§ 2.45 p.m.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government when they decided that the roof of the new left-luggage office at the centre of London Airport was a suitable site to carry advertisements; when and how they informed advertisers that the site was available for this purpose; how many applications they received for its use; how they determined the rent payable by the successful applicant; and what conditions, if any, they imposed.]
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, the advertising at London (Heathrow) Airport is let by my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation as a concession to an advertising contractor who negotiates the letting of sites to advertisers. The use of the roof of the left-luggage office for advertising purposes was approved in principle in October, 1960, and the style of the present advertisement in January, 1961.
The site was let by the advertising concessionaire to the present advertisers who had applied for space on the airport. These advertisers agreed to pay the site rent which had been assessed by the concessionaire. The conditions imposed were that the advertisement should be approved by the architect and that any letting, in the first instance, should be for a relatively short period of one to two years.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his detailed Answer, which I shall carefully study. May I further ask him these questions? First, am I correct in understanding that 76 the buildings to be used for advertising purposes are decided by someone without taking any architectural advice at all? Secondly, are we to understand that other buildings at the airport may be treated in a similar way? Finally, how does my noble friend explain the apparent fact that other advertisers did not apply for this particular site? Was the reason that they did not know it was available, or were they, unlike Her Majesty's Government, held back by a sense of decency?
§ LORD DENHAMIn answer to my noble friend's first supplementary question, the answer is, No. The general manager of London Airport decides which sites shall be used for advertising, but when he does so he is in close consultation with the consulting architects. The answer to the second supplementary is that the advertising concessionnaire is required under the terms of his contract to exercise the rights granted to him to the satisfaction of the Minister. Will my noble friend repeat the third supplementary?
§ LORD CONESFORDMy third supplementary was about the reasons why other applications were not received for this particular site.
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, it has never been officially stated that other applications were not received. This matter is left to the advertising concessionnaire to get the best terms—and by "terms" I mean not only financial, but taking everything else into consideration—that he can for the Government. This of course is under the control of the general manager of London Airport.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, whilst it is desirable, I think, to make proper economic use of the airports, is it not a fact that Heathrow is for many people the gateway to the United Kingdom, and in those circumstances ought not æsthetic considerations always to apply?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, I certainly agree with that, but I would say that it is the duty of my right honourable friend to try to make the airports pay.
§ LORD LATHAMWould the noble Lord agree that one of the principal exports to America is whisky?
§ LORD CONESFORDIs there any evidence that a single extra glass of whisky will be drunk as a result of this advertisement?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, I can tell my noble friend that, whether as a result of the advertisement or as the result of the speeches of himself and his friends in another place I do not know, about two dozen bottles of this particular whisky are drunk at London Airport each week where none was drunk before.
§ LORD CONESFORDWould my noble friend answer the one supplementary with which he has not dealt—namely, whether we may expect other buildings at London Airport to be treated in a similar way?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, each building is considered separately as to whether advertisements should be displayed on it. It is up to the general manager of the Airport, in consultation with the architects, to decide where the advertisements should be. I think we must leave consideration of other buildings until the time arises.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, as it would seem that Her Majesty's Government propose to do nothing to remove this advertisement from the roof in question at London Airport and as the Minister said, in reply to a similar Question in another place yesterday, that this advertisement was not to everybody's taste, would the noble Lord use his influence to see whether, purely from an æsthetic point of view, one of the labels could not be righted and whether the advertisement, which is in French, could not be written in correct French?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, I will consider that. I would say that in this particular case the label being upside down is an advertising gimmick.
§ LORD MERRIVALEIt is in bad taste.
§ LORD DENHAMIt may be a matter of opinion as to whether or not it is in good taste. An advertisement has to be striking in order to be noticed at all.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, is it a dominant sign? Is it by any chance "Black and White" or is it "White 78 Horse"? Would not the Leader of the House consider that it would be a good thing that the noble Lord who is answering should sit in close proximity to those who are considering the Licensing Bill, to see whether he can learn something which will enable him to give answers which will not encourage but discourage the use of such signs or such liquors?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I do not think that that would come within my noble friend's terms of reference; but I shall certainly see that I take some interest in the Licensing Bill, if that is what the noble Viscount wants me to do.