Lords Sitting of 29 July 1963

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry

GOVERNMENT AID IN INTERNATIONAL SPORT
2.35 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My 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 have now examined and reached a decision upon the problem of helping individual governing bodies and organisations concerned with competition in amateur international sport on a financially reciprocal basis; and whether they will make a statement.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the question of new procedure for Government assistance for participation in international sport is still under examination, and, meanwhile, applications continue to be considered individually on their merits. I am advised, however, that payments on the basis suggested by the noble Lady would in most cases be unlikely to provide a workable solution.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, it has fallen to me to put the first Question to-day, and, while recognising that I am a very junior Member of your Lordships' House, I hope the House will not think me presumptuous if I say to the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council how very glad we are to see him back, and congratulate him.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: With regard to the noble Viscount's Answer, may I ask him whether
982
he is aware that there is considerable disappointment among organisations which have made application, because help does not seem to be forthcoming; and whether he will pursue still further this knotty problem with a view to ascertaining whether we really can reach some desirable solution?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lady very much for her generous welcome. Yes, I will see what can be done, but I cannot give any promises this afternoon.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, may I, too, congratulate my noble friend on his safe return, and on his very fine efforts? May I ask him whether he is aware of the fact, and whether he will look into the position, that the application by the British University Sports Federation for help towards sending a team to the World University Games at Brazil this summer, which was strongly recommended by the Foreign Office, was turned down; and that the French and the Germans are each sending 60 competitors, thanks to the help of their Governments, whereas we are able to send only 35, thanks to the generosity and help of firms which have trade in Latin America? May I further ask my noble friend whether this is not exactly what we were afraid of when we had the debate initiated by the noble Baroness on this very subject—that, by not setting up a body with some knowledge of sport, this sort of decision would in fact be taken?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, it is a rather complicated question, but I will look into the matter. I should like to thank my noble friend also for his generous remarks.

NEWQUAY—PERRANPORTH RAILWAY LINE
2.38 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My 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 have approved the decision of British Railways Board to sell the single track Newquay—Perranporth railway line for its scrap value of £23,000 and to refuse the £40,000

983
offered by a syndicate of Cornish business men who planned to reopen the line and provide a summer service for holidaymakers.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, a decision by the British Railways Board to dispose of this railway line, which has been closed, does not require the approval of my right honourable friend.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what a local authority are to do under such circumstances? To whom can they appeal? The Truro Rural District Council offered to guarantee British Railways against loss if they continued this line. This is one of the things which the right honourable gentleman the Minister said he would consider. The local authority cannot appeal to British Railways, obviously. To whom can they appeal, if not to the Minister and the Government?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, of course, as I said, this is not a matter for the Government, but perhaps I can help—because I do like to do my best for the noble Lord and the House. Perhaps I should have phrased my Answer otherwise, although I do not see how I could have done that. There might be something in what the noble Lord said if, in fact, there were any question of accepting an offer of £23,000 for this line, which from the private inquiries I made of the Railways Board I understand is not the case. I am told there is no question of it, and that the offer which is under consideration, but which is still subject to negotiation, is materially better than the £40,000 which the noble Lord has mentioned.
LORD STONHAM: Is the noble Lord aware that British Railways offered to sell this line to these business people for £60,000? Would it not be better to accept an offer round about £40,000 from them, and so have a railway which would be a lifeline in winter and which would relieve the terrific traffic congestion in summer, rather than tear up the line? May I ask the noble Lord whether he will approach his right honourable friend to look into this again, not only in this particular instance, but also on the question of
984
principle, to whom a local authority can appeal in a matter of this kind after British Railways have made a decision?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord well knows from our discussions on what is now the Transport Act, the Railways Board are charged with making the best use that they can of their assets. This, after all, is a line which has been closed—it is not a question of future closures; this line has been closed—and it is entirely up to the Railways Board to make their decisions in I the light of the duty that there is on them under the Transport Act. It seems to me, from what I personally have learnt about it, that they have before them a better offer than the one mentioned in the noble Lord's Question.
LORD STONHAM: Would the noble Lord say what the offer is, with a view to seeing whether the line might continue to be used as a railway? And is he not aware—I am sure he must be—that, during the discussions on the Transport Bill in another place, the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport said that he would be prepared to look at any case where a local authority was prepared to defray the losses on a line which might otherwise be closed? That is exactly what has happened in this case.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I have said, this line has been closed. That is the whole point of this. I can help the noble Lord a little more, because the Railways Board told me that in fact the offer for the taking up of the line on a scrap basis was £31,000 and not £23,000; and that, adding to that what is anticipated to be the quite substantial value of the land on which it lies, which I cannot at the moment specify, the result comes to materially more than the £40,000.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, could my noble friend or the Minister of Transport not give a gentle hint to the British Railways Board that they should avoid giving the public the impression that they are "dogs in the manger" in this business, and the impression that British Railways alone can run the railways, and that no one else can—even a branch line? Surely the British Railways Board can now under Statute sell to a bidder who wants to

985
run a branch line or a tramway service; and ought they not to be instructed to be more forthcoming and generous in their attitude?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl must not overlook the fact that, whether or not they think they are the only people who can run a railway in this country, they are, so far as I am aware, the only people charged actually with doing that; because our railways system was nationalised and as a result of that they are charged with this duty. I am quite sure that a great many other people, from all they say, seem clearly to think they can run a railway better; but in a case like this it will be difficult for the Railways Board to decide to renounce their financial duties under the Bill.
LORD STONHAM: But, my Lords, they have renounced this duty in this particular case; and the noble Lord is aware that there is nothing to stop an authority—even under the Light Railways Act—from taking over a railway and, if necessary, running it for the convenience of the public. The noble Lord should confirm that; and I am asking him to give some indication that the Government have not gone back on the assurance they gave in this matter, in principle, that proposals from local authorities could be considered.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, there is no question of going back on any form of assurance in this matter. I think the situation might have been different if this question had arisen before the line was closed; and that is really the subject of this assurance. But it is a straightforward duty on the Railways Board to make the best use they can of their assets after a closure proposal has gone through the whole of the closure procedure and the line has been closed. I think they would not be in a hurry to change their minds as to how to interpret this financial duty that I keep talking about by accepting a lower rather than a higher price.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, if there is a chance that this line can be kept going, would not Her Majesty's Government consider discussing it, in an informal way, with the Railways Board, in the hope that some offer can be increased until it reaches the limit at which the duty not to lose money is fulfilled? After
986
all, is it not a matter for public concern if a line that can be reopened is not to be reopened?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, having gone through all the closure procedure I should feel a little tentative in any reply to the last part of my noble friend's query; but I should have thought that the question of the financial duty would have been overcome. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned that a price had been put upon it by some people who think they can run it; and I think that therein lies the answer.

OPERATION AND COSTS OF SHEFFIELD—CHINLEY LINE
2.56 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My 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 whether they are aware that on Sunday 14th July the 6.15 p.m. Sheffield-Chinley four-coach train was pulled by two 2,500 h.p. diesel locomotives manned by two crews, and if they will state (a) if this is a record for waste of locomotive power, (b) since this line is included in the Beeching closure list, the basis on which the movement costs to be submitted to the Transport Users Consultative Committee will be calculated.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the use made by the railways of their locomotives is the responsibility of the British Railways Board. My right honourable friend does not intervene in matters of management. Any financial information provided by the Board in connection with an opposed passenger closure proposal will be on the lines agreed with the Consultative Committees.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is another example—and one can quote hundreds—where the costs have either been unnecessarily inflated or maintained at a high level and earnings have been deliberately reduced, preparatory to a case for closure? Is this not an abuse of the duties of the British Railways Board to the

987
public; and if the Ministry of Transport allows it go by unheeded is it not a dereliction of the duty of the Minister?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I have said, it is not the responsibility of the Government to organise the locomotives on the railways. But, persistently helpful as I am, I again went to the British Railways Board to find out what had been going on and I found that the second engine was required to bring back the 8.25 train from Chinley to Sheffield and it had to make an operational movement by itself. In order to save operational time and cost they hitched it on the front of the train.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not doubt that explanations can always be given—though whether they are right or complete is another matter. But the noble Lord has not answered my question. Does he not think that these matters, not in detail but in principle, are matters for the Government if these figures are going to be used as evidence in closing down a public service?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, what I do not think—and about which I am quite positive—is that the substance of the noble Lord's question does not arise from his Question on the Order Paper.

CASTRATION OF HORSES
2.49 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My 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 have studied the Petition on the Castration of Horses, delivered to them on Thursday, July 18; and, if so, what action they propose to take, if any.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I assume
988
the noble Lord is referring to the Petition on the Protection of Animals (Anæsthetics) Act, 1954, presented in another place on July 18. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced in July last year that this Act would be reviewed in consultation with the veterinary profession. The British Veterinary Association have since made certain proposals for the improvement of the Act, and these have been considered in consultation with the farmers' unions and animal welfare societies. As a result of this it is our intention that amending legislation will be introduced and the castration of horses will be among the subjects to be dealt with.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer that he has given, and I am very much relieved to hear it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask whether, when the noble Lord refers to amending legislation, he means amending legislation in the next Session of Parliament.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, as the noble Earl well knows, naturally I cannot give an assurance on that point, but we hope that there will be the minimum of delay.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE AND PROROGATION
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that it has been agreed through the usual channels that the debate on the Central Organisation of Defence shall be a one-day debate, and that the House shall meet at two o'clock on Wednesday
I should further like to inform your Lordships that it is proposed that after the Summer Recess the House shall meet on Thursday, October 24, at eleven o'clock, for Prorogation, and that the new Session shall be opened on Tuesday, October 29.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [H.L.]
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, in rising to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered, I feel that it might be convenient to your Lordships if I were to say a few words about the Bill as it now stands. When this Bill left us in February we congratulated ourselves on the improvements which had been made to it during its passage through your Lordships' House. Although it is perhaps rather annoying to have to admit it, I think that your Lordships will agree that since then it has been still further improved and embellished in another place. There may well be Members of your Lordships' House who might have liked to see still more substantial Amendments made to the Bill in another place; for example, on the major issue of the age of criminal responsibility, where the compromise decision which your Lordships took at our Report stage raising the age from 8 to 10 years has been left undisturbed. However, I can assure your Lordships that such Amendments as have been made to the Bill in another place are on the whole quite free from controversy. I am, in any event, prepared to commend all of them with confidence to your Lordships this afternoon.
The number of Amendments, 74 in all, may be a little daunting, but I hope I may be allowed to break them down into four broad categories and, when I have done so, I trust that your Lordships will agree with me that they are in substance less formidable than they may appear to be in numbers. The first category is a small but highly important group of Amendments designed to extend Clause 1 of the Bill to Scotland. These are Amendment Nos. 56, 57, 67 and 68, and No. 57 of these is the substantive Amendment. The only reason why this clause, which I think, by common consent, is the most important in the Bill, did not originally apply North of the Border was that when this Bill was tabled in your Lordships' House the question of preventive work for the welfare of children was being considered by
990
a Committee of the Scottish Advisory Council on Child Care. Their Report was published in March. It is both clear and trenchant, as one might expect from a Committee of a Council whose chairman is my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood. In their Report, the Committee recommended that local authorities in Scotland should be given a new duty to make arrangements for the prevention of neglect of children in their own homes so that those children need not be received into care. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland decided, with the agreement of all the Scottish local authority associations, to give effect to this recommendation and that is why Clause l now covers Scotland. I am sure that your Lordships will welcome this.
The next group of Amendments are some ten which meet points raised by noble Lords during the passage of the Bill through this House. I think, if the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, would agree, it might be useful if I were to summarise and explain these Amendments briefly at this stage. The first is Amendment No. 2. This brings quite expressly within the scope of Clause 1 children who are at risk of coming before a juvenile court as offenders. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will doubtless remember that when we discussed this matter at Report, on an Amendment which he had moved, I said that there would be consultations with the local authority associations and the London County Council as to whether local authorities really needed further powers to nip delinquency in the bud outside the scope of their existing services and powers. On that assurance, the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment. We have, as promised, consulted the representatives of the local authorities, and they have confirmed that they would prefer to see subsection (1) of Clause 1 widened to include a power to diminish the need for children to be brought before a juvenile court as offenders. It was following these discussions that the Government accepted an Amendment to this effect moved in another place.
Then there is Amendment No. 14. This ensures that a local authority have power to make payments for the welfare of a person whom they are befriending under Clause 15. This again was a matter which we discussed at our Report stage on an

991
Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. It was also a matter about which, if I recall correctly, the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, was concerned. I undertook to consider whether subsection (2) of Clause 15 should expressly empower a local authority to make payments of this sort. Again, there were discussions with the local authority associations, and in the light of those discussions the Government decided to accept this Amendment when it was moved in another place.
Next we come, in discussing this group of Amendments designed to meet points raised by noble Lords, to Amendment No. 18. This is to Clause 27. As amended, this clause will not raise the age limit restricting the giving of oral evidence in sex cases as high as some noble Lords would, I think, have liked. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, proposed that we should raise this age to coincide with school-leaving age. He withdrew his Amendment to that effect on my assurance that we would look into this matter further. Having done so, we felt it would be better on the whole to adopt the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and raise the age to coincide with another existing age limit of more general application, the age of 14, which divides "children" from "young persons" for a number of purposes under the principal Act.
The next Amendment, No. 19, adds a new clause to the Bill. It has precisely the same purpose as one moved in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—namely, to enable local authorities to recover arrears of parental contributions through the courts. The noble Lord will remember that, while I was rather non-committal about the Amendment when he moved it at Report, I was not severely non-committal. Having adduced certain objections to it, I thought that the pros here might be stronger than the cons, although I felt that six months was too long and expressed the view that three months' retrospection might be the better period. This in fact is the period provided for in the Amendment.
Finally, Amendments 62 and 63 remove certain possible difficulties in the operation of paragraph 26 of Schedule 3, which the same noble Lord touched on during
992
our proceedings. These affect, of course, the after-care which local authorities can provide. I think that these Amendments fully cover the point which the noble Lord was anxious about. On the Third Reading of the Bill in this House, the noble Lord and I between us compiled a list of eight points that were left outstanding. He will be glad to know that the Amendments I have mentioned dispose of 5 of those 8 points. As to the other 3, we have not found it possible to improve on the terms of Clause 25. That covers the requirements for one or both parents to attend a juvenile court.
I am also sorry that we have not been able to meet the points about child actors and child models raised by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and Lord Stonham on Part II of the Bill, although I think the group of Amendments beginning with Amendment No. 21 goes at least some way to meet the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, on the points affecting young actors and actresses, about which he was kind enough to speak to me.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I quite agree.
EARL JELLICOE: Again, on the third point, about the revocation of fit person orders under Clause 7, we have not felt able to depart from the present terms of the Bill. But perhaps I may set off against these three points on which I have not been able to give noble Lords satisfaction two others on which they have received an uncovenanted benefit. If your Lordships will look at Amendment No. 3 and Amendments Nos. 6 to 8, you will see that they relate to points which were discussed in this House and on which I did not then feel able to give any promise of further consideration. However, your Lordships will note that my right honourable friend—as always more flexible than his subordinate here—has in fact felt able to concede both points in another place. It is perhaps only necessary for me to refer as an example to Amendment No. 3. Your Lordships will recall that this provides for reports from local authorities to my right honourable friend on the operation of Clause 1 at not less than twelve-monthly intervals, a matter to which noble Lords opposite attached much importance when the Bill was with us earlier.
This brings me to the largest group of Amendments, some 46 all told, which

993
give effect to suggestions that occurred to us during the passage of the Bill through another place, or were put forward by Members there on one side or the other, or came to us from interested bodies outside Parliament. I shall be glad to try to explain in detail the merits of any of these Amendments if any of your Lordships wishes. At this stage, perhaps, it is necessary for me to refer only to Amendment No. 55. This will enable my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland to introduce new financial arrangements for remand homes should these prove necessary. A good deal of concern was expressed by your Lordships, as well as in another place, about the shortage of accommodation in remand homes. It is our view that the action now being taken by local authorities to increase the number of places available can go forward within the framework of the present financial arrangements, which local authorities on the whole prefer.
However, we think it right now to take power to establish a different system analogous to that for approved schools, in case it turns out that the present arrangements present an obstacle to further expansion. The Amendment would therefore empower my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland to introduce by regulations arrangements whereby the total expenditure of local authorities on remand homes would be shared among local authorities in proportion to the use made by each of them of remand home accommodation. That is, of course, similar to the arrangements now obtaining as far as approved schools are concerned.
That, my Lords, leaves us with the fourth group of Amendments which comprises 14 Amendments dealing entirely with matters of drafting or of privilege. I understand that noble Lords opposite would like to have the opportunity of discussing these 74 Amendments in four separate groups, although not quite the same groups as those I have mentioned. I understand the first group comprises Amendments Nos. 1 to 18, the second, Nos. 19 to 20, the third, Nos. 21 to 45, and lastly, Nos. 46 to 74.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said and his
994
most helpful explanation, that division may not prove to be necessary. I have not have an opportunity to consult my noble friends, but I am sure they do not wish the discussions on this Bill to take any longer than is necessary. Perhaps we might see how we go.
EARL JELLICOE: I am glad to fall in with any arrangement noble Lords opposite would prefer. Perhaps the simplest thing might be for me to move all these Amendments en bloc, and if noble Lords wish to ask questions about any specific Amendment I will do my best to give them satisfaction, although I cannot promise to do so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
3.6 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would again thank the noble Earl for his helpful explanation of these Amendments. He is quite wrong in thinking that we should be annoyed to note the many further improvements, and I can assure him that there is not a single one of these Amendments he has now moved which we find in any way annoying. In particular, we welcome the Amendments which have now been made in another place arising from suggestions which were originally made by my noble friends, some of which the noble Earl gave assurances about, but as to others he was unable to do so. As he has explained, second thoughts have proved better.
Apart from welcoming those improvements, we particularly welcome the reduction to 21 days of the maximum period within which a child must be brought before a juvenile court. This is a welcome improvement, although 21 days may subsequently be found too long, particularly when we have more accommodation. The noble Earl did not mention Amendment No. 5, which is a new version of Section 65 of the 1933 Act and which we also think will be most helpful, as also are the Amendments, to which he did refer, providing that if a child is kept up to 28 days without going to an approved school, then the court must renew the order or cancel it. We also welcome the fact that local authorities can make payments to children while they are in approved schools; that two different

995
Amendments enlarge the field of such children whom they can befriend, help and visit, and the fact that the new arrangements between local authorities are likely to be of great help in connection with the provision of more badly needed remand homes.
I think we were able in your Lordships' House to effect considerable improvements in the Bill, and there can be no question that further valuable improvements have been made in another place. I feel that this Bill when it becomes an Act, will be a great help in preventing refractory children from becoming delinquent, and delinquent children from becoming criminals. Fully and properly used, I feel that the Bill will mean that many children who would otherwise be most unhappy and most unuseful will become happy and useful citizens and, as such, it is a very good job of work.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The references are to Bill [63] as first printed for the House of Commons.]
  Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out ("or the principal Act") and insert ("the principal Act or the principal Scottish Act")
  Clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out from ("court") to end of line
  page 2, line 6, after second ("time") insert ("and at least once in every twelve months")
  Clause 4, page 3, line 27, leave out ("twenty-eight") and insert ("twenty-one")
  Clause 7, page 5, line 22, at end insert—
  ("(2) Where a child or young person is in the care of a local authority by virtue of an order under the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act 1958 or the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960 the local authority may, with the leave of the court having power to vary or revoke the order, apply to a juvenile court under this section; and if on such an application they satisfy the juvenile court that the child or young person is refractory and the court thinks it expedient to do so, the court may order him to be sent to an approved school.")
  Clause 9, page 6, line 40, leave out ("by a juvenile court")
  Clause 9, page 6, line 41, leave out ("be")
  Clause 9, page 6, line 42, leave out ("justice of the peace") and insert ("juvenile court")
  Clause 11, page 9, line 5, at end insert—
  ("(c) section 79 of the Mental Health Act 1959;")
  Clause 14, page 9, line 24, leave out ("under the age of sixteen")
  Clause 14, page 9, line 32, leave out from ("and") to end of line
  Clause 14, page 9, line 42, leave out ("under the age of sixteen")
  Clause 15, page 10, line 29, leave out from ("is") to ("cause") and insert ("under the care of the managers of an approved school but not only under supervision")
  Clause 15, page 10, line 30, at end insert (", and may, in exceptional circumstances, make payments for his welfare")
  Clause 22, page 12, line 26, leave out from ("released") to ("he") in line 27
  Clause 23, page 13, line 15, leave out from ("not") to ("be") in line 16 and insert ("otherwise brought before the court or justice")
  Clause 24, page 14, line 27, leave out ("child") and insert ("person")
  Clause 27, page 15, line 16, leave out ("under the age of thirteen")
  After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
  Recovery of arrears of contributions
  (".—(1) Where during any period (in this section referred to as 'the period of default')—

  (a) a person was liable to make contributions in respect of a child; but

  (b) no order was in force requiring him to make the contributions,

  a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area where he is for the time being residing may, on the application of the person who would have been entitled to receive payment under such an order, make an order (in this section referred to as an 'arrears order') requiring him to pay such weekly sum, for such period, as the court, having regard to his means, thinks fit; but the aggregate of the payments required to be made by any person under an arrears order shall not exceed the aggregate that, in the opinion of the court, would have been payable by him under a contribution order in respect of the period of default, or if it exceeded three months, the last part thereof, less the aggregate of the payments (if any) made by him in respect of his liability during that period or, as the case may be, the last part thereof.
  For the purposes of this subsection the last part of the period of default shall be taken to be the last three months thereof and such time, if any, preceding the last three months as is equal to the time during which it continued after the making of the application for the arrears order.
  (2) No application for an arrears order shall be made later than three months after the end of the period of default.
  (3) An arrears order shall be treated as a contribution order, and payments under it as contributions, for the purposes of the following enactments, that is to say—
  in the principal Act, subsections (3) and (4) of section 86, sections 87(4), 89 and 102(1)(c),

  the Maintenance Orders Act 1950,

  the Maintenance Orders Act 1958,

  paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the Local Government Act 1958.
  (4) Where the person who was liable to make contributions resides in Scotland or

  997
  Northern Ireland, subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if for the magistrates' court therein mentioned there were substituted a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area where the applicant is for the time being residing or, where the applicant is a local authority, a magistrates' court acting for the area or part of the area of the local authority.
  (5) A person liable to make payments under an arrears order shall, except at a time when he is under a duty to give information of his address under section 14(1) of this Act, keep the person to whom the payments are to be made informed of his address; and if he fails to do so he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
  (6) In this section—
  'child' has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1948,
  'contributions' means contributions under section 86 of the principal Act, and
  'contribution order' means an order under section 87 of the principal Act.")
  After Clause 30 insert the following new clause:
  Increase of penalty for sales of tobacco, &c., to persons under 16.
  (".Section 7 of the principal Act and section 18 of the principal Scottish Act (which, in subsection (1) prohibit the sale of tobacco and cigarette papers to persons apparently under the age of sixteen and, in subsection (2), enable a court to order measures to be taken to prevent the use by such persons of automatic machines for the sale of tobacco) shall each be amended, as respects offences committed after the commencement of this Act, by substituting—

  (a) in subsection (1) (which provides for fines not exceeding two, five and ten pounds on a first, second or subsequent conviction) for the words 'two', 'five' and 'ten' the words 'twenty-five', 'fifty' and 'one hundred', respectively; and

  (b) in subsection (2) (which provides for fines not exceeding five pounds for failure to comply with the order of the court and further fines not exceeding one pound for each day during which the offence continues) for the words 'five' and 'one' the words 'fifty' and 'ten', respectively.")

  Clause 35, page 18, line 16, leave out ("person under the age of sixteen") and insert ("child")
  Clause 35, page 18, line 35, leave out ("person") and insert ("child")
  Clause 35, page 18, line 40, leave out ("person") and insert ("child")
  Clause 35, page 18, line 42, leave out ("three") and insert ("six")
  Clause 35, page 18, line 43, leave out ("another performance") and insert ("other performances")
  Clause 35, page 18, line 44, leave out ("one day") and insert ("three days")
  Clause 35, page 19, line 5, leave out ("his") and insert ("the child's")
  Clause 35, page 19, line 6, leave out ("the person taking part") and insert ("him")
  Clause 35, page 19, line 10, leave out ("persons") and insert ("children")
  Clause 35, page 19, line 16, leave out ("person") and insert ("child")
  Clause 35, page 19, line 19, leave out from ("and") to ("that") in line 20
  Clause 35, page 19, line 34, leave out ("person") and insert ("child")
  Clause 35, page 19, line 39, leave out from ("section") to ("shall") in line 40
  Clause 35, page 19, line 41, leave out ("he") and insert ("the child in respect of whom it is granted")
  Clause 35, page 19, line 43, leave out ("person") and insert ("child")
  Clause 35, page 20, line 4, leave out subsection (9)
  Clause 36, page 20, line 12, leave out ("person") and insert ("child")
  Clause 36, page 20, line 15, leave out ("person") and insert ("child")
  Clause 36, page 20, line 17, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  ("(b) the licence is for dancing in a ballet which does not form part of an entertainment of which anything other than ballet or opera also forms part and the application for the licence is accompanied by a declaration that the part he is to dance cannot be taken except by a child of about his age; or
  (c) the nature of his part in the performance is wholly or mainly musical and either the nature of the performance is also wholly or mainly musical or the performance consists only of opera and ballet.")
  Clause 37, page 20, line 43, leave out ("person") and insert ("child")
  Clause 38, page 21, line 30, leave out ("person") and insert ("child")
  Clause 38, page 22, line 8, leave out ("person") and insert ("child")
  Clause 40, page 22, line 44, after ("if") insert ("(a)")
  Clause 40, page 23, line 3, at end insert ("or
  (b) the engagement is for dancing in a ballet which does not form part of an entertainment of which anything other than ballet or opera also forms part and the

  999
  application for the licence is accompanied by a declaration that the part he is to dance cannot be taken except by a child of about his age; or
  (c) the engagement is for taking part in a performance the nature of which is wholly or mainly musical or which consists only of opera and ballet and the nature of his part in the performance is wholly or mainly musical.")
  Clause 41, page 23, line 13, leave out ("or young persons")
  Clause 45, page 24, leave out lines 26 to 35 and insert—
  ("While a person is in the care of a local authority under the principal Act, the principal Scottish Act or the Children Act 1948 or by virtue of an order under the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act 1958 or the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960")
  Clause 45, page 24, line 38, leave out from ("person") to (and") in line 40
  Clause 45, page 24, line 42, leave out from ("not") to ("undertake") in line 43 and insert ("the person concerned is still in their care")
  After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
  Extension of power to appoint guardian
  (".A court may entertain an application under section 4 (2A) of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925 to appoint a guardian of an infant notwithstanding that, by virtue of a resolution under section 2 of the Children Act 1948, a local authority have parental rights with respect to him; but where on such an application the court appoints a guardian the resolution shall cease to have effect.")
  Clause 48, page 26, line 36, leave out Guernsey") and insert ("any other part of the Channel Islands")
  Clause 52, page 28, line 9, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("(2) Section 49 of the principal Act and section 54 of the principal Scottish Act (which restrict newspaper reports of proceedings in juvenile courts) shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to any proceedings on appeal from a juvenile court (including an appeal by case stated or, in Scotland, stated case) as they apply in relation to proceedings in a juvenile court.")
  Clause 53, page 28, line 31, transfer Clauses 53 and 54 to follow Clause 45.
  Clause 53, page 28, line 37, at end insert—
  ("(2) The power of a local authority under paragraph (b) of section 2(1) of the Children Act 1948 to resolve that all rights and powers of a parent or guardian shall vest in them may be exercised, as well as in the cases mentioned in that paragraph, in any case where it appears to them—

  (a) that the parent or guardian suffers from a mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1959 or the Mental
  1000
  Health (Scotland) Act 1960) which renders him unfit to have the care of the child; or

  (b) that the parent or guardian has so persistently failed without reasonable cause to discharge the obligations of a parent or guardian as to be unfit to have the care of the child;

  and the power of the court or sheriff, under subsection (3) of that section, to order that the resolution shall not lapse may also be exercised if the court or sheriff is satisfied that the person who objected to the resolution is unfit to have the care of the child by reason of his persistent failure to discharge the obligations of a parent or guardian.")
  Clause 55, page 29, line 13, after ("Act") insert ("or by virtue of an order under the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act 1958 or the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960")
  After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
  Adjustment between local authorities of expenses of maintaining persons in remand homes.
  (".—(1) The Secretary of State may, after consulting such local authorities or associations of local authorities as he thinks fit, by statutory instrument make regulations providing, in such cases as may be prescribed by the regulations, for the recovery, by a local authority providing a remand home from such other local authority as may be so prescribed, of such sum in respect of a person detained in the remand home as may be determined in accordance with a rate prescribed from time to time by order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument; and any such order may prescribe different rates for different circumstances.
  (2) No sum shall be recoverable under such regulations in any case where the expenses of maintaining the person detained in the remand home are treated onder section 11(3) of this Act as if they were expenses incurred by the authority as managers of an approved school or are recoverable under section 51(3) of the Children Act 1948 (which provides for the recovery of expenses where a child is removed to a place of safety); but where regulations under this section are in force, any expenses incurred by a local authority in maintaining a person in a remand home and recoverable under the said section 51(3) shall for the purposes of that section be taken to be equal to such sum as might, but for this subsection, be recoverable in respect of that person under the regulations.
  (3) Any payment by a local authority which is made or determined in pursuance of this section shall be treated for the purposes of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act 1958 or, as the case may be, Schedule 1 to the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act 1958 as expenses incurred in respect of remand homes (and accordingly as excluded from relevant expenditure for the purposes of general grants)
  (4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
  Clause 61, page 31, line 28, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 1")
  after ("10",) insert ("and section (Increase of penalty for sales of tobacco etc. to persons under sixteen)")
  Clause 61, page 31, line 32, after ("25") insert ("and section 26")
  Clause 61, page 31, line 40, leave out subsection (7)
  Schedule 2, page 36, line 36. after ("committee") insert ("or by any juvenile court panel concerned")
  Schedule 3, page 39, line 32, at end insert—
  ("(2) In section 67(2), after the words 'five foregoing sections' there shall be inserted the words 'or subsection (8) of section 84 of this Act.'")
  page 40, line 29. leave out ("in their area who is") and insert ("who is or is likely to be in their area while")
  page 40, line 30, leave out ("or") and insert ("any person detained in or out under supervision from that school whose parent or guardian is in their area, and any person in their area")
  page 40, line 38, leave out ("Guernsey") and insert ("any other part of the Channel Islands")
  page 41, line 38, leave out ("Guernsey") and insert C any other part of the Channel Islands")
  page 43, line 11, at end insert—
  ("39. In section 10(1), the words 'has not attained the age of sixteen and' shall be omitted.")
  page 43, line 16, after first ("of") insert ("section 1 and")
  page 43, line 25, at end insert—
  ("42. In section 44(1), after the words 'the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937' there shall be inserted the words section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963'.")
  page 43, line 29, at end insert ("and after the words 'sections 62 to 66' there shall be inserted the words 'or subsection (8) of section 84'").
  Schedule 5, page 45, line 44, column 3, at end insert ("In section 26, in subsection (1), the words or in default of payment of such a fine'.")
  page 46, leave out lines 11 to 13
  page 47, leave out lines 12 to 14
  page 47, line 38, at end insert—

  ("11&12 Geo. 6. c. 43.

  The Children Act 1948.

  In section 10(1), the words 'has not attained the age of sixteen and'.")

  page 47, line 53, column 3, at end insert ("In section 3, subsections (2) and (3)")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I think it would be for your Lordships' convenience that the Amendments should be taken in blocks.
  EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, judging by what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said, I think it would be convenient that we should take all the Amendments together. In that event, I should like merely to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said. I was speaking only semi-seriously when I said that it was rather annoying that another place had been able still further to improve on the work we had done. But since this may be my last opportunity of saying anything on this Bill, I should like to express my appreciation of all the work which noble Lords in this House have done in making what, I think, most of us feel is a useful measure a still more useful one. If it is agreeable to noble Lords, I should like to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I think it would be right that I should say a word of appreciation to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. Of course, he has not given us everything we wished; and it would be most surprising if he had done. Possibly, he might not have been doing his duty if he had given us everything for which we asked. But I think I can say for the whole House that he has performed his duties with the greatest skill, ability and charm. We all appreciate that even when he has not given us what we asked, he has appeared to be regretful, and it was always more in sorrow than otherwise that he had to say "No". I should like to assure him that the whole House appreciates the way in which he has conducted this measure.
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I would echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and express my own appreciation of the great courtesy and consideration the noble Earl has shown to myself and to others. I would ask one further question; I do not expect an immediate answer, but I think it worth putting—possibly it could be answered by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. It is: what are the chances of a consolidation of children's legislation following the enactment of this Bill? Such a consolidation would be much appreciated by those engaged in the work.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in answer to that question, I

  1003
  should not like at this juncture to speculate upon what are the chances. I gather that the noble Earl wanted me to state the odds against a consolidation measure. I do not think that is part of my function, but I agree with him that consolidation, when it can be done, is always very desirable.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  PERFORMERS' PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  ANIMAL BOARDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  LIMITATION BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL (formerly MATRIMONIAL CAUSES AND RECONCILIATION BILL)
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  DOG RACING (BETTING DAYS) BILL (formerly DOG RACING (APPOINTED DAYS) BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAYS PREMISES BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

  TELEVISION BILL
  3.13 p.m.
  Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
  Clause 2 [Authority's responsibility for programmes]:
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 go together. They are to meet an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on the Committee stage, to look again at the wording of Clause 2(2) so as to give emphasis to the point that the I.T.A. can cover in their code objectionable matters other than violence, not only in general, but in particular when children and young persons are likely to be watching. That was what a number of your Lordships thought ought to be done. I must say that I think the wording of the Bill as it was at the time in fact covered that, but in deference to the opinions expressed and the undertaking I gave, we have strengthened the emphasis on this matter in, as we saw it, the way your Lordships wished it. I do not think I have anything more to say, except that I beg to move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 7, leave out ("shall—(a)") and insert ("—(a) shall").—(Lord Chesham.)
  LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am sure that it would be the wish of my noble friend Lord Taylor, who is not yet here, that we should express appreciation to the noble Lord for having brought forth this Amendment, which, to the best of my recollection, substantially meets the point raised. We are much obliged, and we support the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 2, line 9, after ("guidance") insert ("(i)")
  Page 2, line 12, after ("and") insert ("(i)")
  Page 2, line 16, after ("code") insert ("and in considering what other matters ought to be included in the code in pursuance of subparagraph (ii) shall have special regard to programmes broadcast when large numbers of children and young persons may be expected to be watching;")
  Page 2, line 17, after ("(b)") insert ("shall")
  Page 2, line 18, leave out ("such programmes") and insert ("programmes (other than advertisements) broadcast by the Authority").—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 9 [Advertising agents disqualified from being programme contractors]:
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Amendments Nos 7, 8 and 9 go together. They define, in what I hope is a more satisfactory form, the expression "advertising agent". As I told your Lordships, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in Committee, we were not entirely satisfied with the definition as it then appeared on the Bill, and I said that we would have yet another crack at it, although it had been proving rather difficult. We have had another crack at it. I think this is an improved version, and I hope that the noble Lord will agree. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 38, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 45 and insert—
  ("For the purposes of this Act and the principal Act—

  (a) a person shall not be regarded as carrying on business as an advertising agent, or as acting as such an agent, unless he carries on a business involving the selection and purchase of advertising space or time for persons wishing to advertise.

  (b) a person who carries on such a business shall be regarded as carrying on business as an advertising agent irrespective of whether he is in law the agent of those for whom he acts,

  (c) a person who is the proprietor of a newspaper shall not be regarded as carrying on business as an advertising agent by reason only that he makes arrangements on behalf of advertisers whereby advertisements appearing in the newspaper are also to appear in one or more other newspapers,").—(Lord Chesham.)

  LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for having another go at a very difficult subject. The earlier Amendment went some way—indeed, I thought it went as far as necessary—to meet criticisms that had been made in the absence of a proper definition of, "advertising agent". But we gathered that it was too wide. I think the noble Lord was right to try this wider one, and we welcome it and hope that there are not further disadvantages in it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 13, line 1, leave out ("is not to") and insert ("shall not")
  Page 13, line 4, at end insert ("and any reference in this Act or the principal Act to an advertising agency shall be construed accordingly.").—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  In the Title:
  LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, in the Title, to omit "including relations between the Authority and the British Broadcasting Corporation." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is unimportant from the point of view of its direct effect, but is of some significance from the standpoint of the B.B.C. The effect of it is to remove from the Title of the Bill the statement that it is also dealing with relations between the Authority and the British Broadcasting Corporation. At an earlier stage the Bill was amended to make it clear that there were certain obligations on the Authority to co-operate with the B.B.C. in regard to certain matters—this is in Clause 18—and it is perfectly right in certain respects in regard to radio masts and transmitting stations that there should be economy and that where they are able to share these it is a desirable thing.
  But this Bill is primarily concerned with the Independent Television Authority; it is concerned with laying obligations on the Authority and not on the B.B.C.; and there is some importance in the distinction between the two bodies and their constitutional background. The B.B.C. operates under Royal Charter; the B.B.C. attaches very great importance to this, and I believe there is importance in this from its position both in this country and in the world at large. It is not controlled directly by legislation. It seems therefore to follow that this Bill should be confined, as I believe it ought to be, to the responsibilities of the I.T.A. This is not to suggest in any way that the B.B.C. should not co-operate with the I.T.A., but, historically it derived its authority, as I say, from Royal Charter and I think there is quite a lot to be said for preserving that position and removing this particular phrase from the Title of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Line 10, leave out from first ("Authority") to end of line 11.—(Lord Shackleton.)
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, perfectly right. This Amendment is in fact consequential on the action that was taken in another place, and naturally I accept it.
  LORD SHACKLETON: I thank the noble Lord very much.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Then Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 23):
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  3.23 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I now come to move, That the Bill do now pass, I think we can fairly claim that we have now produced a fair and workable Bill, much improved, I should have thought, since it was first introduced, Many of your Lordships have put in a lot of hard work and displayed an interest in the subject, which is very heartening. Broadcasting is a very important as well as a fascinating subject, one which affects the lives of the whole community perhaps more than even the Press, and it is right that your Lordships should have examined, and examined critically, the precise provisions that were put before you, and in particular instances sought for even greater precision and clarification.
  Indeed, it would be true to say that the value of your Lordships' contribution to this Bill lies in this very clarification. The value lies more in what has been brought out on the subject of intention, sometimes backed by assurance, rather than in terms of numbers of Amendments made. What we have succeeded in doing, either in the Bill or in discussion of it, is to clarify the directives under which the Authority will work in the future, spell out the standards and give guidance on those matters, such as the need for a code on the showing of violence in programmes. That has caused concern, and
  1008
  we have emphasised the importance of the care needed when children and young people are watching, not only in the case of violence but in the other matters about which we have just been speaking in the course of the Amendment we have just accepted. We have also removed certain restrictions and given the Authority new powers which we hope will help them in the future.
  I feel it worth saying once again that the Government are aware that the actual form of the levy arrangements imposed under Clause 7 has been, to say the least, controversial, although there is little doubt that the principle of the rental payments is generally accepted. My right honourable friend the Postmaster General has given assurances on more than one occasion that the working of these arrangements will be kept under close observation both by himself and the Authority, and provision has been made for variation in the arrangements if that should be found to be necessary.
  My Lords, I should like to say a final word about the future. The Authority has a tremendous job before it. It has to take a long look at the contract areas, as they are now, and as they may require to be during the next twelve years. The claims of Scotland and Wales, and indeed other areas, must be weighed. The financial requirements of the system must be added up and allocated. The Authority must ensure that its own enthusiasm and vigour, and the enthusiasm and vigour of the contractors and all concerned with them, should be harnessed to produce lively programmes covering all facets of information, education and entertainment, competing strongly with the B.B.C. yet also complementing its services. I would ask your Lordships, therefore, to join with me in extending good will and encouragement to the Authority in its future task, just as I myself want to extend my thanks and appreciation to all your Lordships for the great amount of work you have put into this Bill, particularly to my noble friend Lord Dundee, who currently, I believe, is in Peru, and for the progressive way this Bill has gone through the House. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Chesham.)
  3.28 p.m.
  LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and his noble friend Lord Dundee on the way they have smoothed the progress of this Bill. It has not been too easy and I think that, on the whole, we have tried to help the Government—we hope not to their embarrassment—in regard to certain matters. It is noticeable how far we have come since those tremendous battles in your Lordships' House when the original Television Act, 1954, came to pass. I thought that that Act was a mistake, and I still regret it, for reasons which I have declared on a number of occasions, but it is not the moment to re-fight those old battles on a Motion, That the Bill do now pass. The fact is that the Independent Television Authority and commercial television are here, and are likely here to stay.
  Following the Pilkington Report—and I repeat again that I myself believe that a great deal of that Report was justified—the Government have gone a considerable way to meet the main criticisms. It was too much to expect, I think, that they should have gone the whole Pilkingtonian hog, but they have now given powers to the Authority which those of us who have been critical of commercial television thought the I.T.A. had to a considerable extent before, but which it is arguable in practice, whatever the drafting of the original Act, they did not have in a sufficiently definite form. This particular excuse—and I do not mean it offensively—is no longer open to them. I hope they now have the authority, and particularly the powers with regard to networking, to ensure that I.T.A. and commercial television are able to overcome those defects to which attention has been drawn not only in the Pilkington Report but by many people including many of your Lordships.
  I was grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said in regard to certain of tie matters we raised in Committee and on which assurances were given, although no legislative effect was made. Some of those Amendments which we pressed to a Division the Government saw fit to refuse. I admit, however, that the spirit behind many of them was accepted by the Government, and I accept at full value the assurances
  1010
  that the noble Lord has given in regard to the clarifying effect of these matters and the fact that the Authority, in their discussions with the Postmaster General, will be made aware of the feeling of many people on certain of these matters.
  In particular, I was interested to note that he emphasised that the Authority would need to take a long look at the contract areas, a matter on which there was a Division on which the Government came fairly near to defeat. It is quite clear that in future certain of the areas must be drawn, in a more rational way to make them viable. Whatever views we may have held on commercial television and some of the extravagances perpetrated by some of the companies. I think we are all concerned about the welfare and the survival of the smaller contract companies, not on sentimental grounds but because we accept that they serve a particular purpose in their areas. It was clear in the debate in which Anglia Television was a particular example that there was a wish that they should be enabled to conduct their business and in fact be solvent. At the same time, we must also accept that there is a limit to the amount to which private enterprise can be protected from the hazards of possible financial misfortune if they do not conduct their business in an efficient way which enables them to pay their way and make whatever is a reasonable profit.
  Some anxiety has been expressed about the effect of the advertising levy on the standard of programmes. Most of us who have been concerned with this Bill have been approached by various interests, not only the contractors themselves but the producers and the unions, and clearly it was a matter of some concern. But I think some of this anxiety has been unnecessary—indeed, some of it has been almost artificially whipped up by certain people, and I congratulate the Government on standing firm. They have, in fact, retained enough in the way of powers and flexibility to temper the wind, if that should be necessary. But it is wrong to temper the wind before we find the lamb is really shorn, and I think we shall find some of the lambs in this business are in fact pretty well covered.
  I personally regret that we have not written into the Bill—and I would not develop the point at this stage—an

  1011
  obligation on the Authority to minimise the amount of advertising. It is arguable that the Bill as drafted and the old Act is satisfactory; but I think many will agree, whether they like the advertising part of it or not, that there are still too many interruptions. The Authority have been taking this seriously and I think have improved the position in certain respects. We should like them to improve it further. We hope that the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to benefit as much as he is going to from the levy—whether it be a tax or not a tax, as the Postmaster General so rashly said in Committee in another place—will not encourage the Government (and all Governments will always look for revenue where they can find it) to regard this primarily as a source of revenue. It is not a source of revenue; it is a windfall. We do not want them to feel they can step it up for revenue purposes.
  We shall be interested to see the extent to which competition arises between the different contractors if there is a second programme, but I would repeat again the argument which those of us who were originally opposed to the introduction of commercial television still feel so strongly, and that is that the viewer does not necessarily want competition; what he wants is choice, the opportunity to choose between several programmes. And this is the fundamental weakness in the present set-up. Even though we are committed to it now, we hope that the requirement in the Bill that there shall be an attempt to ensure that we do not get the same sort of programmes on the two commercial networks, whenever there are two commercial networks—a highly doubtful proposition, anyway—will be carried out.
  There is one point in the Bill to which I would refer, and that is a matter about which there is some doubt whether it is wise to raise the issue. There is a requirement in the old Act, in Section 3(1)(a) that the Authority had the duty to exclude anything which contained any offensive representation of or reference to a living person. Under this new Bill that obligation is removed. I think it is regrettable, and indeed even a sign of the times, that the most important move towards bringing the I.T.A. and B.B.C. into equality is to take away from the I.T.A.
  1012
  the obligation not to broadcast any offensive representation of or reference to a living person.
  I do not want to make heavy weather of this; indeed I think we should be in danger of being accused in your Lordships' House of being a lot of fuddy-duddies who are not prepared to stand up to decent satire; but my complaint about the programme called "That Was The Week That Was" is that there was a point where it ceased to be decent satire. I was very enthusiastic about that programme—in fact I do not think I have ever laughed so much as I have at some of the programmes—but I think it went slightly mad towards the end, and both the more offensive representations of some of the religious questions and some of the pure smut, which might have been amusing in a smoking concert, really were not funny in a programme that was broadcast to millions of homes. It was perhaps the misfortune of that programme that it was intended originally as an "egg-head" programme which only a small number of people would look at, and it was a wild success.
  I hope that this standard of what is sometimes called "sick humour" will not be further extended. There is no wish on the part of any of us to limit the maximum degree of freedom, but satire must be real satire, and must have some relation to the facts. I would argue that some of what was broadcast was not satire, either in the historic or in any sense of the word: it was just sheerly offensive. Some of the remarks that were made about politicians, concerning colleagues of my own of all Parties in another place, bore no relation whatsoever to their activities.
  I do not want to make more out of the point, beyond saying that I hope that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. will now not enter into a competition in regard to these matters. A little satire—real satire—is, I think, desirable. Those of us in public life must face the fact that we are liable to be mocked and to be laughed at; but at least I hope that any satire will bear some relation to our activities and will not give as much offence as some of it did. As I say, I am not opposing this particular item. I do not think any of us would wish to do so. But I hope that both the B.B.C. and I.T.A. will realise that, admirable

  1013
  though that programme was, at certain stages and particularly towards the end, it slightly overstayed its welcome.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that 90 per cent. of what was said was completely lost upon the audience—that it was so esoteric that it had really little effect upon those who heard it?
  LORD SHACKLETON: I do not know. I thought some of the esoteric bits were good; but I was referring to the bits which were just purely offensive and which bore no relation to the facts. I do not want to make any more of this. I say this merely in passing, because we are putting a power in this Bill. I know that one runs a risk in doing this; but I think it would be the feeling of many people, including those who, like myself, enjoyed the programme very much indeed, that whether it be the Press or the B.B.C., there should not be continual repetition of statements and imputations that people are pursuing some nefarious or personal end for some particularly selfish motive—such as the argument that politicians are always on the make; or that businessmen are "on the fiddle" or up to no good. That does not do good to the general standards of our society. I do not wish to say any more than that. I am sorry to have taken so long.
  I would again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on their conduct of this Bill, and say that we hope it will fulfil their hopes. As I have said, we in Opposition cannot guarantee that when our Party come into power there will be a second channel of the I.T.A. I would say that in broadcasting terms it is desirable; in economic and social terms I have strong doubts. There are strong doubts as to whether it is really desirable to let loose these additional pressures on the home market, both in the way of advertising consumer goods and in the diversion of efforts into making equipment for the home market. Confronted, as any Government must be, with the problem of the balance of payments and really pressing social priorities, whether it be education or hospitals, it is a matter that any Government must look at most carefully. I think the Authority and commercial television should go along on a
  1014
  rather better basis than it has in the past, and we are glad to see this Bill going through its final stages in this House.
  3.45 p.m.
  THE EARL OF IDDLESLEIGH: I rise briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said about satire on television. I know an intellectual young couple who do not have a daily paper and have not got a television set or a wireless set, but every Saturday evening last winter they came to me and asked whether they could come in and look at my television set while "That Was The Week That Was" was on the screen. I could not feel that that young couple were obtaining a really balanced view of public affairs by that weekly enjoyment.
  Satire is, of course, most valuable in public life—nobody wants to stop it altogether. John Bull is a healthy feeder, and every now and again he needs the purgative that satire gives him. I suggest that this is not the occasion, and this will not be the year, when much satire will be appropriate. I think a doctor would diagnose that John Bull's organs are in a somewhat unhealthy condition owing to a highly spiced diet, and would advise him to modify his diet and take a digestive rather than the purgative of satire. We should remember that while it is perfectly natural that television should wish to claim the same liberty of criticism as occurs in the Press, there is a real difference between the two organs of opinion. Often in the Press we see a savage and rather bitter cartoon; nicknames are bandied about, even of eminent statesmen, and there is a good deal of criticism and abuse. But in the twenty minutes or so which you give up to skimming through the newspaper, you will also see solid news, extracts from speeches and in the editorials, a reasonable discussion of policy. The viewer of the television must view for long hours before he gets a balanced view of that kind, and the danger is that he will be like the young couple I have mentioned, and will form a jaundiced and unfavourable view of our national institutions. In these days, when our morale and our faith in our institutions is a little low and less confident than we should wish it to be, it is peculiarly important that there should be "less funny dog and more bulldog".
  3.49 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, as one who has taken some part in the passage of this Bill I should not like to remain silent while tributes are being paid to my noble friend Lord Chesham. We are accustomed to his piloting long, difficult and often contentious measures about transport, for which he is responsible, and to his answering innumerable questions, always with courtesy and always with full knowledge of his subject, and with the fullest information. It is most remarkable to find him dealing equally ably with a subject for which I think he is not directly responsible. He has, however, been equally courteous to us and equally well-informed. Not only was he informed on detail but he was informed on the fundamentals of the measure that we have been discussing. I think we owe him a great debt. He has been a great asset to us. I must say that I thought he was extremely astute when he passed over to his noble friend the Minister of State the extremely thorny problems, "When is a tax not a tax?" and "When does a levy which is not a tax in the House of Commons and was not printed in italics, become a tax?" It is a curious transmigration of one element into another. However, there it is. He has told us that it will be carefully watched, and that if the system does not work there are powers in hand to make it work better.
  I do not generally find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and I have not found myself in full agreement with a great deal of what he has said in our debates in this House. He very much dislikes I.T.V., and he frankly thinks that it ought never to have been brought into existence; and I have a suspicion that he would be rather glad if, in one way or another, it could be put out of existence and if, like good Socialists, we could return to the good old monopolistic days of the B.B.C. However, there are two topics with which he dealt in his speech on which I found myself in a large measure of agreement with him.
  One was the question of this second programme. He said (and I thought it exactly right) that the public were not so much concerned with competition—although I think the competition has done a very great deal of good—but with choice. I ventured to put the same point
  1016
  during the debate on one of the clauses of the Bill. What the public want is an alternative programme. I believe that the Third Programme of the B.B.C. on the radio has served a most useful purpose in this respect. What I am saying applies just as much to a second programme by the B.B.C. as to a second programme by the I.T.V., if one should come. If the result of this Bill is that they are all going to cater for and compete for the mass audience then, although the B.B.C. will not lose money, because it can always send in the bill to the taxpayer, undoubtedly the Independent Television people will lose a good deal of money.
  What is needed is a third programme with a genuine choice for viewers. It is not a question of a highbrow programme. Surprisingly, the whole field of sport is actually a minority interest. One would assume that the ratings and the Gallup Polls would show such events as boxing, racing, football to be highly popular as television programmes in what is called "the Top Ten". But that is not the case. By and large, I understand that sport, like some forms of drama, is a minority programme. I hope that in any second programme there will be power in the hands of the Postmaster General, or in the hands of somebody else, to make sure that it is not always just a matter of putting on competing programmes, but that whoever gets a second programme must cater for what one may call the minority tastes.
  The other matter on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is in what he said about satire and references to living people. I have been in public life for well over 40 years, and one gets pachydermatous about things said about one, in the Press and everywhere else. People are apt to get sometimes resentful of criticism and of being laughed at. This is a great pity, because the more we can laugh at ourselves the better we shall be. On the other hand, this can, of course, be carried too far. There is a lot of difference between really witty criticism and some of the satire one sees. I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, said. It does not matter much saying rude things about the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, or myself, or even about the Prime Minister or Mr. Wilson; but when, for example, it comes to religion one can

  1017
  deeply offend the sensitivities of people by treating religion, as a current joke.
  The noble Lord, Lord Iddesleigh, talked about people getting their news from these satirical programmes. I beg leave to doubt that. I think that a great tribute should be paid to the balanced accounts of the news which appear. I quite often see the news bulletins of I.T.V. These programmes are run by Geoffrey Cox, who is known both to Lord Morrison of Lambeth and myself, and who was one of the best Chairmen the Lobby correspondents ever had. The Liberals ought to appreciate this, because he was Assistant Editor of the News Chronicle. I do not think anything can be better than the presentation of the news broadcasts given by Mr. Cox and his staff.
  I do not regret that the B.B.C. and I.T.A. have been put on a basis of equality in this matter. I think it would be unfair were they different, and I am quite sure that the I.T.A. can keep the independent producers in order over this. What I am a little anxious about is that they should try to imitate the B.B.C. in some of their grosser forms of satire, of which Lord Shackleton complained. He hoped that they would be kept in order and prevented from doing this. But I should like to know who is going to keep the B.B.C. in order. Both institutions should be subject to some reasonable form of control. I.T.A. have to keep the programme contractors in order, and if they misbehave themselves their contracts can be taken away from them. This, of course, cannot happen with the B.B.C., and the B.B.C. deeply resent any infringement of their privileges if anybody criticises them. I hope that the Postmaster General will be able to exercise some control. There is some control through public opinion, but I am not sure that the B.B.C. are as amenable as some other institutions to criticism from public opinion.
  The I.T.A. have been given great powers. In my opinion they have been very unfairly criticised. Some of the criticisms in the Pilkington Report were extremely unfair and bore little relation to the truth. I consider that the Authority have done a good job. Under this Bill they will have more duties to perform, and I believe that they will do
  1018
  an excellent job. I hope that they will have our good will and encouragement to go forward fearlessly in their task, but that they will not pay so much attention to what I may call the negative side—the sort of attitude: "Go and see what the child is doing, and tell him not to." That is not the sort of attitude one wants. I hope that they will keep a measure of control, but I also trust that they will be encouraged to go forward with the constructive work of making I.T.V. as good as it possibly can be.
  3.58 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am sure we have enjoyed listening to the speech of the noble Earl. I had not myself intended to speak, but he has made some observations with which I do not wholly agree and upon which I wish to make some comment. I agree with him that Independent Television News is well done, and in fact I said so during the earlier proceedings on the Bill. But I think that, if the noble Earl was going to be fully impartial, he might have passed an equal tribute to the British Broadcasting Corporation.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: I did say they were both good.
  LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Well, all right. It that is so, I withdraw the observation and will look up the Record.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: I say it again now, anyway.
  LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: That is good. I think they are both very good and impartial and fair. I agree in principle with what my noble friend Lord Shackleton has said about the limits upon satire, as exemplified by "That Was The Week That Was". Like him I have enjoyed it, too, and indeed have sat up late hours—later than I wanted to—in order to see and hear "That Was The Week That Was". It is very smart. But I think it has gone over the line from time to time, and has been calculated to hurt people without need. Like the noble Earl who has just spoken, I can usually enjoy being ticked off. Now and again I resent it. I think I have enjoyed all the cartoons that have been published about me, and there have been many. The great bulk of the cartoonists in print can engage in satire

  1019
  at the expense of public personalities without hurting and without wounding, and I think in this programme the B.B.C. would be wise to keep an eye on the cartoonists, to see where they draw the limit between nasty things and legitimate comment and making fun.
  On the other hand, I must remind the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, that "That Was The Week That Was" is the product of the very doctrine which he has been advocating this afternoon—namely, competition between the B.B.C. and I.T.V., for which my noble friend invented the phrase "alternative programmes". That certainly sounds better and probably is better, and the noble Lord followed him in that respect. But do not let there be any mistake about it. When commercial television came along I thought they did some foolish things on programmes, and probably they still do—and maybe the B.B.C. do as well—but the consequence was that their listening numbers were steadily going up and the B.B.C.'s numbers were going down. This was competition, and this situation no doubt brought pleasure to many Conservative hearts.
  The noble Lord claims that they brought it in because they object to the monopoly, but in fact in commercial television the monopoly is there over areas of the country. It is a monopoly, and in a sense it must be, because you cannot have half a dozen programmes going over the same areas, wasting resources and being a general nuisance; it cannot be done. Therefore, those who advocated the competition (the other channel, the alternative channel) against the B.B.C. must face the fact that it was inevitable that the B.B.C.—which in the early stages was faced with a decline in its listening public, when the other people were boasting of a noticeable rise in their listening public—should learn the lesson and become a bit more lively in various respects. I would say that if "That Was the Week That Was" was the product of anything, it was the product of Conservative Government policy in insisting upon this spreading and wasting of national resources by the stimulation of artificial competition of an aggressive character, to which the B.B.C. had to respond by livening up its programmes. The Tories and the Tory Press—even some of the most respectable of them—used to call
  1020
  the B.B.C. "Dear Auntie" and "Auntie B.B.C.", but in due course "Auntie" became the naughty niece up to a point, and that was the result of "Auntie" being subjected to this aggressive competition.
  Who is the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, to complain about this result? My noble friend has a perfect right to do so, because he does not believe in commercial television; nor do I. But those who believe in commercial television as an antidote to the B.B.C., and for the purpose of producing waste of resources and destructive competition, are the last people in the world who should dare to open their indignant mouths about naughtiness on the part of "Auntie" of Broadcasting House. It is unfair, it is unreasonable, and it is utterly illogical. The noble Earl says that we believe in monopoly. My Lords, we do not: we believe in public service; we believe in economy in the running of public service. I shall believe that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, does not believe in monopoly when he comes here and advocates the breaking up of the Post Office, including telephones and telegraphs, into a series of competing concerns, some of them receiving competition from private enterprise. But he has never done that. Indeed in the capitalist world there are monopolies, as he will know as a former President of the Board of Trade, and the Government have not done enough about the breaking up of private monopolies.
  I have no objection to good, useful private enterprise. What I object to is private unenterprise as exemplified by some of the monopolies that exist. Therefore, the noble Lord must face the fact that he and his noble friends are as much the fathers or, at any rate, the stepfathers of "That Was The Night That Was" as anybody else. My noble friend Lord Shackleton and I have no responsibility for this rather doubtful result, because we did not believe in the principle of bringing in commercial television. But the Government did believe in it, showing their partiality, for the purpose of injuring a public concern because they did not believe in public concerns. They have done the same with the railways; they have done the same with transport. The Government are a destructive lot, unfit for their office, and the sooner they go the better, in order that these things may be put right.

  1021
  My Lords, I started by intending, not to make a controversial speech, but just gently to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. But having got going, and seeing, as I proceeded with my speech, the vulnerability and the weaknesses of his argument, I could not resist developing points further than I intended to do. Nevertheless, I join with my noble friend in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for his competence. It is true, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said, that he is used to dealing with transport, which I imagine keeps him pretty busy. This, we thought, was not exactly in his line, because it is a highly technical subject, but I must say that I felt he had mastered the matters very well. I thought the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, got through his troubles on Clause 7 with great ability, great charm and great manœuvrability, because he had to be careful as he had troubles on both sides of the House about it. But we thank the noble Lord for his courtesy. We think that this Bill is a better Bill than we might have expected in the political circumstances, and in view of the pressure groups. I am a believer in Pilkington; I think that Pilkington was right, and this Bill goes a long way to meet the views there expressed. Therefore, my Lords, we agree to the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, and trust that it will have a beneficial effect upon television in our country.
  4.9 p.m.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I had no intention of speaking, but I was slightly provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. I had not been aware that my noble friend Lord Swinton, to whom listened with great care, condemned "That Was The Week That Was". He had certain comments to make on some of the things it did, but I do not think he had any objection to the existence of the programme. But if we are out for competition, I expect that now, under the new law, one or other of the services will adopt the happy amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and produce a programme called, as he entitled it, "That Was The Night That Was". If the B.B.C. were driven to competition with the I.T.A., it is curious that they should have chosen as the field of competition something that the I.T.A. were not allowed to do at all. Because, under
  1022
  the law as it stood, and as it stands until this Bill becomes law, the I.T.A. cannot deal in this way with living characters. But the B.B.C., stung, according to the noble Lord, into the necessity for competition, apparently thought that the best thing they could do was to compete by doing something which the other side were not allowed to do at all. I think it is worth pointing that out.
  LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Does the noble Lord not appreciate the point that I made earlier on—
  LORD CONESFORD: I appreciate it very much.
  LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am sorry, but he does not know what I am going to say. Therefore, he cannot appreciate it. I made the point earlier on that, in the case of a public corporation and a public service, you need less control, and certainly I should not like meticulous interference by Ministers with it: but, in the case of a profit-making concern such as the I.T.A., it is inevitable that there should be more statutory restrictions and more controls.
  LORD CONESFORD: That has absolutely no relevance to the speech which the noble Lord made this afternoon, when he was speaking not about controls but about the fact that the B.B.C. were driven into doing something (which he, apparently, also thought was slightly regrettable) by the necessity to compete with the I.T.A. I pointed out that their competition took the form of doing something which the I.T.A. were unable to do at all. That I thought worth mentioning. I am very sorry to hear that "That Was The Week That Was" is no longer on, because I had always intended to see it once, and that chance has gone for ever.
  LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The noble Lord would not understand it.
  LORD CONESFORD: The noble Lord may be quite right. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, once again repeated this, in my view, quite untrue statement—I am not, of course, impugning his veracity; but this inaccurate statement—that the B.B.C. were compelled to compete. As I pointed out during the Committee stage, they were

  1023
  not. Neither by Act of Parliament nor by any necessity to protect their revenue were they forced to do anything at all that they did not wish to do. If they altered their standards one iota, they did that because they thought their new standards were better than their old standards. There was no necessity to compete for audiences: they had their revenue guaranteed. My Lords, every time it is stated that the B.B.C. were compelled to compete, and that alleged fact is used as an excuse for something which the speaker thinks regrettable, I think it is worthwhile for somebody to get up and point out that the statement that the B.B.C. were forced to compete is completely and utterly untrue.
  4.13 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have said something in what has turned out to be a slightly less brief debate at this stage of the Bill than I had anticipated. I had it in mind not long ago to say that, while I had been very interested in what had been said, I felt in a rather smooth mood about it, because, at least up to the moment that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, came in, I had so far heard nothing with which I could quarrel—which, of course, always makes it less interesting. I listened as carefully as I could to what the noble Lord said in his contribution, if that is what it was, but, unfortunately, lacking the trained legal mind of my noble friend Lord Conesford, I am afraid I really failed to follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, very far. I bogged down at the moment when he told us exactly how you create a monopoly by means of competition—but perhaps that will be for another occasion.
  The noble Lord then got into an argument which, so far as I personally was concerned, brought very much to my mind a resemblance (and this, I think, is the only resemblance I had in mind) between the noble Lord and Saint Paul; because Saint Paul, too, put forward some most abstruse arguments which, in the days when I used to read the Second Lesson, I had to read out in a flat voice, because I simply could not understand what it was he was driving at. But there, I think, the re-
  1024
  semblance ends, because there were some clearer points. I do not think there is any doubt in anyone's mind about the desirability for choice when it comes to second channels, whether it be the B.B.C. or I.T.A. On that particular point there is nothing between anybody anywhere in the House. I dealt with that matter fairly fully when we discussed it in Committee, and I do not think I left many misapprehensions about it.
  We have had some very interesting things said about "That Was The Week That Was", and that kind of programme. My Lords, I must be careful here. I do not think that, speaking from this Dispatch Box on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I should express any view as to what has been said, because the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I know, agrees that it has always been the policy of successive Governments to recognise the importance of the freedom and independence of the broadcasting authorities within the framework of the rules. I resisted that temptation when I moved the Second Reading, but if I may take my hat off for a moment and metaphorically step down from this Box, perhaps I, too, might add a word which is entirely a personal opinion on this matter, if your Lordships would be indulgent and allow me to do just that.
  I agree with almost everything that has been said, particularly the view that people in public life, and even more particularly politicians, are expected to have (a) broad shoulders and (b) senses of humour. That has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said it as well, and it is perfectly right. So far as offensive personal references (I think the term is) are concerned, I would say that although these are now permitted to the I.T.A., the normal laws of defamation still apply in the rest of the provision, and that provision also emphasises that programmes must not offend against good taste or decency or be offensive to public feeling. The safeguard is only a limited one; but, all the same, with other noble Lords I feel—again emphasising that this is a personal view—that the danger of this type of programme lies in its very debunking of people in authority, in public life, who are actually doing a job. It makes no difference who is concerned—I am not speaking politically in

  1025
  the slightest. It does not matter what colour of Government may be in power. If there is a permanent outpouring that people in authority are stupid, dishonest, corrupt or whatever it is—anything but good—then I think that is a dangerous facet, and I myself would certainly say that such competition, to out-satire satire with more had satire, is very undesirable. I am sorry to emphasise the point, but I have a view on it which I hold quite strongly, as other noble Lords do, and I trust I may be forgiven for having taken the opportunity to express it.
  I should now like, if I may, most humbly to thank the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and my noble friend Lord Swinton, for the extremely generous things they said about me, which I personally thought were undeserved. I thought they were much more deserved by my noble friend Lord Dundee, who I thought wrought mightily. But I am very grateful to those noble Lords. Of course it is perfectly true that I do not enjoy a plurality of offices: I find that one is quite enough; and, naturally, I passed on the difficult question of the tax business to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, because I am not as silly as I look. When I said that to my son the other day, he said, "Of course not Dad, you couldn't be".
  But I should like, in particular, to thank the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Morrison of Lambeth, for the generous things—taken by and
  1026
  large—they have said about the Bill; although I know that, fundamentally and politically, they do not agree with some aspects of it. I thought they were generous about that, if not entirely content; and, of course, I understand that. My Lords, I think that between us we have the matter about right; and that we have enabled the Independent Television Authority to go ahead and give us a decent service and the kind of programmes we all want.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.