§ 2.35 p.m.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy 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 whether they are aware if the I.T.A. has adequately used its powers under Section 5 (5) of the Television Act, 1954, to require such declarations or returns as the Authority considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring that disqualified persons do not become or continue as programme contractors, and if they do not have this information, whether they will inquire into the matter.]
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, as the noble Lord has indicated in his Question this is basically a matter for the Independent Television Authority itself. The Authority has informed me that it would not, and does not, hesitate to call for any necessary information, in order to ensure that there is no contravention of the Act of 1954. The 2 Authority has no reason to suppose that the information it requires of programme contractors for the purpose is inadequate. If the noble Lord had any information on this matter, I know that the Authority would wish to look into it.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, in view of the fact that this particular subsection was deliberately put into the Act in order to preserve the programme contractors from influences which the House thought would be unsuitable, would it be possible to inform the House what is the nature of these returns that the I.T.A. call for? They make no mention of it in their Report, and, since it is a matter of great importance as well as complication, I think the Government ought perhaps to tell the House a little more about it.
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I am quite prepared to tell the noble Lord a little more. I think it would probably be improper for me to go into the detail of it because, as I said before, and as the noble Lord agrees, that is a matter for the I.T.A. itself. But in fact the process consists of the Authority's taking whatever steps it thinks necessary before a contractor is appointed, then in an annual check and then again individually if anything appears to call for it.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the circumstances surrounding the allocation of some of these contracts by the I.T.A. have caused considerable concern and disquiet, and will he inquire 3 into these circumstances surrounding some of the allocation of contracts in this country?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I really think that that is well outside the scope of this Question. It may be very important; there are many important matters which are outside the scope of this Question. I should like notice before I reply to it.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the noble Lord said that this is the responsibility of the I.T.A., but I think he would agree that this is an Act of Parliament and therefore the Government have a responsibility. I do not know whether the Minister has answered the part of the Question as to whether
the I.T.A. has adequately used its powers".Can the noble Lord say whether, in the opinion of the Government, the I.T.A. has adequately used its powers?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, the proof of adequacy, I should have thought, is that in fact no disqualified person has been a director of one of these programme companies.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, while the Government are now starting to answer my other questions——
§ LORD SHACKLETON—I do not think I will pursue that side of it very much. But I would ask the noble Lord whether he does not agree that, since the Government appointed the I.T.A. and can sack it at any moment, they ought to concern themselves when a matter to which Parliament attaches great importance is not being dealt with satisfactorily? All he has done so far is accept the assurance of the I.T.A. Could he not in fact satisfy himself, or could the Government not satisfy themselves, and not merely accept a bland, "It's all right, boys"?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I should have said that when a Government appoint an official body they trust the workings of that body until they have reason, and good reason, to doubt its efficiency or adequacy.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, is it not a fact that the Government have considerable responsibility under the section referred to in this particular Question? And is it not also a fact that when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, myself and others were concerned with this Bill when it was going through Parliament we were most anxious that the Government should retain a considerable amount of authority in this particular field?
LORD ST. OSWALDI imagine the answer to that is that if there is any infraction of this, then the Government must take some responsibility; but until some infraction is brought to the notice of the Government, I personally cannot see why the Government should exercise their responsibility over the heads of the body they have appointed.