§ 2.35 p.m.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I beg leave 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 are aware that persons disqualified under Section 5 (1) (b) of the Television Act, 1954, have become programme contractors, and to ask what powers Her Majesty's Government have to require the I.T.A. to carry out its statutory duty that such persons do not become or continue as programme contractors.]
LORD ST. OSWALDNo, my Lords, nor do Her Majesty's Government need specific powers to take up matters of this kind with the Independent Television Authority. If there were evidence that the Act was being contravened they would certainly take the matter up.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, may I ask the Government whether they would regard a cross-directorship, a directorship of an advertising agency and of a programme contractor, as a disqualification?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? As the Chairman—that is, Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick—is reported to have said, "We have no attitude to cross-director ships and are interested only in con trolling interests," is it then suggested that the Government and the I.T.A. take a different view on the interpretation of the Act?
LORD ST. OSWALDWhat is perfectly clear is that a director in an advertising agency would be a disqualified person under the meaning of the Act. That is the point the noble Lord is raising and that is the only sort of cross-directorship to which I have been referring.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I had hoped for a more forthcoming attitude from the Government and to avoid giving names, but in view of the fact that Mr. Prince Littler is a director of A.T.V. and Radio Luxembourg, London, whose Memorandum of Association states that it exists to carry on, whether as principals or agents, a general advertising and publicity business, may I ask whether he might not be disqualified? I have the names of three others, all of whom are directors—I have checked this to-day—of advertising agents.
LORD ST. OSWALDYes, my Lords. The noble Lord has been singularly unsuccessful, if I may say so, in not giving names, as I read his views in the Sunday papers. I think I ought to tell him that in fact, out of the four names he gave on that occasion, to which no doubt he is referring to-day, three are not advertising agents, and the fourth, although he did at one time belong to an advertising agency, in fact resigned from the board of that advertising agency before he took up his post with a programme company.
§ LORD TAYLORMy Lords, could the Minister say when an agency for advertising is not an advertising agency?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I could in fact go into that at some length, but I do not think the House would wish me to. It is a fact that an advertising agency is not defined in the terms of the Act. The description and the characteristics accepted by the advertising profession are observed in the matter of disqualifying directors of advertising agencies.
§ 2.38 p.m.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to 81 obtain the cancellation of the contracts of A.T.V., Scottish Television, and Southern Television, as required by law, in view of the fact that persons are, or have been, directors of these programme contracting companies while being disqualified persons under Section 5 (1) (b) of the Television Act, 1954.]
LORD ST. OSWALDNone, my Lords. Under the Television Act, 1954, the question of contracts with programme contractors is a matter not for Her Majesty's Government tout for the Independent Television Authority, which has power to cancel. The I.T.A. has told me, however, that no disqualified persons are directors of the three programme contractors mentioned by the noble Lord.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can help by telling us what the relevant section of that Act means? Section 5 (1) (b), which is one of the disqualifying categories, refers to a person who:
being an individual or body corporate … carries on business as an advertising agent (whether alone or in partnership) or has control over any body corporate … or is a director or officer. …In view of the fact that some of these firms, such as Rank Screen Services, state as their first objective in their Articles, "To carry on business as advertising and publicity agents"; that Theatre and General Advertising Company—which seems to me to sound like an advertising agency of some kind—states, "To carry on business of advertising agents and contractors"; and the Highland Advertising Company described themselves as "advertising agents and contractors ", is there a new version of the English language?
LORD ST. OSWALDNo, my Lords. The noble Lord is, I am sure not on purpose, muddling things. He mentioned earlier one firm of advertising agents, Highland Advertising, from which a director resigned before taking up his post on a programme company. The others he has referred to are not advertising agencies within the meaning of the Act. I can go into it at slightly greater length. I am not an expert on these things, but, in short and to be very brief, the distinction is between the 82 organisation whose function is to sell space Which it owns or otherwise bas a right to dispose of, and the organisation whose function it is to place advertisements in media in which it has no such rights. The latter alone is the advertising agency.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord who it is exactly who has ruled that these organisations are not within the meaning of the Act?
LORD ST. OSWALDYes, my Lords; I had tried my best to explain that before. There is no definition of it in the Act but it is the accepted definition within the advertising profession by which we are guided.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, is it not a fact that when this Act went through we were in both Houses most anxious that advertising agents or directors of advertising firms should have nothing to do with contracts issued by the Authority? Is that not a fact?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I was not of course a Member of either House of Parliament at that time, but I have in fact read through the one-and-a-half-hour discussion of eight years ago, mainly carried on between the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when he was in another place, and Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, now the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, then put forward his views, which were described just now by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, but it seems to me that possibly the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is under the illusion that it was his views which were accepted on that occasion and became part of the Act. Rightly or wrongly, they were not; and he might put up a case claiming that Shackleton's law had been transgressed but he could not put up a case that the law of England had been transgressed, which is the law which the Independent Television Authority has to apply.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that there is considerable apprehension about this matter? In view of the fact that many of us feel that the Act has been breached would it not be possible to get an authoritative opinion or inquiry into the 83 whole matter? There is an allegation that at least four people are directors of advertising agencies as well as of programme companies. Is it not right that that allegation should be finally dispelled or dealt with?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I do not want to be too repetitious, but the Government are satisfied that three of those named gentlemen are not on the board of an advertising agency. The fourth was, but resigned before he went on to the board of the programme company.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, is not that what the noble Lord said to us just now; that it is accepted that they are not within the law? Now I understand from a supplementary answer to us that this is not being specially put up to the Government to give us to-day an opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. The noble Lord says that it is the rule accepted within the advertising industry. I think that is most unsatisfactory.
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition will not put words into my mouth. I never said it was the rule accepted by the advertising profession; I said that the Authority were guided by the definition accepted by the advertising profession.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House if he could help us? Perhaps within a day or two we could have a ruling of the Law Officers of the Crown in detail.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)My Lords, I am not sure it is any part of the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to act as a sort of British law ascertainer. I should have to consult with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack before I gave an undertaking of that kind. I have not looked at this matter myself, but I had supposed it might be conceivable the courts might rule on it, apart from anything else.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, is it not a fact that if you rely on the definition of the advertisers to decide whether they 84 are within the bounds it is like asking the wolf to decide whether he should enter the sheep-run?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I think there is very understandably a confusion in some minds between advertisers and advertising agents. There is in fact a clear distinction between advertisers and advertising agents. The advertiser is the man who wishes to advertise a product; the advertising agent undertakes to place the advertisement and he then goes to the owner of the medium or media in which he thinks that advertisement could best be placed. There are three distinct categories in this process.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, is it not the case that, as regards the three companies the noble Lord referred to, they each undertake to place advertisements; it is part of their articles of association that they undertake to place advertisements and not that they are themselves advertisers? Is that not a point which ought to be looked into?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, what is quite certain is that they do not act in that capacity. I cannot keep up with the noble Lord; I have not read the articles of association. They do not act in that capacity; the three companies to which I have referred as not being advertising agents are owners of media.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, are not the articles of association of these companies misleading if the Government are to accept the advertisers' own definition? They are described as "to carry on business as advertising agents." If the noble Lord looks at the articles of association he will see that all these things which he says they should not do and do not disqualify them are in fact contained in the articles. Is not the argument the same as the housemaid who had an illegitimate baby and said, "It is only a very little one"?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I think possibly the noble Lord is referring to the memorandum rather than to the articles in this instance. In any case I think both of us are in pretty deep water when we start speaking of legalistic points of this nature.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHAs there is a certain debate coming up to-morrow, may I ask 85 whether any questions asked to-morrow may get more considered answers, based on legal advice?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I was going to put the same point to the noble Viscount. The law is a very technical matter and I will ask my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who has been present throughout, to consider the legal points raised. He is, as your Lordships know, going to reply for the Government. I should have thought it much better to see what he had to say about it rather than press my noble friend unduly, because although about 30 years ago I did myself pass an examination on company law and I think I could answer a good many questions now, I should far rather it was handled by the proper authority.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, will the noble and learned Viscount consider also the counsel's opinion I have taken on this point in support of my views?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMIf the noble Lord will give me the counsel's opinion, I will gladly hand it to the noble and learned Viscount.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)And of course the instructions. The opinion is completely valueless without the instructions asking for his opinion in the first place.