom he refers does not advertise, "Buy my salt and get a free salt spoon." If he did, that would be the start; his competitors then would be forced to say, "Buy my salt and have a cruet as well." Therein lies the evil. I do not mind a salt manufacturer giving a spoon away so long as he does not advertise that he is going to do so. In other words, that is a gift. I do not mind that. I do not mind the cigarette manufacturer putting a cigarette card in his packet so long as he does not say, "Buy my cigarettes and get a free card." That is where the evil starts. As my noble and learned friend has asked on many occasions in these debates, what is "of significant value"? I am being out of order only with your Lordships' consent, and I will not be out of order any further. I will take advantage of the offer that has been made by the Government and we will discuss this matter, because I have no doubt that we can soon convince the noble Lords in charge of this Bill that this practice can be a very detrimental thing for industry and trade in this country. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Contracts for programmes
(2) It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that there is adequate competition to supply programmes between a number of programme contractors independent of each other both as to finance and as to control.
3.46 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (2), after the second "that" to insert: "on each broadcasting station operated by the Authority." The noble and
1200
learned Earl said: My Lords, this is a subject which was discussed at very considerable length, and from our point of view it does raise a very important question. We want to know what is intended to be the position about competition at the various stations. We had some discussion about this matter, which I am not going into again, but we proposed an Amendment which would have made Clause 5 (2) read:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority to do all that they can to secure that on each broadcasting station operated by the Authority there is adequate competition.…."
We moved that Amendment because we were frightened at the prospect (I think there are to be three stations to start with) that the theory might be that each station should be let out to one pro-programme contractor, so that he would have a small monopoly there, instead of there being competition at each station. I know that we failed to induce the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, to accept that Amendment. On the other hand, we impressed upon him the grave disadvantage of having no adequate competition at these various stations, and I hope that to-day he will be able to make some statement which will to some extent allay our misgivings. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 19, after ("that") insert ("on each broadcasting station operated by the Authority").—(Earl Jowitt.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am not surprised that the noble and learned Lord has returned to this point because it is an extremely important point. The noble Viscount, Lord Hail-sham, pointed out in Committee that this Amendment (I think it was in his name) would not impose on the Authority an absolute obligation to arrange that there should be two or more contractors for each station. That is perfectly true, because the governing phrase in Clause 5 (2) is that the duty of the Authority shall be "to do all that they can to secure that there is adequate competition." For all that, I feel, as I said in Committee, that acceptance of the Amendment would mean that we should be going further than we ought at the beginning of a new venture in laying down the precise machinery that has to be adopted.

1201
The present Amendment is not unlike the last Amendment, in that there is not a very great point of principle between us. On the whole, I share the view of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, I think, as to how this scheme should be run. The real point at issue is to what extent we should tie our hands. In my view, we ought not to tie our hands, even to the extent suggested by the Amendment. The principle that the Government have in mind is laid down in the Bill. Clause 5 (2) specifies that there must be adequate competition, to use the words of the Bill:
"between a number of programme contractors independent of each other both as to finance and as to control."
I cannot help feeling that that is as far as it is safe to go in the Bill itself. In what I said in the Committee stage, I fully recognised that, as the departmental Minister responsible, I should he expected to give some guidance and to express my views to the Authority. Having thought the matter over again since the Committee stage, and having thought over what the noble and learned Earl and other noble Lords said, I still remain convinced, on my present information, that the best system, both commercially and in order to secure real competition, is likely to be a system of time-sharing, under which the main network would be allocated between, say, two or more contractors, each of whom would have the sole use of it for a number of days in the week with, in addition, local companies operating in the different regions.
That system, I think, is almost completely in line with the spirit of the Amendment, and definitely gives to the noble and learned Earl what he is anxious to ensure, and what, I repeat, I believe in—namely, competition throughout the network. As I have said, the only point of substance between us is how far we should go in tying our hands in the Bill. I do not want to repeat the arguments which I used during the Committee stage. Your Lordships will remember that I said I thought there might be exceptional cases, in certain remote areas, where some group might, largely for public-spirited reasons, want to get together and provide a small station long before the network could ever reach them, and that then we might find ourselves
1202
tied by the fact that the Bill precluded it. That is only one example, of course. I think we all recognise that we are dealing with some matters of which, at present, we know very little, and that is the reason why we want to keep the Bill as flexible as possible. I think that the noble and learned Earl will realise how important that is. I hope he will understand, from what I have said, what will be my advice to the Authority, and I hope that what I have said will satisfy him that the danger which he fears is not likely to arise.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Postmaster General for making that statement. I think I have got as much as I can hope to get out of this matter. He has definitely stated what is his view. I think he has burnt his boats about the matter, and I am very glad that he has done. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6:
Special provisions to be included in contracts
(2) Every such contract shall in particular contain such provisions as the Authority think necessary or expedient as aforesaid for the payment by the programme contractor to the Authority of sums by way of penalty in the event of such breaches of his contract as may be specified in those provisions, and any such provision as is mentioned in this subsection shall be valid and enforceable in accordance with the terms thereof notwithstanding any rule of law restricting the cases in which or the extent to which provisions for penalties are legally enforceable:
Provided that every such contract shall be such as to secure—
(a) that the maximum penalty which may be demanded by the Authority by virtue of this subsection in the case of any breach shall not exceed five hundred pounds; and
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (2), in proviso (a), after "pounds" to insert:
"on a first occasion, one thousand pounds on a second occasion, or one thousand five hundred pounds on any subsequent occasion;"
The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, this is one of the Amendments to Clause 6. I think that, of all the clauses in the Bill I dislike this as much as any—and that is saying a great deal. I dislike the fact that provision is not made for penalties to be imposed by the

1203
courts. I should have hoped that if the Postmaster General thought it an appropriate case he would be able to allow the parties to exercise the ordinary right of going to court, having arbitration merely as a second string. Unfortunately, I failed to convince him about that.
I dislike intensely the principle whereby the programme contractor is entitled to three times as much latitude as the dog. A dog is entitled to only one bite, but a programme contractor is to be allowed three. The Authority cannot take steps under the Third Schedule unless and until the contractor has been found guilty of three breaches. It seems to me quite ridiculous that for the first breach, the second breach and the third breach the maximum penalty should be the same. I think that would be almost unprecedented in our law dealing with this matter. If I remember aright the law with regard to some of the commoner offences, you first become a "rogue," then a "rogue and vagabond"; and then, I think, an "incorrigible rogue." I may have got those terms in the wrong order, but there are different categories, and as one goes down this miserable hierarchy so the penalties are increased. So it seems to me that it would be only right that if, for a first offence, in this connection, x pounds is the appropriate maximum penalty, then surely for the second offence the appropriate maximum penalty should be something else, while for the third offence it should be something else again. With the object of achieving that in mind, I move this Amendment. I very much hope—indeed I believe—that the noble Earl the Postmaster General will be willing to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 19, after ("pounds") insert the said words.—(Earl Jowitt.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think that what the noble and learned Earl has said about penalties is clearly logical. They should be increased for second and third offences. I feel that the noble and learned Earl is right there, and I am willing, and indeed happy, to accept this Amendment, though he will not, I am sure, ask me to accept all his accompanying strictures.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.57 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after Clause 6 to insert the following new clause:
"7.—(1) The Authority shall have made visual and sound records of every programme including all advertisements and shall preserve such records in some convenient place for not less than three years from the latest date on which any item included therein was broadcast.
(2) The said records shall be open to inspection during the normal hours of business of the Authority upon payment of such reasonable fee as the Authority shall determine and the Authority shall provide the use of such apparatus as may be necessary to view or listen to such records.
(3) Any person shall be entitled on payment of such reasonable fee as the Authority may determine to obtain a copy of any such record authenticated as a true copy by a certificate under the Seal of the Authority, and any copy so authenticated shall be admissible as evidence in any court of law."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is common ground, both among the advocates of this measure and among its opponents, that television is an instrument of very great power. The supporters of the Bill say that on that account there ought to be some semblance of competition, and the opponents say that on that account it ought not to be mixed up with commercial and advertising matters. It is a power of very great significance and importance because it will affect millions of people in their homes in a manner to which they are most susceptible. Therefore I am suggesting in this Amendment that there ought to be a record kept of everything which is broadcast by these television stations. After all, what is received by the eye and the ear is ephemeral, and if there is a controversy about it afterwards different versions of what has been seen or what has been said may be given. It is, therefore, important that there should be some record. Every newspaper which is published in this country has to deliver record copies to the British Museum and to other authorities, and those record copies are permanently available for reference so that anyone can ascertain what has been printed with regard to some particular matter.
More than that, it is possible—I do not suggest for a moment that it would be done with the approval of the Television Authority, or that the advertising contractors or the programme contractors would wittingly permit it—that something

1205
defamatory might be published over this television system. If so, it might do the person defamed immense damage. Therefore I suggest that there ought to be some record of these matters in order to facilitate reparation being made if such a thing should occur. Those who happen to sit as Members of either House of Parliament, if they are defamed, have an opportunity of making a public statement in vindication of their characters, but others might be put in a position of grave danger and peril, and I think it would be a restraint upon those who prepare programmes and advertisements to know that a record was being kept; furthermore it would be an assistance to any person who was defamed, if any question of that nature arose. These are safeguards which ought to be given to the general citizen, and therefore I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I confess that I feel in a dilemma here. Courtesy to the noble Lord demands that I should try to answer his arguments, but courtesy to the House demands that I should not repeat too much of what we argued on many Amendments during the Committee stage of the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that we had many Amendments that pointed in this direction—namely, that we should do away completely with the safeguards to the programme contractors that save them from the enormous expense—and, believe me, it would be enormous—of having to keep records of all programmes that they broadcast, irrespective of whether or not they are doing a first-rate job. I must re-assert the principle on which this Government intend to work this scheme: that is, quite definitely to trust the programme contractors until some reason is shown for not doing so. The moment a programme contractor puts a foot wrong, then it is for the Independent Television Authority to put into operation the powers contained in the Bill, particularly in the Third Schedule. Under these powers they can ask for records to be taken or scripts to be submitted in advance. If a programme company brings action upon itself, that is its own affair, but while they are going along and producing first-class programmes and
1206
everybody is extremely pleased with them, why impose on them this great burden, both of effort and expense? For that reason, I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell us exactly what the B.B.C. do in this matter. I am impressed by the argument about defamation put forward by the noble Lord opposite. It is idle to say that you trust the programme contractors not to put forth defamatory matter, any more than you can say that you can trust a newspaper or the B.B.C. not to put forth defamatory matter. We know, as a matter of statistical fact, that from time to time and at not long intervals these reputable bodies, sometimes unintentionally and sometimes less unintentionally, put forward matter about which complaint is made by individuals. In the case of those who reproduce printed matter, what has been written can easily be ascertained, because three copies have to be deposited in particular places, one of them the British Museum, and reference can be made to it. I have some reason to think that the B.B.C have a record of their sound broadcasts. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us. They use that record of sound broadcasts exactly for the purpose I have indicated—namely, to still any doubts as to what was actually said, should any question subsequently arise of the inclusion in it of defamatory matter. I know, too, that in some cases they make records of television broadcasts and these again would still any doubt as to whether any objectionable matter was included.
I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell us what the B.B.C. do and what is the approximate cost of what is now proposed and whether any compromise could be entered into. I am far from wishing to impose on the programme contractors any unreasonable expense, and I recognise that the technical process of recording television programmes is extremely expensive. But would it be possible, for instance, to record the sound without the vision, which would get us some way towards our aim? I should not like the noble Earl to think I want to impose any inconvenience on programme contractors, but as a result of rather more than twenty years' experience of the matter I know that even responsible authorities that put forward

1207
views and opinions, and even statements, from time to time bring themselves under the law of libel and slander. Although one does not wish to impose an intolerable burden on programme contractors, neither does one wish the reputations of persons to be attacked, perhaps unintentionally, without their having a reasonable certainty of showing what they have to complain of and why.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hail-sham, that the B.B.C. keep a record of broadcasts and use them from time to time in re-broadcasting, and I see no reason why the same thing cannot be done with television. It would certainly be desirable. I do not pretend to be an authority on the B.B.C., but I know they have many records of long-past broadcasts and I think it likely that they would not be unwilling to make similar records in television.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords I think we all share the view expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that it would be most unfair to put any heavy additional cost on the programme contractors, especially in the earlier stages of their work; and for that reason this Amendment may be entirely impracticable. But I think the Amendment is directed to meet a real difficulty, and I should like to ask the noble Earl how he envisages this difficulty may be met. May I give an example? Suppose a programme contractor puts on a variety programme (I imagine that there will be a lot of variety on these programmes) and that the artistes, as they so often do, make "gags" which were not in the original script. There may be complaints from some of the viewers that these jokes are improper or indecent. How are the Authority to verify these remarks and know whether or not there is a prima facie case against a contractor for a breach of their contract in this respect?
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Hail-sham, is that the B.B.C. do record programmes, but probably only when it suits their convenience to do so in order to be able to re-broadcast. I am afraid that I cannot give him figures of the cost. I can only say that my advice is that, at the present moment the cost of recording all programmes is prohibitive. That does
1208
not necessarily mean it will always be so. It may be that in the future records will become so easy to make that both corporations, for their own convenience, will see to it that all programmes are recorded; but at the moment the cost would be an intolerable burden on both corporations.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me how the situation would be met if comedians made "gags" which were objectionable. The position would be met in this way. As noble Lords will see from the words in the Bill, the Authority need only have reason to apprehend that there is likely to be an offence—and the fact that there has been even a suggestion of something improper will be perfectly adequate for them to apprehend some offence in the future—and they can bring into operation the powers under the Third Schedule. I do not think that where a first-class company has made a mistake—particularly, if it is a comedian's "gag"—a sensible Authority would jump to that extreme action at once. But they have the power. The Director General, if he is on the right terms with his programme contractors, as he must be, will ring up and say: "This will not do, and unless you make sure it does not happen in the future we shall have to take this action under the Third Schedule." Or, if it was a serious matter, there could be a fine. The Authority would be in exactly the same position with regard to "gagging," and so on, as the B.B.C. is: that it is something unfortunate that has occurred, and anybody who is running the show properly will take every possible step to see that it does not happen again.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised at the attitude which the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, has taken in regard to this matter. I was careful to say in moving this Amendment that I was not making any imputation against programme contractors, but we all know perfectly well that offensive or defamatory matter is published in various ways. When that happens, we do not necessarily say that the proprietors of the newspaper (let us say) which has been guilty of it intended of a set purpose to do it. They employ many people, and someone may be careless; someone may possibly be malicious—the same thing

1209
may happen in any large organisation. What has the Postmaster General said about this? He has said that it is going to cost a great deal of money, but he has given no figures whatever. It may be that absolutely it will cost a lot of money; but that is not the test. The test is: What is it going to cost relatively? These programmes themselves are bound to cost a great deal of money; everybody is perfectly well aware that broadcasting programmes is a most expensive business. The test is: Would the cost of doing this be a serious fraction of the total cost of the broadcast, or would it be only a small percentage? That is the relativity in which this problem ought to be judged—not in terms of absolute cost, but in terms of relative cost. Everybody who carries on a business is required to observe certain safeguards. A factory is under statutory regulations as to the way in which the business is conducted for the purpose of protecting those engaged in it. This business, also, should be subjected to statutory regulations which will protect the general public.
More than that, it is said that it will be expensive to make these records. But some records, at any rate, will, in fact, be made, whether they take the form of scripts, films, or whatever it may be. It ought therefore to be an obligation that those records which are made should be preserved for a reasonable period and should be available, on reasonable terms, for inspection. That, I understand, is the practice adopted by the B.B.C. I do not say that they record everything—I cannot answer for that—but I do know that they keep scripts of talks and other matter which has been broadcast in sound broadcasting, and that they make those records available to interested parties—usually, I believe, very readily and without charging any fee. If the B.B.C. is able to do this, I do not see why this new Authority should not at least do as well.
On the question of cost and feasibility, I am a little surprised at what the Postmaster General has said, because there are well-known devices for making records of sound broadcasting; and millions of business offices in this country use devices for recording dictation. The cost is not insuperable or burdensome; on the contrary, relative to the amount of records which may be made, the cost
1210
is extremely small. It is usual and customary nowadays to make records and documents upon microfilms, which occupy very little space and cost relatively little. Therefore, I am not convinced by this argument which has been adduced, in the absence of some more concrete facts with regard to the cost or the difficulty of doing it. I do beg the Postmaster General to consider this matter a little further and, at any rate, to give an undertaking that where, in the course of business, records of a sound or visual character are made, they should be preserved and should be available for inspection upon reasonable terms.
4.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, before we part with this Amendment, I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether the cost of making records of the sound track, which would be quite sufficient to fulfil most of the purposes in view, really would be large. For example, a variety programme might be impugned afterwards as having been improper in some respect, and what was actually said might be disputed. It would be sufficient if the sound had been recorded; it would not require the television part. That would probably involve small cost. Ought not that to be done as a matter of course?
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, that is certainly a matter that can be looked into and I will look into it. It is not something which need be dealt with in the Bill, but, if necessary, the I.T.A. could provide for it in the contract. The points that have been raised are of general broadcasting interest, and if we impose this burden, slight or heavy, on the I.T.A., I am sure that the B.B.C. would want to come in on the same basis.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, is the noble Earl right in his answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel? The power to enable the Authority to require the making of visual and sound records of a programme is found in the Third Schedule. My recollection is that the powers of the Third Schedule do not operate unless and until there have been three breaches.
EARL DE LA WARR: The Authority, in making their contracts, are quite free to put in what they agree with the programme companies. I am afraid that the noble and learned Earl has taken me rather by surprise. I am not sure where

1211
it is to be found, but I believe the Authority have power to demand some particulars.
EARL JOWITT: It is in the proviso to subsection (1) of Clause 6:
"Provided that the Authority shall not be enabled by any such contract to exercise any such power as is referred to in the Third Schedule unless they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so having regard to a breach which they apprehend…"
EARL DE LA WARR: They certainly could not do this under those words. However, I am definitely advised (although I cannot find the actual words at the moment) that in the making of a contract the Authority have power to insert this in the contract. I feel a little ashamed at not being able to tell the noble Lord more at the moment, but I will take steps to see whether I can inform him.
4.20 p.m.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: My Lords, I am impressed by the point about defamatory statements: I do not think it was taken on the Committee stage, and I do not think my noble friend Lord De La Warr is right in saying that the Authority have any power to require the taking of a sound reproduction except where a breach is apprehended. It does not seem to me unreasonable, if the expense is not great, as has been suggested, that the Authority should have power to require the taking of a reproduction. It would not injure the Bill or the purpose of the Bill in any way, but it would offer a genuine protection to the subject. I hope that if my noble friend is wrong and there is no power—as the noble and learned Earl opposite has suggested, I think rightly—he will see whether something can be done to give the Authority the required power. It does not impose upon the Authority the duty of doing it, but the Authority, which would be a reasonable body, could at any rate take this protection in the interests of the ordinary citizen who might be liable.
EARL DE LA WARR: If your Lordships will look at Clause 5 (5), you will see that it says:
"The Authority may require from time to time from the programme contractor such declarations, returns, documents and other information as the Authority may consider necessary or advisable for the purpose of ensuring that the requirements of this Act are complied with."
1212
I think the noble Lord will find that that will cover sound records; but if it does not I am quite prepared to look at it. I must make it quite clear that, as a matter of policy, I should not be prepared to consider for a moment putting on this new Authority a burden that I did not also place on the B.B.C.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, without carefully considering these words—I may be wrong—my first reading of them is that they do not permit the Authority to require these records to be made. No doubt, however, the noble Earl will look at that point again. We are told that the cost is prohibitive, but we have not been given any information upon which the House can form a judgment. The term "prohibitive" is a relative term; it may mean all sorts of things to different people. Cannot we be told in terms what is the cost? Are we justified in refusing what is undoubtedly regarded, on all sides of the House, as a desirable thing purely on the ground of cost, without knowing what that cost is to be? May I suggest that the noble Earl gives us this information at the final stage of the Bill, so that we ourselves can form a judgment as to whether it is an unreasonable burden to place upon the programme contractor? Perhaps he could at the same time make quite certain—I think it is extremely doubtful—that they really have the power to require these records to be made without there being necessarily a breach of the contract.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I do not think I can say anything more, but I will look into the point. It must be quite clear that there will be no question whatsoever—I repeat it because it is so important—of my doing anything here with regard to the I.T.A. that does not mean also an imposition upon the B.B.C. The two bodies must be treated completely alike.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: It is only to give them a discretion.
EARL DE LA WARR: If they are given a discretion, it is presumably in order to do something; but whatever is done will be done in regard to both bodies.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, desire to proceed with the Amendment?
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I do not withdraw it. This is a matter of principle. Let it be negatived.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 7:
Television broadcasting facilities in respect of certain sporting and other events
7.—(1) if in the case of any sporting or other event of national interest it appears to the Postmaster-General that it is expedient, in order to prevent the making of exclusive arrangements for broadcasting to a restricted audience, that provision should be made for regulating the grant of television broadcasting facilities, he may by order direct that the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to that event as from such date as may be specified in the order.
(2) In this section and in the said Schedule "television broadcasting facilities" means facilities for television broadcasting from stations in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands; and for the purposes of the said Schedule "the promoters" means, in relation to an event specified in an order under this section, such person or persons as may be designated in that behalf by the order.
(3) The provisions of the said Schedule shall not apply to the broadcasting of a record of any event specified in an order under this section unless the visual images are transmitted within seven days after the happenings represented by those images respectively.
(4) The power to make orders under this section shall include power to revoke or vary any such order by a subsequent order made thereunder.
(5) The power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and before making any such order the Postmaster-General shall lay a draft there of before each House of Parliament, and shall not make the order until a resolution has been passed by each House of Parliament approving the draft.
4.26 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:
"(1) With a view to preventing the making of exclusive arrangements for the broadcasting to a restricted audience of sporting or other events of national interest, the Postmaster-General may make regulations as to the grant to the Authority and programme contractors and to the British Broadcasting Corporation respectively of television broadcasting facilities in respect of such events."
The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment goes with Nos. 12 to 18 and No. 24. Perhaps I may have permission to discuss them together quite briefly. The difficulty which the Postmaster General will have in this comparatively new experimental appliance is to
1214
deal with sporting events and the situation where one of the two, either the I.T.A., as we must call them now, or the B.B.C., get the right to televise some spectacle and fix the terms on which they will grant it to the other. Looking at this Bill, I was appalled by the machinery which has been put into it. If ever there is a matter where you want to be as nimble-footed as Don Bradman, if I may use the expression, this is the one. Paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule refers to five months. You have to take the first step five months beforehand. But this is a matter about which you may learn only five minutes beforehand. It is obvious to me that this is much too wooden. I think it needs a great deal more thought and perhaps a little more experience. I feel quite certain that, if he were given more time, the Postmaster General could work out something much better than he has here.
Under the Bill as drawn, Clause 7 (5) says:
"The power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and before making any such order the Postmaster General shall lay a draft thereof before each House of Parliament, and shall not make the order until a resolution has been passed by each House of Parliament approving the draft."
It is the strongest form of Affirmative Resolution. Some of these Amendments are to substitute for the word "order" the word "regulation," so that my scheme becomes this. I propose that we strike out all these words, which I think are much too heavy; and that we give the power to the Postmaster General to make regulations, it being clearly understood that the regulations which he makes to deal with this matter will have to come before each House of Parliament and will have to receive affirmative approval from both Houses. In fact, we will keep Parliamentary control over what is a difficult situation and, at the same time, give considerable latitude to the Postmaster General to deal with this situation—and I think it is going to be a very difficult situation. I feel certain that that is a much wiser course than putting ourselves, as it were, in a strait waistcoat with regard to a matter about which we know very little. That is the object of these Amendments and I hope that the Postmaster General will realise that this is the wiser course and that in the way I propose he may have scope for

1215
manœuvre which he will find exceedingly valuable to him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 19, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Jowitt.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that when I presented this clause and the Schedule to your Lordships on the Committee stage, I said that I was anxious to have the advice of the House. The advice of the noble and learned Earl, with all his immense legal experience, was that this clause was unduly rigid. I freely confess—and your Lordships will have gathered it on the Committee stage—that I was not entirely happy about the complications which I was then presenting. I must say that I thought then, and I still think, that when we come to settle the details of the question, we may find it is necessary to have something very much like the clause that I have put down. What we are doing now is postponing the problem. As the noble and learned Earl wisely says, it will give us more time to look into the matter. Therefore I welcome the suggestion of the noble and learned Earl, which has been very well received, not only by the sports promoters but by the B.B.C. itself. We are keeping in close touch in our discussions about the problem. With those few words, I gladly accept this Amendment. I thank the noble and learned Earl for the trouble he has gone to in drafting the Amendment and for the thought he has put into the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 12 to 18 together.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 27, leave out subsection (2)
Page 11, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("shall") and insert ("Regulations made tinder this section")
Page 11, line 35, leave out from ("specified") to ("unless") in line 36, and insert ("therein")
Page 11, line 39, leave out subsection (4)
Page 11, line 42, leave out ("orders") and insert ("regulations")
Page 11, line 44, leave out ("order ") and insert ("regulations")
Page 11, line 45, leave out ("order") and insert ("regulations")—(Earl Jowitt.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 8:
Advisory committees
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, the Authority shall in particular appoint, or arrange for the assistance of—
(a) a committee representative of the main streams of religious thought in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, to give advice to the Authority as to the exercise of their functions in relation to any such items as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of section three of this Act, and on any other matters of a religious nature included in the programmes broadcast by the Authority, or in any publications issued by the Authority; and
and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply and secure compliance with the recommendations of the said committees, subject to such exceptions or modifications, if any, as may appear to the Authority to be necessary or proper having regard to the duties incumbent on the Authority otherwise than under this subsection.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had given notice of two Amendments to subsection (2), the first being to leave out the final word "and" in paragraph (a) as a preliminary to inserting, at the end of paragraph (b):
"and
(c) a committee representative of organisations, authorities and persons having experience of and special interest in the welfare and education of children and young persons, to give advice to the Authority as to the principles to be followed in connection with the broadcasting in such programmes of matter intended for children or young persons."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may help to save the time of the House by speaking, by leave, to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 at the same time. In Committee, I asked the Government whether they would accept an Amendment to establish a committee advisory to the Authority to deal with matter broadcast to children. The noble Earl was good enough to say that he accepted my Amendment in principle, whereupon I withdrew it. I am submitting this Amendment in the hope that he may be able to accept it. I think it would do two essential things. In the first place, it would provide a committee which would be a statutory advisory committee, on all fours, in that respect, with the Advisory Committee on Religious Broadcasts and the Advisory Committee on Advertising Standards. It would provide

1217
a statutory advisory committee to give advice to the Authority about the best way of televising matter intended for children and young persons. In that way, it would establish a code of rules which would, presumably, exclude films of a horrifying character, depicting cruelty and so forth, matters which obviously ought not to be shown during Children's Hour or during broadcasts intended specifically for children.
Apart from tendering this advice and giving these recommendations, which I think the Committee could usefully do, it would, secondly, make recommendations and give advice which would be mandatory on both the Authority and the programme companies. The clause provides that:
"it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply and secure compliance with the recommendations of the said committees…"
and this new advisory committee on children and young persons would be one of the "said committees." The only question I should like to ask the noble Earl opposite, because I think it is important that a committee of this kind should have the opportunity if it so desires of seeing in advance material which it is proposed to show on children's programmes, is this. Would it be possible for the committee to make a recommendation saying that it wishes to see in advance any material which the programme companies can provide which they intend to include in broadcasts to children? If it is not covered by the powers which the committee would be given, within the terms of reference, there perhaps it could be dealt with in some other way. It is obviously important to make sure that the rules regarding children's broadcasts which this committee would draw up would, in fact, be carried out. It is difficult to see how we can be sure that these rules will be carried out unless the committee has an opportunity of seeing in advance scripts and other material which are intended for use in children's programmes. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 16, leave out ("and").—(Earl of Listowel.)
4.35 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, as I said on Committee stage, I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment, but
1218
I am afraid I must say a word to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about his last point, because there is this fundamental difference between us—we cannot get over it—that certain noble Lords have an absolute, rooted distrust of these companies, and others have not. We keep returning to this point. Two Amendments ago it was that these companies must provide records after the event; and now they have to provide scripts before the event. Suppose the Authority thought it would be a good thing to televise some outside event: how could they provide a script? If there is a good advisory committee on children and education, I think that a sensible programme company, particularly when they are starting operations, would obviously want to get in touch with it and discuss their programmes. I should not like to go further than that. I did not want to accept the original Amendment because I did not want to have in the Bill a long list of committees: but it is quite clear that your Lordships feel that education and children are in a special category. I freely admit it, and I gladly accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, there is one point I should like to put to the noble Earl the Postmaster General, bearing on the same point that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, put. I am glad that the Postmaster General has decided to accept this Amendment, but it seems to me that, as it is worded at the moment, it does not do all the good that it might be capable of doing because of the kind of consideration which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, gave voice to when moving it. I am wondering whether this might not be a way out of the difficulty. The advertising committee which is set up under paragraph (b) of Clause 8 (2) gives its advice to both the Authority and the programme contractors. That is provided by the Bill as it stands. The religious committee, which is set up by paragraph (a) of Clause 8 (2), stands in a peculiar position because, although it gives its advice only to the Authority, by the provisions of Clause 3 (4) religious items have to be submitted to the Authority before they are broadcast. The result is that those two committees stand in a separate and different position from this third committee, the children's committee.

1219
The Postmaster General, by accepting this Amendment, has accepted the view contrary to his former contention—and we are grateful to him for it—that the children's committee also ought to stand on a separate footing, being separately mentioned in the Bill. I am wondering whether it would not be possible to provide that the children's committee should give its advice to the programme contractors as well as to the Authority, or, alternatively, that it should be put on the same footing as the religious committee. My view, tentatively, is that the Postmaster General would probably not be prepared to accept the latter alternative, because he would say that that imposes too great a control over the programme contractors. If he does not accept the former alternative, would he not consider slightly amending the wording of the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, so that the advice should, as in the case of paragraph (b), be given to the programme contractors no less than to the Authority?
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this question, as between the children's programme and the religious programme, is quite different. As we know, the B.B.C. televise a religious service only once a month, and an obligation to discuss a religious service with a committee is no imposition at all; but Children's Hour will probably be broadcast every day. On the other point, that they should also advise the programme companies, I think I can, without breaking confidence, tell the noble Viscount that I offered the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, two alternatives. One was that this new paragraph should concern a purely advisory committee—that is under subsection (1); then there is no reason why a purely advisory committee should not advise anybody it liked. But once it comes under subsection (2) it becomes a semi-mandatory committee and we get back to the question of the assertion of authority. In considering that question we must keep clear in our minds who is responsible for asserting authority. Throughout this Bill, when it comes to a question of who asserts authority, it is the I.T.A. Therefore, as it is probably a mandatory committee, I think it is a tidy arrangement that the advisory committee should advise the Authority which has the power to assert. That is really the answer
1220
to the noble Viscount. I should not have minded this committee advising programme companies, if it were provided under Clause 8 (1) (a), but then it would be a much less important and effective committee.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I confess that when the noble Earl was good enough to offer me an alternative, I should have preferred to see as an alternative to the present Amendment what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, suggested—namely, that this committee should advise both the programme companies and the Authority; and that, like the committee on advertising standards, its advice should be mandatory (as is proposed). But I should have liked to see it advising both entities, because I think that in that way the difficulties that I mentioned before might have been overcome. However, I was much reassured by what the noble Earl said about the normal arrangements that will be made between the advisory committee and the programme companies, whereby such items as can be shown to them—films, for example: obviously, sporting events, outside and "live" programmes could not be shown—would probably be discussed before they were shown. If administrative arrangements of that kind could be made, in which the noble Earl, in his capacity as the Minister responsible for the working of the Authority, could suggest that the Authority should take the initiative in making suggestions to the programme companies about their relations with the advisory committee, I think that then this difficulty might very largely be met. I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl for accepting this Amendment, and for including this committee among the statutory committees which are to be set up. That is the main thing. I am also reassured about what he said in regard to the administrative arrangements which I understand he will try to make.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move this consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 28, at end insert ("and
(c) a committee representative of organisations, authorities and persons having experience of and special interest in the welfare

1221
and education of children and young persons, to give advice to the Authority as to the principles to be followed in connection with the broadcasting in such programmes of matter intended for children or young persons,").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
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.
4.44 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (3), after "them" to insert:
"and as to the hours of the day in which such broadcasts are or are not to be given."
The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, I know that we have discussed this point before but I feel that it is a matter of great importance, as was borne in upon me on Sunday last. It was a very wet day and I was responsible for some small children. Everything had gone very well. We looked at the television from about half past five to six o'clock; that had gone very well. Then it was bed-time. I must say that it is much easier when the programme finishes at six o'clock, as it normally does. It is all very well saying that children, or in this case grandchildren, always spring to attention and do whatever they are told, but that is not always true. It really is a good thing that the B.B.C. have initiated the practice, which has been approved by successive Postmasters General—in a sense it has been imposed upon them, though they are willing that it should be imposed upon them—to close down television programmes, save in exceptional circumstances, between six and seven-thirty.
I do not know what regulations the Postmaster General, in his wisdom, will make, but I am quite sure that it is wise that he should have the power to say not only what should be the maximum and minimum times to be occupied by television—and do not let us have too much—but also the hours of the day during which televising shall take place. I
1222
seek merely to give the Postmaster General a power. I am not asking him to exercise it, or trying to find out how he is going to exercise it; I am seeking merely to give him a power which, in my opinion, ought to be exercised. For that reason, I beg to move this Amendment, which I very much hope he will be able to accept.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 9, after ("them") insert the said words.—(Earl Jowitt.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, it will be remembered that when we were discussing this matter in Committee it was on the basis of an Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, to the effect that the hours should always be the same as those of the B.B.C. I could not possibly have accepted that Amendment. Although I should prefer this present Amendment not to be in the Bill, I cannot see any objection to it; and as a great number of your Lordships were keen on the matter I will accept the Amendment. I am not undertaking to the noble and learned Earl that I am going to take on the job either of "Pops" or "Grand-pops" on the question of discipline; he may find that at some time he has got to take it on himself to get his grandchildren to bed when he thinks they ought to go to bed. But still, I can have this power to keep an eye on the hours, and in the circumstances I will accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Earl has accepted this Amendment. If he had not done so, the B.B.C. would have been quite helpless, because if the other companies were to give their own broadcasts at certain hours the B.B.C. would be obliged to do likewise; and we should have an example of bad currency driving out good. Following the general wishes of public opinion throughout the country, the B.B.C. has closed down at certain hours so as not to arouse in millions of homes this dilemma of having to get the children to bed while television is going on, I sincerely trust that the noble Earl will be able to request that the new stations should conform to the present practice of the B.B.C. and not, which is the only possible alternative, that the B B.C. should have to do the same as the others.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, it is only with your Lordships' permission that I speak again. There is not much more that I can say, other than that I am definitely not prepared to go further than I have done. I was a little surprised that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, should speak, because, after all, this was an Amendment which we discussed fully and one upon which we divided—
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble Earl has quite misunderstood what I was saying—
EARL DE LA WARR: I was rather hoping that the noble Viscount was rising to thank the Government for giving this Amendment, and not to ask for more.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Indeed, that was what I was doing, but I did not express it in those words. What I meant to say at the beginning was, that I thought that when the noble Earl came to give consideration to this matter, he would arrive at a conclusion such as that which I was adumbrating. I was not asking him to give any further undertaking to-day.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Rules as to Advertisements]:
4.50 p.m.
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved to insert as a new paragraph 1:
"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: My Lords, this Amendment has already been before your Lordships. It was voted down in Committee but the attention paid to it at that time and the vote recorded upon it were, I thought, inadequate for the importance of the subject. With the concurrence of my noble friends interested in this and other Amendments I have elevated drink into the position of "Public enemy No. 1," without raising the other items.
When speaking on this subject on the Committee stage I should perhaps have declared an interest. It is not the usual interest confessed by noble Lords when taking part in a discussion which involves
1224
them. My interest is that I am Chairman of the National Temperance Federation, a body that covers all the leading temperance societies in this country. To indicate the wide range of this Federation's interests I name some of them: the British Women's Temperance Association; the Scottish Christian Union; the Church of Scotland Committee on Temperance; the Independent Order of Rechabites (and their Scottish counterpart); the International Order of Good Templars (English and Scottish Grand Lodges); the National Commercial Temperance League; the Scottish Temperance Alliance; the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches; the United Kingdom Alliance and the Workers' Temperance League, with a number of other smaller, but no less important, organisations keenly interested in temperance.
The principal concern of these bodies, and their main apprehension, lies in the effect upon children. There is justifiable apprehension. Here is an extract from the Brewers' Journal dated December, 1953, from an article headed "The Future of Beer":
"Probably no one in the Trade will dispute the statement that we want to sell beer to more people and that at the same time we want to increase the number of regular customers in our public houses. These are the aims of both the wholesale and retail sides of the Trade."
The writer goes on to discuss how to secure more beer drinkers, especially women, and concludes:
"More people, especially women, using our public-houses regularly; that could be a part of Trade policy for the future. It would be no easy task, but if pursued with energy and initiative there is surely no reason why it should fail."
The temperance organisations I have mentioned, and many others, are united in prayer and effort to ensure that the sinister purpose voiced by the brewers' spokesman shall fail, and that children especially shall be kept free from possible evil contamination. I hope it will be agreed that this is an important matter. Here is an extract from a Report of the United Nations World Health Organisation:
"The cost of concealed alcoholism is enormous. In many countries adult males in need of treatment for alcoholism outnumber those who need treatment for tuberculosis by several hundred per cent."

1225
The nation pays heavily, in health and in other ways, for this traffic which earns such large profits for its owners.
The national drink bill in this country is £871 million per annum—that is the 1953 figure. Much of this is taxation; but there is another side. Drink contributes to the Exchequer but it also adds to the cost of the Health Service by causing and aggravating disease. Under the influence of drink, health is neglected; children suffer, and have to be cared for at public expense; crime is greatly increased, involving heavy police charges; loss of working time is incurred, and work is carelessly done; moral standards are lowered, involving the ruin of many homes. And who will deny that the incidence of, for example, venereal disease is increased by lack of control due to drink? Surgeons and anæsthetists find the habitual drinker a problem to them, and he involves more attention and expense than he would had he lived more sensibly. The odd exceptional person who lives to an advanced age, despite heavy indulgence in drink and tobacco, proves nothing, except the variety in which nature delights to indulge.
Even small quantities of drink are scientifically proved to be harmful to the individual. Nowhere is this more clearly established than in road accidents, of which drink is a prominent cause. This has been proved on many occasions. There have been instances where some technical point, or clever legal pleading, has caused a police charge of "under the influence" to be set aside, although to the lay mind there was no doubt. Some lawyers have a reputation for getting clients acquitted of such charges; so that recorded instances of drink as a factor in accidents, fatal and otherwise, are not a true indication of the position. To minimise these dire consequences, to even the smallest extent, by putting a restriction on advertising to popularise the consumption of drink is the duty of those who would protect, especially, young people against efforts to add to the number of consumers.
It may be argued that the Temperance Movement will equally be able to buy time to put their views before the viewing public. A moment's thought, however, will explode such an idea. To make the assertion is like telling a poor man looking for a lodging-house in which he may
1226
get a bed for the night that there is plenty of room in certain West End hotels. The Temperance Movement is supported by pennies, while the drink trade has millions at its disposal and is not slow to use its powers when its interests are threatened. Witness the banning of a poster in Birmingham which said:
"One for the road may be one for the grave."
That is the literal truth, stated frankly; and, for veracity, it compares favourably with some drink advertisements. That poster was blacked out, I understand, on the requirement of the Transport Commission, because of an attack upon it by Birmingham brewing interests. The Birmingham Temperance Society retorted with a poster:
"Most important, remember that alcohol blurs your judgment and slows your reactions."
Actually those words were used by the Minister of Transport in a speech in another place, but even that poster was banned by the Transport Commission as controversial. The chairman of the Birmingham Road Safety Committee described the first poster as "gruesome." More gruesome is the huge total of road fatalities every year, many of them due to drink. Thus the dice is loaded against truth and safety
In urging restrictions against drink advertising by the I.T.A. I am advocating something that is quite familiar to the drink interests. This dangerous traffic is carried on under severe limitations in respect of hours and conditions of sale, and penalties are imposed for selling to persons under eighteen years of age. In other countries, the advertisement of drink is forbidden, in certain instances. For example, I learn that the Canadian radio bans drink advertisements, although other things may be advertised by that medium. The proprietors of the Winnipeg Free Press and the Montreal Daily Star newspapers refuse to accept drink advertisements. Therefore, why should we take the responsibility of extending the present opportunities for drink advertisements in this country? Bear in mind, my Lords, that the advertisements are to be made on a publicly financed system, and that the costs incurred by the advertiser will, in part, be borne by the Exchequer by means of tax allowances for working costs. I assert, with deep conviction, that we cannot afford this, morally or financially. I

1227
appeal to noble Lords to prevent this invasion of the homes of our people, especially for the sake of children in their immature and imitative years. I would point out one consequence of putting this into operation. It would mean that we were setting standards which would inevitably require to be adhered to by other bodies with similar opportunities for advertising, and the B.B.C. could require to be brought into line in respect of anything that was thought undesirable so far as they were concerned. I am very anxious indeed that this new medium of publicity should not be used to degrade our people, and that is what I fear as a result of what is at present proposed by the Government. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 13, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Mathers.)
5.3 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, in supporting this Amendment, I do so not as a teetotaller but because I believe that television in the home is going to have a much greater influence on the minds of adults, and particularly on the minds of children, than anything else we have ever had. Perhaps I may mention my credential in this matter; I speak as one who has been a school medical officer over a long number of years, and I know how the child mind can be influenced and how it responds. We shall have to be careful about every kind of advertisement that goes into the home lest it should injure the child's mind. There are all kinds of things which might be advertised—novels and stories of various kinds which might be highly undesirable for children, and medical practices which are necessary for adults but which it might be highly undesirable for children to see. This question of drink is particularly important because it has the backing of a number of wealthy organisations with vast sums of money at their disposal, who have the desire, as they are commercial organisations, to increase the consumption of their goods, as Lord Mathers has read out in the statement issued by the Brewers' Society quite recently.
I beg the House to consider this Amendment not, in the first instance, as a teetotal Amendment, but as an Amendment which will give us the power to
1228
control the kind of advertisement that goes into the home. If you leave the matter open, you will inevitably run into the greatest possible difficulties in the future. What are you going to do about politics? What are you going to do about a large number of other things? You must have a control over the advertisements that go into the home. For many years I spent most of my time looking after children in the early stage of their school careers, up to six and seven years of age, and so on. Children of that age are the most malleable things in the world. If you speak to them kindly, they respond; if you speak to them harshly, they dry up; if, as a grown up, you make a suggestion to them, they believe you. If the television, with the brilliance of its illumination and no doubt with interesting colour, and so forth, advocates that drink is a good thing, that will remain a permanent impression in the child's mind which ought not to be given at an early age of a child's career. Are we going to have two television systems, one for adults and one for children? I do not think we can possibly do so; I do not think it is a practical proposition. Therefore I think it is essential that we wipe out from advertising any kind of influence which is likely to lead to deterioration of the child's mind and deterioration of the child's ideas. I know it is a big order, but television is, in itself, a revolution.
As I mentioned in my speech on the Second Reading, I am told, by a friend of mine who lives in New York and who had lunch with me in the House to-day, that the television programmes broadcast in New York are not at all what we should like to see in this country. I am quite sure that if we are not very careful we shall meet with problems in television which we should rather not have to deal with at all. I do not want to take up the time of your Lordships' House by amplifying this matter, but I think I may say that a large proportion of all the doctors who are concerned with looking after children would say, at least, "There is a great deal in what this man says." I hope the House will believe it, and will agree to take measures to prevent the advertisement on television of drink and other things which may, at the stage when children first see them, exercise a profound influence and a bad influence on children's minds.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I do not propose to expand the case that was put with marked courage and sincerity by my noble friend, Lord Mathers, and with so much experience by my noble friend, Lord Haden-Guest, but there is one side of the matter in regard to which I should like to ask the Postmaster General a question. Nobody doubts that one of the great problems to-day is road accidents, especially to children: the number of small children killed on the roads is appalling. Nobody doubts that a certain measure, I do not say of intoxication, but of indulgence, does reduce the power of control of the driver. A most alarming thing happened recently. When an organisation claimed the right to advertise in a striking way the facts as they saw them, that was forbidden. It was not forbidden by the Government; it was forbidden because the influence of the advertising world was so great that they were able to say, "If you put that poster on the hoarding, you will get no more advertisements from us." What is the Postmaster General doing to protect television from a similar sort of blackmail? That is a question which has not been raised by either of the previous speakers, and it deserves an answer from the noble Earl.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I do not think any of your Lordships will complain for a moment that this matter was not thoroughly discussed on Committee and, indeed, settled by vote. We all know how strongly, how genuinely, with what deep sincerity, the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, holds his views on this subject. But it is difficult for me to reply to the noble Lord without going again over all the arguments that we had when we were discussing this matter during the Committee stage. Your Lordships will remember the plain and simple point that was put to you. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, spoke mostly for the Government on that Amendment. He said that he could see no logical reason whatsoever for differentiating between one medium of advertisement and another. It may well be that there is a strong case against advertising drink at all. I do not feel that way myself, but I can see the strong logical case that could be put up for such a point of view. But there is no case at all for saying that you have to differentiate, for instance, between the
1230
Press and television. To hear noble Lords who have spoken on this matter, one would think that we read newspapers only in the streets. Noble Lords talk about television going into the home; surely the place where we read all our newspapers is, in fact, in the home.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: May I say this lo the noble Earl about television in the home? In the home, the child takes everything, so to speak, almost as coming from the lips of the Almighty, or from his mother and father whom he loves. He accepts what he sees and hears as the truth of life. That is a very different thing from merely seeing advertisements on a hoarding.
EARL DE LA WARR: I was not suggesting that we read hoardings in the home. I was discussing newspapers.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: Well, newspapers.
EARL DE LA WARR: Newspapers are seen in the home because they are bought by Mum and Dad. They are there because they have been bought and paid for by the parents. I confess that I cannot see the distinction which noble Lords are trying to make. I do not want to go into the details all over again. If your Lordships will look at the actual wording of the Amendment you will see that it begins:
"No advertisement shall be permitted which is directed (whether or not in conjunction with any other purpose) towards promoting…the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor."
That means that even in a cooking demonstration by Philip Harben, you could not have him saying that you would get a slightly better flavour in your soup by the use of a little sherry. You would have to censor every play in order to see that no one offered a friend an intoxicating drink. And you certainly could not do this to the I.T.A. without doing it also to the B.B.C. It is very much more dangerous to have that sort of thing on the B.B.C., because it is not presented as an advertisement. I do not want to deal with the details concerning accidents which have occupied the attention of the Birmingham Corporation. I do not know the details. I do not know the circumstances with which the Birmingham Corporation were concerned. It is, to me, a completely hypothetical

1231
case, and I am therefore not going to fall into the trap of trying to draw parallels with things I know nothing about. I repeat that it is impossible to go over this matter without repetition of arguments which have already been used. I have presented to your Lordships the main points. I cannot say any more than that we have considered this matter very carefully, and we have considered it in a spirit of great respect for those who feel quite differently from ourselves. We recognise how deeply certain noble Lords feel on it, but I regret very much that we cannot see our way to accept this Amendment.
5.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him whether he will answer the question which has been put to him? It is not sufficient for him to say that he cannot go into various matters. A plain question has been put to him in Parliamentary debate and a reply is asked for. Here is something in the nature of a monopoly. It will depend very largely on contributions from large and powerful commercial interests—in this case drink interests. What directions will be given to stop these drink interests, by methods of pressure amounting almost to blackmail, from preventing societies who consider that certain considerations should be presented in a certain way to the public, from using the medium of television to so present them? What will be done to prevent the exercise of such pressure? I should be grateful to the noble Earl if he would give us an answer.
EARL DE LA WARR: As I have said, I know nothing of the circumstances. For all I know the Birmingham Corporation has said: "We are not going to take part on one side or the other in this controversy."
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I never mentioned the Birmingham Corporation.
EARL DE LA WARR: No, but one has seen reports in the Press. As I have said, I do not know the circumstances and I am not going to be cross-examined into answering a totally irrelevant question.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I wonder whether the noble Earl would answer another question which it seems to me it is essential should be answered in order that we may know what to do about this Amendment. We all know that the drink trade in its various branches is one of the largest advertisers alike on hoardings and in the newspapers; the amount of space taken up for advertising various kinds of drink, both hard drink and soft drink, accounts for a very large proportion of the total. Will the noble Earl exercise the powers which, I think, are vested in him to see that there is a balanced programme; will he be capable of exercising powers to see that drink advertisements do not monopolise an undue part of the advertising time? It would certainly be an infringement of the whole balance of this scheme if, say, one-third of the advertising time were taken up with advertising drinks. I should like to know whether the Postmaster General contemplates keeping his eye on this kind of balance.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am afraid that by this system of cross-examination I am being drawn into breaking the rules of your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Why? Debate is cross-examination.
EARL DE LA WARR: No, one speaks only once on Report, except with the permission of your Lordships' House, and I am being led into breaking that rule. I would say specifically to the noble Lord who has just spoken that there is full machinery in the Bill for the advertising committee who will be regulating all advertisements to give its advice to the I.T.A., who will in turn give its advice to me. I certainly do not intend to take up the grandmotherly attitude of saying how time allotted to particular items which it is desired to advertise should be limited. We all know very well that no one who will take part in this advertising is going to follow a policy which is calculated to be self-destructive. So my answer to the noble Lord is, quite definitely "No."
5.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have not intervened in this debate before; therefore I am not breaking the rules of your Lordships' House in speaking now. The only

1233
thing I wish to say before we come to a final decision on the Amendment is this. We have had reiterated once more the complete fallacy which appears to dominate the minds of the Government as to the situation of television in relation to newspapers. There is no real comparison of that fixed order which seems to come from the Front Bench opposite—none at all. Newspapers are in a different category from television. The point made by my noble friend is that the Government just will not appreciate that. They come to the Parliament of the Realm for powers to change the present system of broadcasting television, and they can lay down certain conditions. But they are refusing again and again to lay down certain conditions which the best kind of people in this country, from many points of view, wish to see laid down. They are refusing to do so in this case because, they say, it is impossible to differentiate between advertisements in newspapers and advertisements that will appear on television. I say again that that is a complete fallacy.
Something of the same character was said on another kind of Amendment whilst I was absent from the Chamber the other night. Some things which the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said would have been pretty smartly answered if I had been here. I have no particular interest at all in the newspaper which he was quoting, or any influence with it, because I often have to criticise it severely, even in public. But here is the situation as I see it. If you have a television system in the home, unless you happen to be on the spot you cannot prevent this programme from being turned on by children; and there is little opportunity, especially in many working-class homes, where the housewife may be the only person there and exceedingly busy with domestic duties, to keep control over this matter. In the case of newspapers, parents who have special views about how their children should be influenced on matters of the kind raised in this Amendment, refrain from buying journals, magazines and newspapers of the kind which would be likely to carry the sort of influences which we seek to keep from appearing on television. But the Government are so committed to this betrayal of the high standards which have obtained in the past that they will not give way on this. Therefore, I suggest to my noble friends that the only possible thing to do is to
1234
record our views by dividing; and if they are prepared to divide upon the matter, I shall be happy to support them in the Lobby.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I very much hope that, after that speech, the noble Viscount will seek a Division. I regret that the last speech after this very amicable debate should have been a speech of that kind. May I tell the noble Viscount where the Government stand in this matter? We have never said that we could not pass an Act of Parliament—
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I wonder what the noble Viscount meant by "a speech of that kind"?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am going to say—a speech of the kind to which we have just listened. No doubt the noble Lord liked it, but it was very different from those which the noble and learned Earl has been delivering. I do not object to it, because I think it is a good thing that such prejudiced views should be expressed. The whole gravamen of the speech was, "I am a superior person. The kind of thing I think you ought to listen to is the kind of thing you ought to listen to. The kind of thing I think you ought to see is the kind of thing you ought to see."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Nonsense!
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Oh, yes it was. The noble Viscount says, "Nonense!" He said that we were turning down the things all the best people want to see done. He means to say, the things he wants to see done. He is a very good man, but there is no monopoly of either virtue or good taste.
The noble Viscount has asked for this, and he is going to get it. I will tell him where the Government stand. We do not stand for that kind of thing. We stand for people having a little freedom. We believe that there will be a high standard of decency and good taste in the Television Authority and among the people who put on the programmes. It is perfectly proper to permit advertisements of drink in newspapers and on every hoarding; and it is perfectly proper to have programmes about it on the B.B.C., such as the scene about who could

1235
drink a pint of beer in the shortest time—which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, mentioned to us on the last occasion. All that is much more likely to encourage people to drink than the minute or two of advertisement between programmes. We certainly do not admit that there should be this freedom in every other medium of advertisement while it should be denied to this one. I think it right to say this because that is where we stand. Those concerned have as decent a standard of morals and taste as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. After the speech he has made I should frankly welcome a Division on this Amendment, and there will be no doubt how we divide.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I think it is in order that the mover of an Amendment may reply, with the indulgence of the House—I am not very well versed in the Rules of Order in your Lordships' House. I tried very hard to keep the severe indictment I felt it my duty to level against the interests which I dislike strictly to those interests, and I do not want to exacerbate opinion any more than is necessary. But when the noble Viscount talks about freedom, it seems to me that what he is saying is that he wishes to give the freedom to corrupt the minds of children, the freedom to suppress the truth and the freedom to circulate what are, if not deliberate untruths, at least questionable statements. The statements I made about
the effect of drink in relation to health have the authority of the British Medical Association.
The contrast with other forms of advertisement has been drawn in. I am perfectly well aware of the fact that I am here seeking to establish something new, because we are dealing with something new which is to become a medium for advertising. I want to see a higher standard of what appears in advertisements in the new medium. I do this deliberately, and with my eyes open, and I do not think there is anything unfair in seeking to limit certain powerful vested interests, wealthy beyond compare, in the only way they can be limited—that is, by law—from doing what I believe to be serious harm, especially to the young people of this country. To me it is a matter of morality: it deals with the character of our people. I had hoped that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill might have given me a better answer than he gave. As I said on Committee stage, I thought I had received a poor answer to the powerful arguments, as I considered them, which I used. When we fail to come to agreement in this House, we take the matter to the arbitrament of the vote, and I feel it necessary that I should not allow this matter to be left without a definite vote upon it.
On Question: Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 68.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Mathers, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Greenhill, L.

Merthyr, L.

Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Henderson, L.

Sempill, L.

Hall, V.

Inman, L.

Shepherd, L.

Stansgate, V.

Kenswood, L.

Sinha, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Chorley, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Beauchamp, E.

Astor, V.

Birkenhead, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Buckinghamshire, E.

Bridgeman, V.

De La Warr, E.

Davidson, V.

Wellington, D.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Glasgow, E.

Furness, V.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Home, E.

Goschen, V.

Cholmondeley, M.

Lindsay, E.

Hudson, V.

Reading, M.

Munster, E.

Leathers, V.

Willingdon, M.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Margesson, V.

Selborne, E.

Swinton, V.

Bathurst, E.

Selkirk, E.

Woolton, V.

Aberdare, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Milverton, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Rea, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fraser of Northcape, L.

Remnant, L.

Barnby, L.

Freyberg, L.

Rennell, L.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Gifford, L.

St. Just, L.

Broughshane, L.

Glyn, L.

Saltoun, L.

Carrington, L.

Hampton, L.

Sandford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hawke, L.

Teviot, L.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Teynham, L.

Derwent, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Digby, L.

Layton, L.

Waleran, L.

Dovercourt, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wolverton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed accordingly.
5.37 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT 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 and learned Earl said: My Lords, I am sure that this Amendment will cause no controversy in any part of the House. We should all think it quite improper that there should be an advertisement in connection with the appearance of Her Majesty the Queen. The difficulty is, how to word the matter. This is a delicate and difficult question. For instance, whether to put in "Her Majesty," or "the Duke of Edinburgh," or "the other members of the Royal Family"; what is meant by an "appearance," and that sort of thing. I put down this Amendment in order to give the Postmaster General an opportunity of making some statement about it. I am sure he can take it that noble Lords on all sides of the House are at one about the matter, and the only question is as to how best to deal with it. I hope the noble Earl will tell us in his statement the result of his consideration of the matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 41, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Earl Jowitt.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Earl for the way in which he has put this point. On the Committee stage I undertook that I would move an Amendment, if necessary, to provide that there should not be any advertisement in proximity to Her Majesty the Queen or, naturally, other members of the Royal Family. I have looked into the matter carefully, and I have become convinced that this is not the best way of achieving what we all quite definitely
1238
wish and are determined to secure. I would remind your Lordships of Paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule of the Bill, which says:
…rules (to be agreed upon from time to time between the Authority and the Post-master General, or settled by the Postmaster General in default of such agreement) shall be observed—
(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."
From those words your Lordships will see that I can make rules as to the classes of broadcasts in which advertisements may not be inserted, and also as to the interval which must elapse between any such broadcast and any previous or subsequent period given over to advertisements.
There are some matters, we shall all agree, which are best dealt with outside specific references in legislation; and this, I think, is one. I would therefore ask the noble and learned Earl to accept an assurance, and a very firm and categorical assurance, that when these rules are drawn up I shall make sure that there is no advertising at all associated with broadcasts on what I may call a formal Royal occasion, such as the opening of Parliament, and that there shall be a fully adequate interval without advertisements before and after such broadcasts. I think I should go further than that, and say that in no programme will there be any advertisements in close proximity to any appearance of Her Majesty The Queen, and that the rules will also provide adequately for the many and various situations which may arise and which, of course, may well involve not only Her Majesty The Queen but also other members of the Royal Family. I understand that noble Lords opposite agree with me that this will be the most satisfactory

1239
method of dealing with the question, since there are so many different circumstances which may arise. For this reason, as well as for reasons of a constitutional nature, I trust that the noble and learned Earl and the House will be prepared to accept my firm assurances on this point.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am grateful to the Postmaster General for his statement. Of course, I will ask the leave of the House to withdraw this Amendment. There is absolutely nothing between the House on this matter. The only question is the best way to do it, and I am sure that we may trust to the Postmaster General to see that the obvious canons of decency are not transgressed in this matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fourth Schedule [Sporting Events, etc.]:
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on an Amendment we have already discussed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Fourth Schedule.—(Earl Jowitt.)

LONG LEASES (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill

—

Cash Earnings

Value of Allowances in kind

Total

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

Average Earnings (All ages):

(i) Per Man-shift worked—

At the Face

56

2·4

2

6·0

58

8·4

All Underground

48

5·9

2

3·8

50

9·7

Surface

33

2·7

2

0·5

35

3·2

All Workers

45

1·0

2

3·0

47

4·0

(ii) Per Wage-earner per Week—

At the Face

279

3

12

5

291

8

All Underground

255

6

12

2

267

8

Surface

195

5

12

0

207

5

All Workers

243

2

12

2

255

4

1240
be now read a third time. I have to acquaint your Lordships that I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Long Leases (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place the interests of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. The Bill has been through its various stages with nothing but favourable comment from all sides of the House, and therefore I will content myself with moving the Third Reading formally.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed.