Lords Sitting of 20 January 1965

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

LORD BROWN
Wilfred Banks Duncan Brown, Esquire, M.B.E., having been created Baron Brown, of Machrihanish in the County of Argyll, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD FRASER OF ALLANDER
Sir Hugh Fraser, Baronet, having been created Baron Fraser of Allander, of Dineiddwg in the County of Stirling—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD WADE
Donald William Wade, Esquire, having been created Baron Wade, of Huddersfield in the West Riding of the County of York, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

A FIXED EASTER
3.6 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: 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, in the light of the Declaration of the Vatican Council broadly accepting the principle of a fixed Easter and of the Resolution of the General Council of The World Presbyterian Alliance at Frankfurt in similar terms, they will now take steps to bring into force the Easter Act, 1928.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, if we were to bring the Easter Act,
916
1928, into operation now Easter would be celebrated in the United Kingdom on a different date from that applying in the rest of the world. I am sure that this would not be acceptable to the Churches in this country. If, however, the Churches throughout the world were to reach agreement on a date for Easter the position would be different. My information is that the World Council of Churches at its meeting at Enugu, Eastern Nigeria, which ends to-day, has been considering, among other things, a proposal put forward by the British Council of Churches for the opening of discussions with the Holy See on this subject. Her Majesty's Government await with interest the outcome of this proposal.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his helpful reply.

DURATION OF "LIFE" IMPRISONMENT
3.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: 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 will give a clearer idea of the length of life sentences than a simple average by giving the distribution of these sentences including those dying in custody and those killers detained as insane.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in my Answer, on December 16, 1964, to a Question by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, I gave detailed information about the period of detention of life-sentence prisoners whose offence was murder. The noble Lord will see from the second table in that Answer that the period served by prisoners recently released varied from two years to twenty years. Detailed information about the period served in prison by life prisoners who have died in prison is not readily available, but I have no reason to think that its inclusion in that table would significantly change the pattern. On December 31, 1963, there were 394 persons detained in special or State hospitals under the Mental Health Acts whose crime was murder. There are also 71 such persons detained in local psychiatric hospitals in England and Wales and a

917
few in Scotland. Since the period of detention varies from under two years to more than fifty years the classification involves too many detailed figures for an oral answer but I will, with permission, circulate them in the Official Report.

Persons whose offence was murder and who on 31st December 1963 were detained in special or state hospitals under the Mental Health Act 1959 or the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960

—

Period of detention in hospital in which detained on 31st December 1963

Totals

Under 2 years

2 years and under 5

5 years and under 10

10 years and under 20

20 years and under 30

30 years and under 40

40 years and under 50

50 years and over

England and Wales

…

33

52

93

108

42

21

10

2

361

Scotland

…

4

10

7

8

2

2

—

—

33

Notes:
1. The above figures comprise all persons detained in a special hospital—in Scotland, a State hospital—after being found insane on arraignment or guilty but insane on a charge of murder or after being found while in prison after conviction for murder to be insane or suffering from mental disorder.
2. In addition there were in the above categories 71 persons in England and Wales and a few in Scotland detained in local psychiatric hospitals on 31st December 1963, but information about the total length of detention of such persons is not available. Most of these persons will have been detained in a special or State hospital before being transferred to a local hospital.

TAXATION OF HUSBANDS' AND WIVES' INCOMES
3.9 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: 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 will now provide, in accordance with the practice commonly followed abroad, that the incomes of husbands and wives should be individually assessed and charged for income and surtax instead of being aggregated as at present.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income carefully considered the tax treatment of married couples in their Second Report. They concluded that the taxation of the combined incomes of husband and wife as one unit was fairer to those concerned than separate taxation as separate units, and they recommended
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his detailed reply and look forward to seeing the information in the Official Report.
Following are the details referred to in Lord Stonham's Answer:
that the general rule of aggregation should be maintained. I am advised that, in the great majority of cases where the wife is earning, the present system is more favourable than separate taxation. It is only where the joint earned income is very substantial that the tax payable is more than it would be under separate taxation. I would inform my noble friend that if the wife wishes to handle her own affairs it is open to her or her husband to apply to be assessed separately on their separate incomes, although, of course, the total tax liability will remain the same. In all the circumstances my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees no reason to dissent from the Royal Commission's recommendation.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Is he able to say what the cost of this change would be?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot help the noble Lady in that matter, but I will inquire into it and let her have a figure.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I do not know whether the Minister is aware that this proposal has long been resisted on grounds of cost, but does he not agree that, if it is expensive, it must follow that the gains to the taxpayer would exceed the losses? Is he not also aware that many women resent their own earnings being treated as part of their husbands' income; that this practice is widely regarded abroad as one of the signs that Britain has not been modernised; and that at certain income levels it is a direct inducement to men and women to live together without being married?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords. I would not rise to the noble Lady's first supplementary question, at least until I have seen what is the cost. In regard to her last supplementary question, I am not aware that persons do live in sin (shall we say?) in order to avoid taxation, but I would suggest to the noble Lady that in this matter one must consider not so much the position of persons living together but the need to obtain a fair balance in taxation between one married family and another.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, can the Minister say why Her Majesty's Government treat this recommendation of the Royal Commission with such respect and other recommendations of the same Royal Commission with so much contempt?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he will let us have more figures on this subject? Although I agree with my noble friend's approach regarding sex equality, I nevertheless think it is a fact that in the industrial field, where the average wage for a woman is £9 or £10, it is not in the financial interests of the family if the wages are aggregated. Nevertheless, in the professional world, and in the higher income groups, as the noble Lord has agreed, there are of course cases where, it is suggested, men and women might be tempted to indulge in promiscuity because of the unfair tax position. Could the noble Lord let us know what modifications of the present system of assessment would have to be made so that there would be a fair approach, even in these higher income brackets?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I feel I should like notice of the last part of
920
the noble Lady's supplementary question. In regard to her first supplementary as to figures, I shall, of course, be very pleased to provide her with figures; and if she feels that those figures would be of interest to the House, perhaps, again, she would put down a Question on the Order Paper.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, it has been reported that the Government intend to scrape the moss and barnacles off our tax system. Will the Minister take into account that barnacles are the last thing that one would wish to find in the marriage bed?

HEATING OF PASSENGER TRAINS
3.15 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: 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 of the gross inadequacy of the heating arrangements on many trains, both local and long-distance, and whether they will make regulations similar to those in force in factories and offices requiring a reasonable temperature to be maintained on all passenger trains.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, heating of trains is the responsibility of the Railways Board. Passengers who have cause to complain and are unable to get satisfaction from the Board can put their case to the transport users' consultative committees. My right honourable friend has no power to make regulations of the kind suggested.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his not very warming Answer. If the Government have no power to make regulations, will they consider introducing legislation which will give them that power?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the Ministry of Transport have considerable difficulty in enforcing even the existing regulations for which they are responsible.

921
This is obviously a matter for the Railways Board. It is a technical matter, and is much better dealt with by those who operate the service.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, may I support the noble Baroness in her reasonable plea and, with the greatest respect, say to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, that it is not a matter for the Railways Board but a matter which concerns the travelling public, which I think is the point which the noble Baroness has in mind? Will the noble Lord consider the possibility of making the necessary amendments to the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act? From my recollection of that Act, having been partly in charge of it, with my noble friend Lord Carrington, during its passage through your Lordships' House, I do not think it would require very much amendment. It is Section 1, which deals with the scope of the Act, which would have to be amended. At the same time, will the noble Lord consider amending the Act so that it requires the provision of efficient sanitary conveniences and adequate supplies of warm and cold water to be extended to railway trains, particularly those of the Southern Region?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the latter part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is, I think, a little wide of the original Question. The Minister of Labour—and I hope this observation will be taken in the right spirit—has a welfare responsibility for workers in factories, workshops, shops, offices and the rest, but that is slightly different, I would suggest, from the responsibility of the Minister of Transport for the comfort of passengers travelling by train.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, as the noble Lord says that the Minister of Labour has a responsibility for factory workers, may I ask him, have the Government no responsibility at all for the public?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords; but this is a technical matter of the operation of a transport service. It is the responsibility of those who have to operate the service. I would admit quite readily that, arising from the introduction of diesel trains, there have been some complications, particularly with the steam-generating boilers. But these are technical problems, with
922
which the Railways Board is grappling. For the information of my noble friend and other noble Lords who may be interested, there is an article in the Railway Gazette of January 15 dealing with the heating and ventilation of trains. If noble Lords would read that article I think they would see that the Railways Board are appreciative of the problem and are tackling it.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, if it is a technical matter, would the noble Lord say why the heating system for compartments of trains is sometimes not connected up? That, surely, though a technical matter, is quite simple.
LORD LINDGREN: There are two main reasons for this problem. Railway carriages, in particular, have to be stabled in the open; and if a carriage has been standing out all night in several degrees of frost it naturally tends to get cold and takes a little while to warm up. It is equally true that the couplings of the steam pipes tend to freeze, and that they take quite a while to unfreeze.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me whether these things have happened only in the last five months and not in the previous thirteen years?
LORD LINDGREN: They have been a problem for a very considerable period. I can understand the noble Lady's Question, however, because it is true that over the last year or two, with the introduction of diesel engines, the problem has been aggravated. With these engines it takes an even longer period of time for a train that has been stabled in sidings to get warm than was the case with steam engines.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, can the Minister explain why in Switzerland, where the weather is much colder than in this country, these troubles seem to be overcome? There is great comfort in travelling in Switzerland. If that is the case, why on earth can there not be the same comfort and convenience in this country?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, there is comfort in the trains in this country. The tendency is that one remembers the discomfort when one is cold and forgets

923
when one has been warm and comfortable. The same sort of thing happens in Switzerland. I have suffered in Switzerland from a cold train in exactly the same way as in this country.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is the noble Lord seriously arguing that, in an age when it is possible to make preparations to travel to the moon, technical difficulties of preventing this real hardship on the travelling public are insuperable?
LORD LINDGREN: No, my Lords. But I would again recommend the noble Lady to read the article in the Railway Gazette for January 15. Although it is slightly technical I believe it would enable her to appreciate the problem belter, and the manner in which it is being dealt with.
LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord keeps saying that this is a technical matter. I do not know precisely what he means by that, although I would agree that it is technical to the extent that at the moment most trains have apparatus for heating them and accommodation for washing and similar facilities. But they are inefficient. Would the noble Lord not agree that one of the reasons for the introduction of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act was that premises in the past often had washing and heating facilities but they were inefficient? To that extent that also was a technical problem, and it was overcome by the Act. What I am asking is that the Act should be extended in the same way to cover trains.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, if the noble Lord will examine the position as it is generally, and not the exceptional case, he will find that washing, toilet and heating facilities in general are of a reasonable standard on British Railways.
Several Noble Lords: No! no!
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, would the Minister agree that technically, at least, heating a stationary office and factory is an entirely different thing from heating a moving train; that heating a train on a system which is entirely electrified, such as the Swiss system, is entirely different from heating a train not electrified and run by diesel;
924
and, in any case, does he think that anything is to be gained by passing a law against technical breakdowns?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the answer to the first parts of the question is, Yes; and I am most grateful for the intervention. I would suggest that if this is a subject of great interest to your Lordships perhaps it would be useful to put down an Unstarred Question on it.

THE CONCORD PROJECT
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice: Whether they have any statement to make in regard to the Concord project?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): Yes, my Lords. My noble friend Lord Shackleton will be making a statement at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.

THE BROADCASTING SERVICES
3.24 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS rose to call attention to the latest Reports of the B.B.C. and I.T.A.; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ought to begin by saying that I have held certain consultations about whether this debate should take place in the form in which it has been down or whether it should be postponed. I have been assured that it is the wish of your Lordships' House that we should continue with the debate. I also think I ought to begin by declaring my interest in this matter, although I am not sure whether what I have to say will further my interest, since I largely work in television and do not particularly own any part of it.
I have been asked also—and I think it is fair—to make an explanation on the presence here to-day of the noble Lord, Lord Normanbrook and the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. As your Lordships know, the duty of replying to this debate rests with the Government, and not with officials and executives of the two Authorities concerned who may happen to be Members of your Lordships' House. Under the so-called Addison Rule it has been

925
established that the noble Lords should not intervene in this debate at all. I think that this is wise and right; although I personally regret it; and I hope your Lordships will understand this and will not regard their silence as a sullen one.
I should like to preface my remarks, and some criticisms that I want to make on these two Reports, by making one basic statement which I hope your Lordships will take as a kind of framework for what I have to say later. It is this. In my view, we have in Britain one of the finest, if not the finest television and broadcasting services in the world. I do not think that anybody who has watched television abroad in any quantity would really doubt this. I wish also to add, that in my view, in spite of the great deal of criticism levelled at it, B.B.C. 2 has, after a shaky start, made a tremendous contribution, is going to prove itself to be a success and is an experiment that has been proved well worth while. I hope your Lordships will bear that kind of approach in mind with what I have to say.
My Lords, going through these Reports, and analysing them, I think that if I had to write an end-of-term report for the B.B.C. and I.T.A. what I would say is this: "You have worked hard and achieved some excellent results over a wide field, but you need to use your imagination more and try to raise the quality of your work. You tend to be rather slapdash at times and careless with your language. You are too easily influenced by what the boy next to you is doing, and you tend to imitate him; and you ought to try to get your weight down a bit."I would apply that comment to both channels.
A striking feature of the Reports is the immense scope and variety of the programmes and the sheer massive volume of it all. I think the word "channel" is a very apt one, for television is a channel down which every day a mighty flood of material surges and roars. What becomes clear when you look at these Reports is that television and radio (and I should like to make it clear that when I use the word "television" I include also sound radio) are not one thing but many things. They are a schoolroom, a newspaper, a concert hall, an art gal
926
lery, a cinema screen, a theatre, a workshop, a laboratory, a debating chamber, a platform, a playing field and a pulpit. Much of the criticism levelled at it fails to take account of the fact that it is all these things and not just one. It is connected with almost every home in the land. Thousands of its programmes are shown around the world.
I should like to give your Lordships two illustrations to indicate the enormous impact and spread of this medium. If you took the Drury Lane Theatre and filled it to the roof for eight performances a week, it would take 27 years to achieve the total audience which "Steptoe and Son" attracts in one night. Take the B.B.C. Shakespearean production, a magnificent thing, "The Age of Kings". If you took the Aldwych Theatre and played to full houses for eight performances a week, it would take twelve years to equal the audience of this series. This is the measure of the medium we are discussing to-day. We are discussing something which has rapidly become what we might call the Fifth Estate. Your Lordships will therefore, I am sure, forgive me if I do not touch on every aspect of the problem but concentrate on some of the points I feel to be important.
First, I should like to say a word or two about some of the attitudes to television. There has been a great deal of criticism by the Press, swinging from one extreme to the other; sometimes the B.B.C. has been the whipping boy and sometimes I.T.V. I thought that things had gone a little far when, just before Christmas, I saw the headline "Snow blocks I.T.V.", until I read on and realised it was referring to the weather. The attitudes to television divide roughly into two. On the one hand there are those who talk with real affection about the "telly"; then there are those who refer disdainfully to "the box". This is the real dividing line.
The first group comprises the vast majority. They get a great deal of simple pleasure out of most of the television programmes. They grumble about it sometimes, just as they do about the weather and about the Government, but, on the whole, they like it and are pleased to have it and, above all, they have learned to live with it. It does not dominate their lives as some critics seem to think. They are not so simple or so

927
naï ve as that. I know, from some of my own work that has rarely been popular with the critics. From my postbag, I know of the simple and warm response of people to some of these programmes.
The second group can, in a sense, be sub-divided. There are those who dismiss television as something that keeps "the peasants" quiet, and there are those who, more seriously, see it as a threat to artistic standards and who read all kinds of sinister undertones into some of the more popular programmes. The other day I came across something which might be described as an old "anti-Valentine", and to me it summed up some of these attitudes. It goes like this:
"When I watched you, I can't but allow
I had many an exquisite minute,
But the scorn that I feel for you now
Hath even more luxury in it.
Thus, whether you're on or you're off,
Some bitchery seems to await you.
To love you is pleasant enough,
But oh, 'tis delicious to hate you!"
One gets this feeling—I certainly do sometimes—reading, not so much some of the television critics and reviewers, but, much more, a new breed of person who seems to have developed in the last few years—those people studying the effect of mass media on the population. I do not want to scoff at this, because I think it is extremely valuable and important and in certain fields we do not know enough about it. On the other hand, I think that some of these people go off at half-cock and are suffering from what I have always regarded as one of the fundamental problems of this country, which has never yet been solved: that one half does not know how the other half live and think. The middle class knows relatively little about the approach and method of thought of working-class people, and vice versa. I think there are very big dangers in this. I think that they are right—and I speak here as a guilty man—when they say that much of the material on television reflects a shallow and superficial picture of the world. I want to come back to this in a moment.
I think it is right to attack some of the trivialities and banalities of television. I admit that I wanted to be sick the other evening when I saw a pretty little teenager intoning a song—I use the word lightly—some of the words of which went:
928
"We had a quarrel …
I was untrue on the night he died.
He rode into the night,
Accelerated his motor bike.
I cried in fright,
'Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it!'."
It wound up with:
"Terry, please wait at the gate of heaven for me."
I thought that was the worst drivel, and dangerous drivel, that I had heard for a very long time on television.
While I would accept a great deal of what the television critics say, I think they make certain mistakes. They fail to realise that television, like all art and communication, is in a sense a pyramid and they are criticising just one or two of the bricks in the pyramid. They are criticising just a small fraction of the output. They do not attempt to give sufficient credit to, or see clearly, what has already been achieved. It is a fact, which I think we should do well to bear in mind, that in proportion to their respective outputs, television has produced more first-rate drama in recent years than the theatre. The plays by Alun Owen, David Mercer, Clive Exton, John Bowen, and others, on television are at least equal in quality to many of the best produced in the theatre, and better than most. The West End theatre to-day is an island surrounded by musicals, and there are only one or two of the dramas which you can say are well-made or good straight plays. Even some of the good straight plays, which do not profess to be anything more than entertainment, are not better, and are even worse, than the dramatic scenes on television like "Z-Cars" and "The Planemakers". This kind of proportion has to be borne in mind. In the cinema, I do not think that anything has been produced in the last few years to equal the B.B.C. 2 achievement in the series on the Great War, which was magnificent.
I think that the great mistake these critics make is to underestimate and underwrite the viewers. They betray their attitude when they describe viewers as the admass. If you start to think of television audiences as admass, you suggest that once millions and millions of people—all the engineers, carpenters, clerks, shop assistants, business men and executives—have finished work for the day they stop thinking and become a

929
great jellylike mass which just absorbs what is being put in front of them. This "holier than thou" attitude is expressed in the criticism of many programmes. For example, there is a programme that has been running for a good many years called "Take Your Pick". It is not one of my particular favourites, but I confess that I am puzzled when some critics see in this all kind of sinister undertones and suggest that such a programme exploits the simplicity of ordinary people and plays on their worst instincts and encourages greed. I think that this is no different from, and no worse than, people: putting on paper hats at Christmas. It is a simple parlour game, and from what I can see and from what I have been told by some people who appear in it, it is a pretty harmless game which they enjoy playing in.
By concentrating their criticism on this kind of thing the critics reduce the value of their criticism and the value of critics. This really is a bit too solemn. People are not so simple as that. We should remember that people work hard to-day and have a physical and psychological need for relaxation and entertainment, which they can often get from television. We have all had the experience of coming home dead tired, wanting only to sink into an armchair and look at something. There is no harm in this. In a sense, it is a positive contribution. And the viewer has as much right to this as a don at a university has to read his cheap thriller, or even to write it. I admire Arthur Miller, but I should not want to see his plays every night. We should think in proportion.
What can be done to raise the quality of television? First, taking the B.B.C., I think that the most urgent thing is to give them the money to do the job. I think that the B.B.C. have been shamefully treated by Parliament in this respect. They were asked to extend their services and to build B.B.C. 2, yet they have been denied an increased licence fee, and are still denied it. The man who takes the Daily Mirror and the Sunday Mirror pays out £6 10s. a year. Top people taking the "top paper" plus the Sunday Times pay out £9 10s. a year. Therefore, it is impossible to suggest that £6 a year for television is too expensive. For 4d. a day, the viewer would get a choice of three television services, three radio programmes and a start in colour televi-
930
sion. I hope that the Government will end this shilly-shallying and make this increase boldly and explain why it should be made. I think there should be certain provisos—concessions for old-age pensioners and arrangements for the quarterly payment of licences. In addition, I think that there should be a long, hard look at B.B.C. finance generally. Looking at the figures, there is too high a proportion of money spent on management and as against creative production.
The next thing which I think would be an improvement is a much greater development of regional production. This is a fundamental issue, not only in relation to B.B.C. but to I.T.V. as well. The whole structure has become top-heavy and centralised and needs to be broken down into smaller and more viable operating units in which the creative people who provide the primary production can get near the places where decisions are taken. With l.T.V. the problem is slightly different—to really open up the network to products from the smaller regions. This is not just a problem for television, but a vital problem for the country as a whole. If we are to stop the drift to the South-East, it is essential to improve the quality of life in the regions, and clearly television can and must play a big part in this. Neither I.T.V. nor B.B.C. have a good record here, though I think that B.B.C. radio has some immense successes to its credit.
I should like to take Scotland as an example, not because I wish to single out Scotland particularly, but because I think Scotland clearly illustrates the points I have in mind. Television, in a Scottish sense, is virtually moribund. Some of the programmes we think of as Scottish are in fact produced in the London studios. Until two years ago the B.B.C. had grossly inadequate facilities. The entire transmission equipment consisted of one obsolete O.B. unit, and the studio was a small converted cinema.
Last May, with a fanfare of trumpets, a new studio was opened and was announced as a new centre for drama in Scotland. But with what result? It was commandeered for B.B.C. 2 productions, which will not be seen in Scotland for some years. There have been only local network productions—some Andy Stewart spectaculars, and some editions of an "off-peak" revue. There is the example of a leading writer who, together with a

931
Scottish television executive, tried to develop an idea for a Scottish series. But this was blocked by the Wazirs of Wood Lane, who informed him that they had in mind the purchase of an American series on the same lines. And so what was a genuine attempt to build up a Scottish series, which would have used Scottish writers and Scottish actors, and would have been produced in Glasgow, was finished.
I am rather astonished, my Lords, that the Scots, who have a fiery attitude towards their independence, have put up with this situation for so long. There is far too much centralisation; too many decision are taken from this one centre at Wood Lane. I have heard it described (and I think that this might apply also to the headquarters of some television companies) as like the Bed of Procrustes, where people are shortened to fit the bed. In certain other areas the B.B.C. have managed to develop certain regional productions, and are building other studios. I am hopeful that they will push ahead with this essential task of developing drama and other productions in the regions. But it is necessary, in order to achieve this, to break the almost Papal authority with which London rules the regions, and to give those regions much more self-government.
If we turn to I.T.V. in Scotland, the picture is just as black, if not more so. With Scottish Television, Ltd., drama policy is non-existent. There have been twelve plays in seven years. Apart from a small donation to Scottish repertory companies, there has been no significant contribution to Scottish cultural life. And that is true also of many of the other regional companies. Their franchise was granted on the assurance that regional creative talent would be developed and encouraged. There is very little sign of this, with the honourable exception of Granada and, to some extent, of Television, Wales and West. The smaller companies complain that they cannot get on the network. And it is true that we had the extraordinary situation, some months ago, when Television Wales and West produced a feature on Dylan Thomas which they could not sell to A.T.V.; and it was eventually taken by the B.B.C.
On the other hand, I believe that many of these companies are quite happy with this position: they are content merely to fulfil their quota by putting out news, sports features and record shows, all of which are cheap and make no demands on them. Some time ago the smaller companies formed themselves into a regional association to try to pool resources. I saw in this move some hope that they would be developing their own productions. So far, however, results are not encouraging. The latest news is that they have bought over 100 episodes of "Peyton Place" an American series which has been described as a sort of "Mrs. Dale's Diary with sex". This is a case, I believe, of "forcing white out and forcing grey in." The I.T.A. ought to use their authority here to insist that regional companies fulfil local obligations to sink real roots in their areas. I believe that this would lead to a tremendous improvement in the overall quality of television. It means that they must be given guaranteed access to the network for regional drama, and it means that, when the time comes, we must have the reorganisation of some regions, with the abolition of some of the smaller ones, to create more viable units.
I should like to turn now for a moment to say a word or two about drama. The volume on television is so great, and pressures so hard, that there is a temptation to take the easy way out. This is seen in the development of so many series, many of which, as I have said, are excellent. But I believe that if this tendency to develop series, as against individual drama is carried too far it will destroy the basis of television and significantly reduce quality. Series are relatively easy to organise; plays, being individual things, are difficult and messy. So it is simple to take the easy way out. In a series, the attitudes of the people are simple; the characters are uncomplicated and the morality is easily accepted.
But even at its best—and I am not suggesting for one moment (otherwise I should be denigrating myself) that great skill is not needed in developing series—writing for series is glib, oversimplified and therefore distorted; it perpetuates received attitudes; it is formula writing; it is instant, pre-digested melodrama. This is all right on the level of sheer

933
entertainment—and sometimes it achieves more than that. But it is not enough. Quality, basically, in television is bound up with the number of creative workers—actors, artistes, writers, and so forth—that are available. These can be basically developed only by one thing: quality of acting, producing and writing original drama in all its forms. One of the reasons for the drastic and rather shameful decline of American television has been the death of original drama on their channels.
I believe that a good deal of the criticism that has been levelled at some drama would be avoided if the B.B.C. and I.T.V. developed a particular time-slot for some contemporary drama, and kept to it. Both authorities should take a lead in encouraging television drama by setting a target to double the number of original plays. The B.B.C. and I.T.V. should make it possible for a writer to live by writing original drama, without diluting his talent on series. This may seem to your Lordships to be a rather internal argument, but let me assure you that it is not.
All the finest work, the path-finding, so far as standards are concerned, is done by the creative people; and the creative people can best express themselves when they are not straitjacketed by the formula that is found in a series: in other words, when they are given the freedom to develop them. And out when the actors and directors are given the freedom to develop them. And out of these writers can come a whole flood of talent which can help to improve the quality of television. This is just the same as the manufacturer looking for people and training them to fill executive posts in the future. It is in original dramas that new techniques can be explored, and new writers developed, and that the great problems of our time can be illuminated.
I think that we need to give greater attention to minorities. Here, too, there could be a significant increase in quality. The fault at the moment is that programming, in some cases, is too irregular. We have occasional ballet, occasional concerts and occasional operas. In my view, it would be a great deal better if there were a regular, fixed time-slot for some of these things, so that we could know when we could
934
see them. We know that if we go to Sadler's Wells, or to Covent Garden, we shall hear opera or see ballet. We should be able to know that if we tune in on a particular evening at a particular time, on one or other of the channels, we may be able to see something for which we may have a minority taste. Of course, programmes with the widest appeal must be shown at the peak periods. But ratings must not be regarded as the only criterion of success. One of the nicest gestures I have heard of was when Frank Muir and Denis Norden presented Sir Robert Fraser, the Director-General of the I.T.A., with a model of the battleship "Potemkin" to put on his desk to show him what happens when the ratings get the upper hand. I think the whole issue in this was put by Gerald Beadle, of the B.B.C, when he said that: "The target must be to make what is good popular, and what is popular good."
My Lords, I must hurry on, but I want to draw attention very quickly to another important aspect of these Reports and something which has great importance for the future; that is, the question of exports. This is something to which greater attention must be paid, because I assure your Lordships that there is an immense potential here, so far as exports are concerned. English is a world-wide language, and television is a world-wide medium. But a trade gap exists here, too: and we import far more than we export. Nevertheless, one T.V. film company earned almost 5 million dollars last year in the world market; and the B.B.C. itself earned over 3 million dollars. Moreover, the value of this sort of export cannot be measured in terms of finance. For example, the "Great War" series has already been sold in 30 countries. "English by television," an educational series, has been sold in 30 countries. "The Age of Kings" has been sold throughout the world. This must be good for what is called our "image" in a world where we want to export.
Therefore, I think that greater attention should be paid to this by both Authorities, and that steps should be taken to try to improve the level. If necessary, I think some Government help should be given in this field, because I believe that if we get in now, and get in early, we can

935
provide for ourselves an enormous worldwide market which can bring valuable currency into this country. We need to break into the American market, and we need to do some hard talking here. We take dozens of their series on our networks—and some of them very good, too—but they take not one of ours. I think it is time somebody put his foot down and said to the Americans, "Let us have a sense of proportion about this. For every six of yours that we take, at least take one of ours."
We thought to consider also—and this is a matter for the Government—the question of subsidising, in certain areas, the broadcasting of television and radio programmes. The B.B.C. has an immense backlog of educational and other material which is locked up and cannot be used for lack of finance. For example, the Americans, when the Australian television market opened, were selling some of their more popular series for absolutely nominal sums in order to get the market— £25 an episode for "I Love Lucy ", when an equivalent programme could not be produced for under £10, 000. The B.B.C. was unable to compete on that level because of its obligations to the people concerned in the programmes. Therefore, I think this is a question which ought to be investigated by the Government, to see whether some subsidy could not be given, or some effort could not be made, to unlock this material, all of which would be excellent export material for Britain.
Now just one or two words on the future. I have said very little about radio, but I think everybody in this country has a great affection for what it is and what it has done. It has provided a real public service. Therefore, in whatever is done to extend radio, nothing should be done to damage what has been built up already by the B.B.C. On the question of commercial radio, and in particular of the "pirate" ships, I notice that they are now claiming that, having been in operation for a few months, they have proved that they fulfil a need, and therefore their position should be regularised. To my mind, this is equivalent to saying that if in a certain area there were a mass outbreak of assaults on young women, the way to deal with the problem would be to legalise rape. I hope that the radio ships will be sent about their business.
I think there is a case for local radio, and I should like to see three things happen in this respect. I consider that the B.B.C. radio should be separated off from B.B.C. television and run completely separately. The B.B.C. should be given authority to set up a dozen local radio stations in association with local authorities and universities. The control and scope of the stations should be varied; there should be as much experimenting as possible to find out what is the best way to run them and to operate them. The situation should be reviewed after two or three years of this particular scheme. We might also authorise an experiment by six or seven independent local radio stations, if people are prepared to come forward and run them, to see how they operate.
There is the question of the extension of television. I believe the fourth channel must come, but I do not consider it is an urgent necessity. The one thing of which I am sure is that at some stage or another the present I.T.V. monopoly in television advertising must be broken. But it would be degrading for Parliament to leave things to pressure groups, and I believe the Government ought to set up some kind of Committee to study the whole problem of the extension of television, plan it in association with other Government policies, and remove it from the area of the Lobby.
Pay-television was seen as an alternative channel. Personally, I have very little hope that present experiments will be successful, if, indeed, they ever go ahead. We have also been told about the University of the Air. I think this is a very fine conception, but I believe also that education ought to be done through the existing services, and that it would be wrong to put education into a ghetto. It ought to be part and parcel of our existing television. In general, so far as our present resources in television are concerned, we ought to spend a little time digesting what we have and making what we have work better.
I have covered a great deal of ground and I have still left out a large number of questions which I hope will be touched on in the debate. I cannot leave the debate without referring finally to what I consider to be one key question, and that is the responsibility of television. I believe that in a whole number of vastly important fields both

937
Authorities are not doing all they could. I do not consider that neutrality on some of the important subjects that face this country is enough.
The B.B.C., in its Report, says some very brave words about drama.
"Serious writers of to-day must be allowed to say freely what they feel about the society in which they live."
This is absolutely right, but I think we ought to face the fact that a great deal of the material that is being written and developed to-day and a great deal of the social attitudes of to-day are purely destructive. Much of the so-called satire is "sick". It is a complete surrender to the urge towards hatred and destruction, to despair and boredom. This is the root of the criticism of some television plays. I believe that people, in focusing on violence and sex in these plays, are getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. What they are objecting to, I think, is that many of these plays, or some of them, are basically defeatist in their attitude and destructive in their approach.
I think it is right that these plays should go on—I would fight to the death anybody who said that they should not. I think it is right that we should have satire that deflates pomposity and bureaucracy. On the other hand, we have to face the fact that we are living in a society fighting for survival, and nobody, least of all those in television, can afford to be neutral. Let me give one example of what I mean. We have had a year in which young people have seldom been out of the news. There is the problem of how you are going to handle young people, juvenile delinquents, and so on. It has been discussed ad infinitum. But it is not enough, in my view, that television should show news and features which reflect what is happening and offer a few biased viewpoints about what should be done. A positive line should be taken in this field. The B.B.C. and the I.T.A. should find out what is needed in such a field, what is being done to cope with the problem, and throw their full weight behind such things.
For example, I am informed that there is a desperate shortage of youth leaders in this country. Why on earth cannot the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. jointly get together and actively appeal on television for more youth leaders, and try to encourage people who are sitting at home to give up one or
938
two nights a week to help in local youth clubs, scout troops and so forth? This would be a positive contribution. And I am taking that only as one particular example. There are dozens of other ways in which I think the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. should come down from this neutral position and actively campaign and help in some of the problems which are facing the country. We had an example of the kind of response that can be obtained when you ask people to do something, when Rediffusion the other week invited young people under fifteen years of age to write plays. They are getting them in now at the rate of 700 a week.
Television can bring a tremendous influence to bear on people, and it should not always be a negative one, one that merely reflects. It should be one that speaks for certain positive values. We have had some examples of what can be done in programmes like "Panorama ", "Tonight" and (what is my favourite programme, which I think does more in this field, in an entertaining way) "On the Braden Beat". I am not suggesting that the authorities should launch a "Do-good" campaign, but they should consider whether they are doing enough to redeem life from insignificance; to activise people and to provide inspiration and stimulation in all its forms; to direct the nation's attention to its greatest problems, and to inspire action to solve these problems. When they begin to do this, I believe that television will have come of age. I beg to move for Papers.

THE CONCORD PROJECT
4.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to intervene to repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Aviation, in another place on the future of the Concord project. The Statement is as follows:—
"We have now completed the review of the Concord project which we set in hand in October and we have exchanged views with the French Government. We had, and we still

939
retain, some doubts about the financial and economic aspects of the project. We have, however, been much impressed by the confidence of our French partners, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has informed the French Prime Minister that we stand by the Treaty obligations into which the last Government decided to enter. During the coming months we shall be discussing with our partners the detailed programme of development and production.
"Now that the uncertainty over the future of this project has been removed, I am sure that all those concerned with it on both sides of the Channel will press forward with a real sense of purpose. In this they will have the full backing of Her Majesty's Government."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for repeating the Statement made in another place here this afternoon, and I think, regardless of whether or not anybody thinks the Concord is a project which is economically desirable or one which can economically stand on its own feet, we are all glad that Her Majesty's Government have decided to stand by their Treaty obligations. May I ask the noble Lord what exactly is meant by
"During the coming months we shall be discussing with our partners the detailed programme of development and production."?
In the last month or two we have had a good deal of information by inspired leak. I do not know whether this is an inspired leak or not, but certainly we read in the papers recently that what is going to happen with the Concord is that we are going ahead to build a few prototypes and then possibly the whole thing will be dropped, depending on whether or not the prototypes are successful. Do the words in the Statement imply that, or do they mean that we are going ahead full blast with the Concord?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we do not intend, if we can help it, to get the worst of both worlds—that is, to spend the money and lose the market. The cost of this project has gone up enormously. Originally it was going to cost this country about £75 million, purely on the
940
"R. and D." side. Now it is up to £140 million, and I think it may be as well to look at the progress and perhaps judge it in relation to the performance of the prototypes when they fly. To that extent discussions will take place in relation to this matter. The important thing is that the partnership is going on, and we hope very much that it will succeed and will lead to aircraft coming into service in the airlines in the early 1970s.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask one more question, further to what the noble Lord said? He implies that there could be a break in the contract if the prototypes do not come up to the expectations which we all hold. Is this agreed to by the French Government?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is precisely the sort of discussion that will take place. I think it is so hypothetical at the moment that I hope noble Lords will not read more into what I have said. It will clearly be desirable to see how the project goes on. Our French partners have very great confidence. We had some more doubts, perhaps, but, in the light of their confidence, we are prepared enthusiastically to go ahead.
LORD REA: My Lords, I also should like to thank the Minister for his Statement and say that I hope he realises that it will give a lot of satisfaction throughout the country that Her Majesty's Government are supporting some co-ordination with the Continent of Europe. For my own part, I am particularly glad it should be France, with whom we must get into contact sooner or later, and I hope that the Government may modify their views on such matters as the Common Market. But there is one implication in this Statement, as I see it, which rather disturbs me, when the Minister says that the Government "stand by the Treaty obligations" because, I understand, they have been impressed by the confidence of their French partners. Surely there are better reasons for standing by one's obligations than this.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord had the text of what I said, but if by any chance he had, I can only say that he has presented it in a thoroughly misleading way.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, may I also say how grateful I am to hear that we are going ahead with this imaginative project, but may I also ask the Minister to point out that there is no lack of confidence on the part of British industry? The Government talk about confidence on the French part. There is no lack of confidence whatsoever on the part of British industry. Any lack of confidence is on the part of the Government themselves. I should be glad if the Minister would point that out.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we shall, of course, have an opportunity to debate this subject, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, for postponing his debate from an earlier time. I think ample reasons have been given why there should be concern about this project. I do not propose to go through them all now. The noble Earl will know that these were certainly not confined to the Government, or the Opposition as it then was. Noble Lords will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, expressed doubts. The cost has gone up enormously, and our concern is that what should emerge is an aircraft that will be an economic proposition. That is our hope. But reasons have been given why it was right to review the project.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am quite sure that the Minister's Statement will give great pleasure to those who are keen on the maintenance of good Anglo-French relations, but I should like to take this opportunity to ask him two questions. Will the noble Lord assure the House that there will be no loss of advantage in time over our American competitors? Can he confirm that? Secondly, as on July 8 last the then Minister of Aviation said that it was expected that the first Concord prototype would fly in 1967, can the noble Lord say now whether that timetable will be affected or whether it will be adhered to? Or is it too early for him to be able to say?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord meant by the first part of his question. I can assure him that so far there has
942
been no loss of time at all. The project has gone ahead while the discussions were going on. I think that answers that point. There is every intention that it should go ahead. As to the date of the first prototype, it still remains as it was, 1966-67. I should perhaps like to use the sort of phrase that was sometimes used about aircraft projects by the Opposition when they were the Government, when they talked about the "middle 'sixties". I think this will be the late-early-middle 'sixties.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, with regard to my first question, what I meant was, will the Government bear in mind very closely that at the moment we have a lead over the Americans with regard to supersonic civil aircraft, and will they maintain that lead for this country and France?
LORD SHACKLETON: I personally cannot guarantee anything as definite as that, but this is really the intention of the exercise.

THE BROADCASTING SERVICES
4.8 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that we should all like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willis, on one of the best speeches he has made in this House. He is a most distinguished script-writer in his own right, if I may use that term, and I think that his services are used by both channels. I agreed with a very great deal of what he said, if not perhaps all. I thought he was right when he said that we had the best programmes in the world; that when our programmes are good they are the best in the world. I am certain they are. I also agreed very much with what he had to say about exports and the need to consider that aspect of the problem. I also think he made an extremely good point about youth leaders, and I hope, again, that that will be noticed by both broadcasting organisations. I hope that, although it may still be snowing outside, there will not be any blocks either outside or inside the House to-day. I hope the noble Lord who winds up this debate will, in fact, find what has been said on both sides of the House to

943
be reasonably congenial to him. At all events, I hope we shall not need "Dixon of Dock Green" to clear up the mess, either inside or outside.
As your Lordships know, I was not directly concerned with broadcasting, not even educational broadcasting, while I was in the Government, although my right honourable friend and I were successful in our efforts, which were our chief interest, in encouraging the B.B.C. and Independent Television to put on more programmes on applied science and technology and engineering. However, having spoken on broadcasting policy fairly frequently in former years, while still a Back-Bencher, and declaring an interest, in so far as I am associated with Independent Television, your Lordships know that I have been impressed, as I think have others on both sides of the House, by the educational television systems in the United States and in Japan. There, in many areas, in addition to three, four or five general services, public service and commercial, there is also not merely one but, in some cases, two educational channels: one general, designed for schools and adult educational subjects of wider interest, and the other much more specialised. I shall refer again to that matter a little later.
But the need for educational services unhampered by the requirements of entertainment is not the only problem calling for urgent consideration in the field of broadcasting in this country. Another, of course, is the introduction of a second independent service which would secure the kind of genuine competition which was always contemplated under the original Television Act. There is also the vexed question, which the noble Lord has mentioned, of the proposed increase of 50 per cent. in the B.B.C. licence fee. And, of course, there is the problem of the impending suppression of the "pirate" radio stations.
As your Lordships are aware, this country already has two national television services, and a third service, B.B.C. 2, which so far operates only in London and the Midlands. The two national services are, if I may be mildly technical, radiated in the very high frequencies on the old-fashioned standard of 405 lines. The third service. B.B.C. 2, is radiated in the ultra high frequencies on the new
944
and better standard of 625 lines. It is now acknowledged by many people that B.B.C. 2, although it has produced some very good programmes, has been perhaps something of a disappointment. Technically the Service is excellent, and the improvement in the quality of the picture has fully justified the Government's decision to advance from the outmoded prewar standard of 405 lines. Unfortunately, however, the programmes, with a few exceptions, seem to have failed to excite the interest of a wide public. Not only has B.B.C. 2 perhaps not lived up to its preliminary claims of serious intention, a kind of third programme in television, if you like, but the B.B.C.'s overt attempts at popularisation have not, I thing, so far met with much response. I am not among those who decry B.B.C. 2. I am merely sorry that it has not been more successful.
As your Lordships will have heard before in these debates, in these ultra high frequencies there is ample room for additional national services. A new independent service on the improved 625-line standard could be introduced to-morrow, or at any rate very soon, and I think if there were more independent stations we might also get rather more regional effort, the kind of regional effort which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, would like to see; although I might add, in parenthesis, that the independent television companies seem to do considerably more regional programmes than the B.B.C. regions do.
The record of the independent companies is that they have shown themselves able to produce television services every bit as responsible and well informed as those of the B.B.C., while still possessing something which I think is an indispensable element: that is to say, the common touch. There is, I believe, ample talent available for a second independent service which the public would enjoy, and there is ample finance available from advertising to support such a service. Not only would a second independent television service give immense pleasure to the public, but it would serve to show national confidence in this new 625-line standard to which the country is now committed. And it would also encourage viewers to acquire dual-standard receivers on which they could receive not only B.B.C. 2 but also the kind of wholly educational service which I have so

945
often advocated. It seems to me too much to expect that the electronics industry of this country will throw all their resources and energy into the manufacture of 625-line receivers if the programmes provided by the one broadcasting organisation which gives this 625-line service should have failed by a certain margin so far to have hit the target.
In this age in which our exports are vital to the national economy, it is essential that British manufacturers should be able to practise the most modern methods of marketing, both at home and abroad. It is a little ironic, therefore, that whereas overseas the advertiser can choose the television service which he prefers, he is denied this right in the home market. Every advertiser to whom I have spoken would welcome the possibility of enjoying the same freedom in television advertising as he already enjoys in Press advertising. Indeed, it is a sad reflection on what I might call the monopoly mentality that it allows for only a single independent television service divided up between a number of non-competitive companies.
I do not think that the introduction of advertising into the B.B.C. service, which is sometimes suggested, really provides the answer. Historically, the B.B.C. is opposed to taking advertising, and I see that in a recent letter to The Times Sir Harry Pilkington, Chairman of the last Committee on Broadcasting, advocates the continuance of the licence system and the rejection of advertising; and I agree with him in this matter.
Your Lordships will have learned, perhaps with some dismay, that it is proposed that the B.B.C. licence fee should be increased from £4 to £6. I think it is a startling increase, even in these days of startlingly rising prices. I do not find very much consolation in the somewhat bland assurance that even at the rate of £6 a year this amounts to only 4d. a day. Fourpence a day extracted from some 14 million licence holders adds up to approximately £28 million a year. That is a lot of money. And remember that it is approximately £28 million added to some £46 million, which is the figure of expenditure published to-day in the B.B.C. Handbook
946
for the year ended March, 1964; and this therefore gives a grand total—or should I say a very grand total?—of £74 million. I do not think this is the kind of sum to be agreed to lightly, simply because a public corporation asks for it. It is palpably absurd, in my view, that the British public, some 60 per cent. of which prefers the independent television programmes, should be asked to pay an additional £2 to the B.B.C. in order to be permitted to operate a television receiver in the home at all. The case for an educational service in addition to and not in place of, a second independent service is, I think, quite simple. I have often argued it in your Lordships' House. No one familiar with the exigencies of scheduling a television service can imagine that it is possible to meet all the requirements of the classroom, let alone of adult education, in the evenings, while fulfilling the legitimate requirements of an entertainment service. It is no part of my thinking that a new national education service should be introduced overnight.
Up and down the country there are universities and education authorities who have shown their keen interest in the extended use of television for teaching purposes. I am glad that a number of experimental projects have been launched such as that of the Cambridge Television Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Peter Lazlett, in cooperation with a regional television company. This is a venture which was followed by the Wiltshire experiment—the name is that of the professor and not the county. This was arranged by the University of Nottingham in cooperation with two other independent companies. Then, also, there is the closed-circuit experiment at Leeds University which has been inspired by Professor Hemingway and has been strongly supported by their Vice-Chancellor, my distinguished friend, Sir Roger Stevens. Then there is the independent medical series in Glasgow. This was a project which I am sure we all welcomed and which seems to have proven itself to be so useful that I see that B.B.C.2 are introducing a new series entitled "Medicine To-day", in co-operation with the noble Lord, Lord Brain, who is chairman of the Association for the Study of Medical Education.

947
These ventures are encouraging. They should be applauded, and I think there is little doubt that the universities and adult education organisations are glad to see them being furthered. I am only sorry that no progress seems to have been made in the project in which I think Queens University, Belfast, were interested in conjunction with the I.T.A. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, or the noble Lord, Lord Snow, whom I did warn that I was going to raise this point, can say anything further about this. In my view, the healthiest form of democratic growth would be to allow these universities and education authorities to conduct their own educational television services, combining at a later stage into a national network in the light of the experience which they would separately gain in the use of localised services.
We have heard much of the proposed University of the Air. When I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, on November 17 last, what progress was being made in the Prime Minister's plan, he said in reply to a supplementary that he certainly hoped to give me a fuller statement within the famous 100 days. So I am expecting a great deal from noble Lords opposite this afternoon. Not many days are left, and I hope sincerely that they will have something further to say about this most ambitious and laudable plan.
At the same time it is worth noting that the number of schools in this country which are equipped to receive programmes over the regular channels is gradually increasing. I think that 7,000 schools in the United Kingdom are now able to receive the regular broadcasts put out on the two existing channels; but I might add that there are still, I think, some 28, 000 schools that are not yet able to receive them. Therefore, of approximately 7½ million children attending schools in this country, only some 300, 000 are able to take advantage of the existing transmissions. A great many children are not, therefore, able to profit from the 40 or so hours of educational broadcasting which is already available for each teacher's selection every week during term time. Interesting details on this subject are given in a lecture which was delivered by my friend Mr. Norman Collins in September last at Tawney House,
948
Matlock. I strongly recommend those of your Lordships who are interested in this subject to read this Tawney lecture.
It is clear from the facts which I have given that progress is certainly being made in this country on both channels and separately in the ways I have indicated. All this is encouraging. All the same—and this is partly for technical reasons connected with the changeover of standards—we have still not yet achieved the wider range of programming which is to be seen in the two countries which I mentioned earlier. I was particularly interested in Japan in the proposed separate educational T.V. programming which is to be devoted mainly to industrial training and retraining. I read recently the remarks of the Minister of Technology, who expects soon to take his seat in another place, that—and I quote him:
"There ought to be some intensive attempts at retraining for job movement"
and that in other countries there are something like ten times as many people being trained for new jobs which may entail switching from one part of the country to another. When I read that I thought again what a useful part a local educational television service could play in assisting in such training and retraining.
In the White Paper on Broadcasting in 1962 six programmes were definitely contemplated, two in V.H.F. and four in U.H.F.; and in the Television Act, 1963, to which considerable reference is made in the Report of the Independent Television Authority, a second commercial channel appears to be considered as a definite possibility, if not a probability. As I say, I hope that there will not be any block here to-day, and that the present Government will not debar this, if only for the reasons which I have already given.
I hope, as I say, that new educational stations as well as independent stations may be established, shall I say in parallel, so that we may end up with two alternative B.B.C. channels, two competitive I.T.A. services in, at all events, the more highly populated areas, and one or possibly two educational services in the main centres as well. At the same time, I would hope that the two B.B.C. and the two I.T.A. services would continue with the kind of educational programmes which are particularly suitable for the wider and less specialised audiences.

949
I might have said something about sound broadcasting, but I agree largely with what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said. I think that his suggestions in this regard are very appropriate indeed; and I am glad that the agreed that there should perhaps be some independent radio stations as well. I will not, therefore, go into details here; but I think that if local radio of this kind is established, then this will certainly put paid to the "pirates" and put them out of business.
In short, I feel that there is still a great deal to be done in British broadcasting if we are to remain abreast of the rest of the world. I do not propose this afternoon to give too many personal observations of my own on the kind of programmes which are at present available on radio or television. This is done often enough, and the special predilections of your Lordships are always given abundant publicity. I will not, therefore, say whether I consider "Emergency Ward 10" to be a more interesting programme than "Dr. Kildare"; nor that I am more fascinated by "Fireball X.L/" than by "Dr. Who" on the B.B.C., although I must admit that if, in recognition of the remarkable speech which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, the other day, we are anxious that people in this country should be more industrious—I think the noble Lord said the American worker was sometimes four times as productive as the British workman—then I think we have a good deal to learn from the ants, or zarbies as they are called in "Dr. Who".
In conclusion, as I say, I hope that some progress will be made in the establishment of wholly educational stations as well as independent stations. If this means that some households may find it necessary to acquire two television receivers—one for Dad, who may prefer to look at Frankie Howerd, when he returns from work, and another for Mum or the daughters in another room, who may perhaps be more interested in learning a language, or at any rate in brushing up on a domestic science subject such as cooking, dressmaking or hairdressing, all of which subjects could be dealt with by televisio n—then I do not think that it would be a bad thing. All in all, in regard to some existing items on television, I would hope that they would be
950
more of a programme and not so much the kind of way of life we sometimes see on the little screen.
4.32 p.m.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Willis on raising the question of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. Reports and Accounts by moving this Motion for Papers. The noble Lord has thereby given your Lordships an opportunity to question those who have to answer ministerially, and also has initiated a debate on matters of policy. The ramifications of these two vitally important public corporations, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., extend into every household in the land, either by visual or by sound media, and it is valuable that Parliament from time to time should discuss not only the programme content but the future developments which are intended to be pursued by both corporations. Whatever remarks are made in speeches this afternoon, whether they be critical or constructive, I am sure both Corporations will pay great attention to what has been said.
We are fortunate to have present in the House this afternoon both the noble Lord, Lord Normanbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, the respective heads of both Corporations. It is with great pleasure that I see on my right, sitting in pensive mood on the Cross Benches, that great pioneer of British broadcasting, Lord Reith. I am sure we should all like to pay tribute to the way in which he laid on solid foundations the British broadcasting system, which is a credit and a pride to the world. Perhaps I may be forgiven a personal note in expressing my thanks to Lord Reith for the friendly way he received me, when, as a very junior and humble Minister in another place, I made my first visit to the B.B.C., and for the engineering phraseology which he immediately used to put me at my ease.
Noble Lords will appreciate that the 16 broadcasting organisations are put through the hoop from time to time. We had the Beveridge Report and then the Pilkington Report; and there has been a good deal of legislation. Nobody in either House of Parliament would, I am sure, agree with all the recommendations put forward by the Pilkington Committee; but at least what these Reports have done is to clarify the problems which

951
arise. Already some of those problems have been raised this afternoon. Following these Reports there was legislation in the 1963 Television Act, which extended the life of the I.T.A. for a further twelve years until 1976, and made several changes in the structure of independent television. Many of your Lordships took part in the discussions on that Bill. There has been a new Charter and Licence and Agreement for the B.B.C., which came into force last July and which extended its life until 1976.
However, broadcasting is dynamic, never static, never still, and there are some problems which Her Majesty's Government are studying. Their views will be announced in due course. I propose to endeavour to answer some of the points which have been raised: there is going to be no attempt, so far as I myself am concerned, and I am sure this will apply to my noble friend, Lord Snow, to evade answering questions. That does not mean that on every question which has been or will be raised we can give the answer; but if we cannot give the answer, we will tell noble Lords why that is the case. I think that is as much as can be expected of any Government spokesman on an industry which at the moment is undergoing change.
So far as the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, setting out their views on programme contents, are concerned, well, they are their own personal views, with some of which I agree and with some of which I do not. I shall endeavour to illustrate some of the problems which face the Postmaster General and the heads of the Corporations in dealing with programming. I shall perhaps give my own personal opinion on some of the programmes and where I personally think things may have gone wrong.
Let us deal with the first bone of contention raised both by my noble friend Lord Willis and by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. It is the question of the B.B.C. licensing fee. At the present moment the B.B.C. are advocating that there should be a £6 combined licence for television and sound, and a 25s. licence for sound only—something for which they have been asking since July, 1962. The present
952
licence fee is £4 combined, and £1 for sound only. It is perfectly true that the Post Office take a 7 per cent. deduction out of that fee for collecting the licence and for administrative expenses. The amount deducted by the Post Office has been the subject of examination. Nobody has said that it was excessive; nobody has said that the Post Office have not done the job efficiently and well. Therefore it is something which must continue.
What is the reason for the B.B.C.'s feeling that they are going to get "into the red"? Their case is that as a result of Government policy—I am not making any debating point; it is not this Government's policy, although we do not disagree with it—B.B.C. 2 has been initiated both in London and in Birmingham on ultra high frequencies. There has also been the extension of broadcasting hours which has already taken place. In addition there have been experiments in the use of colour, on which I propose to say something later on in my speech. Further, there is the separating of Welsh and Scottish television broadcasting from English broadcasting. This is carrying out policy, and the B.B.C.'s case is that they are faced with expenditure which has been incurred as a result of Government policy. Naturally, they ask what is going to be done about it.
Noble Lords direct questions to my noble friend Lord Snow and myself as to what we are going to do about it. At the present time the matter is being considered: I cannot go further than that. To the B.B.C. this may be a matter of urgency; but this Government have been in power only since October, and when one considers the problems with which the Government were faced it would hardly have been sensible to make this a matter of top priority. Indeed, to use a good Yorkshire expression, it would have been "plain daft". Therefore we are not in a position to commit ourselves. But let noble Lords be under No 1llusion: the matter is being considered, as it must be considered, because of the commitments into which the B.B.C. have entered.
Whilst we are on the question of finance, I think I ought to make one reference to an assumption—I think it

953
was hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Willis—that there was extravagance; that there was probably too much spent on management in the B.B.C. That was really the gravamen of his criticism. The fact remains that both Beveridge and Pilkington, as well as the Post Office, have had a look at the B.B.C.'s finances and at the manner in which they are administered, and there has not been one single word of criticism. That is remarkable. In point of fact, I submit that the B.B.C. are in the position where, if there are to be economies, they can be effected only by a change of policy. I have been through this matter very carefully, and there is no prima facie evidence whatsoever that there is extravagance in the administration of the B.B.C. Therefore, I submit that the possibility of solving the problem through making economies does not arise.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? In fairness, I think it ought to be made quite clear that I did not accuse the B.B.C. of extravagance. What I said was that a long, cool look should be taken at the proportion of money spent on executive work and on creative work.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, that is a difference without a real meaning. In any case the matter will be looked at—after all, this is a serious debate. But the fact is that two high-powered Committees have already had a look at this matter. Of course, ' the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are in almost unique position. They cannot have the normal Parliamentary watchdogs looking at their accounts—I am talking in terms of the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee—and, therefore, it is left to these independent Committees to do this work.
I want now to say a few words about the I.T.A.'s finances, a matter which has not so far been raised, but which I think is rather important, because of the general accusations—which came from both sides of both Houses, and were accepted—that the profits made by the programme contractors were excessive. I do not want to weary your Lordships by quoting a very famous remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, because it will be in all your minds. But the fact is that the previous Government did take action. And
954
what has happened now, as a result of that action? Under the 1963 Television Act, rentals have to be paid by the contractors to the Authority to meet the Authority's costs, including proper provision for reserves. Then, secondly, additional payments, in the form of a levy on contractors' net advertising receipts, are now payable to the Exchequer.
The scale of these payments is: nil on the first £1, 500, 000; 25 per cent. on the next £6 million; and 45 per cent. on the remainder. It was forecast by the previous Administration that the yield would be £15 million in the first year. Some contractors—and, indeed, some of the unions—thought that it would be much less and would cripple Independent Television. The levy came into force in July, 1964, and I am informed that present indications are that the yield will be higher than the previous Government forecast. Therefore, I think we can assume that both the contractors' fears and the unions' fears on that score were unjustified.
I want to endeavour to answer the point that there is not enough regional broadcasting or television, and I if omit anything I am sure that the noble Lord, when he winds ups, will fill in. We have been having a look at that matter, and I am informed that the B.B.C. have plans for an increase in their production capacity to places other than London. But I want to enter a caveat here, speaking as an ordinary individual who has in his time had a little to do with industry, and say that if you start dissipating your production all over the country you are going ipso facto to increase your costs. That is not to say that it should not be done partially; but if there is going to be a complete decentralisation, and the establishment of more television centres in Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow and Bristol, that is bound to increase costs very considerably. Therefore, the B.B.C., and, indeed, the programme companies, will have to balance the present assessments very carefully. But I assure the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that this problem is being looked at.
How far are programmes originating in the regions being put over the television networks and the sound networks? The latest information I have been able to obtain is that something like one-

955
sixth or one-fifth of the total number of hours on the national services of the B.B.C. originates in the regions. So at least this problem is being watched. I am glad that the matter has been raised, because I can understand the attitude. Although I have been a Yorkshire man in exile for many years, one always has this feeling of provincial association and regional association, and it is a matter which one expects to be raised in the Houses of Parliament.
Let us look now at the other—I was going to say "sinners", but that would hardly be the right expression. But what are the I.T.A. doing? The criticism against them was that the programming was in the hands of four major companies. I will not mention them by name, because they are advertised enough. But there are also the smaller companies; and it is said that they do not get their fair share of network time. This matter was raised in another place and, I believe, in your Lordships' House in 1963 when the Act was going through. I think I can say that the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, who is in charge of the Authority, is having a good look at this matter, to see that there is not undue control, shall we say, of these four companies at the expense of the other smaller programme contractors. This new obligation on the I.T.A. has not been working long, and I think that Parliament ought to wait a little while before we arrive at a final conclusion about it.
On the question of programme standards, we come into the field of personal taste. Being at the Box is a very fortunate position to be in when talking about programmes, because one can state one's own opinion. Perhaps I ought not to weary the House with my personal opinions, but perhaps a few general observations may not be out of place. So far as both networks are concerned, I think that their treatment of news, their treatment of documentaries, their treatment of science is excellent. So far as the controversial issues of politics are concerned, I feel that both networks do a wonderful job; and in some cases I do not know how they manage to preserve the balance. Whether they do enough of this work, I do not know. I do not think that either network does enough in focusing attention on British industry. I was
956
very annoyed recently. I know the Ruhr almost like the back of my hand; I certainly know it as well as I know my native county. But when we get films portraying the heavy industry of the Ruhr we can also, surely, have one portraying the heavy industry of South Wales, Yorkshire or Durham. I throw out to both networks the suggestion that British industry should be given a place on the screen, because I am sure that it is a matter of great interest.
When dealing with programme standards, one comes down, finally, to the question of drama—and here I particularly agreed with the final conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Willis. My personal objection to this "kitchen sink" stuff, and this satire, is, frankly, the bad language. The whole of my life has been spent in heavy engineering, and I must confess that I am not averse at times to having to listen to, or perhaps occasionally to using, bad language. But to have it foisted on my screen I find rather repellent. When ladies come round heavy engineering works, or go on ships, the crews and the dockers, who are probably a little adjectival, stop using bad language. I do not want (as I counted, I think, once) five "damns" and four "bloodies" in one programme. In my opinion, this is not good enough. That does not mean to say that I am going back to the criticisms which were made of Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion because of the use that was made of that sanguinary connotation: my criticism is that they are overdoing it.
But, my Lords, I cannot accept the proposition—and I do not think that any member of Her Majesty's Government, whatever the Government, could accept it—that it is the dramatist himself who has the right to say whether a particular play should be shown on the screen. I do not accept that: it would really mean anarchy. It is not even true in the theatre. Parliament, in its wisdom, has placed on the noble Lord, Lord Normanbrook, and on the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, responsibility for the content of the programmes. If they are to be responsible for the content of the programmes, they must have the full authority to say whether a certain play should go out. And I think we had better leave it there.
There has been an easing up of the rigid standards, probably, that were established; but I feel that in some cases the

957
process has gone too far. I may be wrong: I may be getting to be a bit of a "square". I am rather old-fashioned in these things, I admit, but, whilst trying to keep in step with modern youth, I sometimes think that, where drama is concerned, they have overdone it. I think we will leave it at that; and I am sure we look forward to hearing some very interesting contributions from other noble Lords.
As far as local sound radio is concerned, I know that the Pilkington Committee recommended this. We have not got it yet: it is a question of resources. But it is a matter that must be looked at, and will be actively considered. However, here again I would enter a caveat: that, if this broadcasting is to be local, it must really be local: we do not want one station just putting on gramophone records all the time. We want it to have some reference to local needs and local aspirations.
The question of the fourth channel is, of course, highly controversial. I must say—it is my duty to say so—that Her Majesty's Government do not consider themselves committed to the proposition that the fourth channel should go automatically to the I.T.A. The matter has not yet been decided: it is being considered. I think that is a straight answer to the question that has been raised: there is no ducking. We now come to the question: if there is a fourth channel, what should it be used for, independent of the others? Education, obviously, will have to be in the forefront of our minds. I will not attempt to repeat the Prime Minister's speech on the University of the Air, made in Glasgow some eighteen months ago, but we are very conscious of the need for this modern medium of television to play its full rô ole in the educational advancement of our people. It would indeed be a pity if, now that television is so firmly established, ways and means were not found to have a full educational programme.
Now I come to the question of the "pirates" which has been raised again to-day—I seem fated to deal with this matter after it has been settled. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, asked me a Question on November 12 last, which happened to be almost the very day on which the matter was being discussed by the Council of Europe. I now find
958
myself in the position of having to inform your Lordships that this very day, January 20, is the day on which it is hoped there will be signed the European Agreement for the prevention of broadcasts transmitted from stations outside national territories. That is something which has been achieved by the Council of Europe.
When the Postmaster General makes a statement in another place I think it will be found that legislation will be necessary. I speak now subject to correction, but I should have thought it would be necessary. But when this Treaty comes into force (and it needs three countries to ratify it) we shall be in a position to cut off all supplies—oil, food and so on—to these radio "pirates"; and if every country within the European area does that, it will make it very difficult for the "pirates" to carry on. That is the way it is intended that the European Agreement should work. I believe that it is an effective solution to something which has been a source of annoyance. I do not think this annoyance can be justified at all; and this solution probably has the merit of being a little easier than the rather strong steps which our Dutch friends took against their annoyance off the coast of Scheveningen.
In the few minutes remaining, I should like to make a statement about colour. On the question of colour television, this matter has, of course, been considered, but it is not finalised. There are three methods of colour television, and we are very hopeful that the one which we support, the N.T.S.C, will become the standard for Europe. Naturally, there is strong competition from the French, and the Germans also have entered into the field. But in April the Comité Consultative Internationale des Radiocommunications is discussing this matter, and they will try to decide which system should be adopted. If, however, they cannot come to an agreement, the British Government will be free to decide, so that we can go ahead with colour television.
My Lords, all I want to say in conclusion is this. First, I want to reiterate the tributes which have been paid so far to the excellence of British television and radio. I think they have achieved a unique position in the world. I think they

959
are first-class—and this is something of which we are entitled to be proud. I should perhaps like just to enter another personal caveat. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has done some tremendous work in improving the I.T.A. I say that because I feel a little guilty. I went to check up on the number of columns in Hansard that I rilled when attacking the measure. I will not say how much it was. In retrospect, I do not think it was one of my best efforts. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and I used to talk about this, and sometimes get annoyed with each other, but I say this to him: that he has cleaned up the I.T.A. and established a standard—and good luck to him! I say that in fairness. Now the developments that we all advocate and know to be desirable can be achieved, that is perfectly true; but, whether we like it or not (without using the jargon or the cliché s of the language of priorities, or anything of that sort), the fact remains, my Lords, that in this nation of ours there is left only a certain amount of capital for the development of these services. However, bearing that in mind, I am sure that the Government are deeply conscious of the rôle that both television and radio play in the life of the country, and they will not be backward in providing the means to enable them to do so.
5.0 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER: My Lords, I am certain we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House to-day. Although I cannot pretend to have his great knowledge of the subject, I have myself been involved in broadcasting and television in this country, America and Canada, and therefore I know a little about the matters raised in the Reports. I should like to endorse what he and other speakers have said about the excellent programmes from both Independent Television and the B.B.C. The first thing I should like to say is that I think it is tremendously important that the general public should realise that the services provided by the B.B.C. and I.T.V. should be regarded as complementary and not as rivals.
Last week I was doing a television interview and, in conversation afterwards when I asked the very charming lady who had asked me the questions
960
if she knew a friend of mine who worked with the B.B.C. she said, "Of course not; he is in the rival show." I realise that this was said jokingly; but there is a certain amount of truth behind it. This is a pity, because in certain parts of broadcasting and television this sense of competition has been excluded. I refer particularly to what has been achieved in the religious departments, because here the B.B.C. and I.T.A. both share the same Central Religious Advisory Committee who advise both in their work.
In connection with religious broadcasting, I might to-day offer a word of praise to the head of religious broadcasting in the B.B.C. because his task calls for tremendous courage and also tremendous tact. As your Lordships will realise, he is between the Scylla of churchmen who demand the programmes which reflect entirely their preconceived ideas—this in the case of the elderly, infirm and bedridden is quite right—and the Charybdis of those who sincerely believe that programmes should hold in a fair balance both Christian and non-Christian points of view. I feel myself most strongly that the Church should neither demand nor expect any priority whatsoever. But when it comes to open discussions, I believe they should be shared and directed by someone in a position as a Christian to know the total impact which might possibly destroy or, on the other hand, belittle faith. Sometimes I would question the chairmanship of some of the discussions on religious programmes of the B.B.C.
While most of the broadcasting of the B.B.C. in the religious broadcasts follows an orthodox pattern, they are to be congratulated because about 5 per cent. of the output is deliberately designed to explore the most controversial areas of religious belief and especially to examine new and experimental formulations of Christian thought, which in a country which has always boasted liberal traditions is something we should be glad is being done. I think the I.T.A. is to be warmly congratulated on the appointment last year of an experienced religious programme officer whose job it is to co-operate with and assist the various companies in their religious programmes which have now become better

961
balanced and less repetitive. Unfortunately, the budget provided by most of the companies is only a fraction of that given to secular programmes. While parity is not to be expected, the result is that often in the religious programmes there is a lack of ambition, a lack of impact and a lack of technical experience. They should be given the resources which would enable them to compete in quality with the general programme standards.
My Lords, at present the religious programmes are insulated from advertising. The Central Religious Advisory Committee has proposed that for an experimental period of six months "Epilogue", and other short, night religious programmes, should not necessarily be insulated from advertising intervals but may precede or may follow them. The Authority has agreed to the experiment and, so far, the Postmaster General has raised no objection. The Church of England Radio and Television Council sees this as a dangerous suggestion because of the possibility of pressure later on to include advertisements actually in a religious programme. They feel that the Churches should recognise the character and value of the existing privileges, and they, of course, may be perturbed by the thought that (shall we say?) a sermon on purity might be followed at once by an advertisement for a soap powder which washes whiter. I cannot reflect this view. Programmes, I believe, should reflect life, and far from wanting the Church to be insulated from life, I want it to be more and more involved in life. Nor am I particularly desirous, as I have said before, that the Church should have any special privileges in this field.
I wonder whether I might say a few brief words about other programmes. With regard to them, as one who is devoted to Westerns, adventure and crimes stories, I feel that when these follow in constant succession in one evening it tends to become somewhat boring and could be considered dangerous. There is, too, something in the criticism of the policy of the B.B.C., which has already been mentioned, that serious writers of to-day may be allowed to say freely what they believe about the society in which they live. My criticism is this. First, the word "freely" does require responsible
962
definition; and, secondly, what "serious writers of to-day believe about life" might possibly sometimes be quite valueless or unrepresentative or quite unfit for proclamation. It is very questionable whether a play which a critic described in a newspaper last Sunday as "an amalgam of adolescence, adultery, alcoholism and amours" is the right kind of drama to present to millions through television.
Finally, my Lords, to the vexed question of the problem of the fee the B.B.C. is asking. The future pattern and the character of broadcasting in Britain depend largely upon what arrangements are to be made for the financial support of the B.B.C. as a public service. The facts are that the B.B.C. has publicly stated that it can no longer support its present responsibilities on its existing resources. It certainly cannot introduce the new services recommended in the Pilkington Report, which were indeed authorised by a Government White Paper. The Corporation has in fact to resort to large-scale borrowing at the present time in order to finance B.B.C.2 and the extended hours of radio broadcasting. What is the solution? Some people suggest that there should be a Treasury grant-aid, but this might prejudice the autonomy of the B.B.C. itself. Secondly, it is suggested—I think it has been suggested to-day in some speeches made here—that there might be a sub-letting by the B.B.C. of B.B.C.2 transmitters for specialised interests, say, in the realm of education. But, of course, to do this we have to face the fact that the B.B.C. would not only sub-let a transmitter, but with it forgo the control of policy in some specialised field. No man can serve two masters. If the Corporation are to continue to give a true public service they surely must have complete control of policy.
Of course, a third way might be the inclusion of advertising during B.B.C. transmissions. When the Church of England Radio and Television Council gave evidence to the Pilkington Committee in 1962 it strongly opposed the introduction of any form of advertising in.C. services on the grounds that public service broadcasting by the Corporation as it has always been, and as we have it now, is respected both in this country and throughout the world and there is no evidence that the majority of listeners

963
want it changed. In addition to these problems, I am certain that local broadcasting cannot long be delayed. Indeed, the B.B.C. have completed plans for this, but were refused permission to implement them by the previous Government. They have now repeated their request, and I very much hope that the present Government will be more sympathetic.
What is the alternative? The "pirate" radio stations have been referred to to-day, and I understand that the Council of Europe has passed a resolution on this very day abolishing them. But we know quite well that these five "pirate" radio stations are already making great plans for their future development. And there could be a take-over by commercial interests, who might very well have little interest in the content of programmes. Some time ago, I had the privilege of taking part in my own area in an experiment in rural broadcasting which was conducted by the B.B.C. and we were unanimous in our appreciation. It was just the kind of programme which was of value to growers of fruit and vegetables in the Vale of Evesham, where it took place. Everybody said that it was the kind of programme that was very useful, and I should think that this would be true of many parts of the country where local interests could be helped but where at present, because of the size of the regions, such broadcasting is not easy.
The solution, I suppose, is that the B.B.C., to meet their increased obligations, should be allowed to put up their fee from £4 to £6, which actually means from approximately 1s. 6½ d. a week to 2s. 3¼ d. a week and which, quite honestly, I do not think could be described as too excessive. Of this £6, 5s., as we have been told to-day, will go to Post Office collection charges and the extra £1 15s. will be needed entirely to finance the second television programme and the existing broadcasting hours, leaving the present fee of £4 to finance the extended programmes of B.B.C. 1 and the radio services, which I imagine include those programmes broadcast overseas by the B.B.C., which I know, having taken part in them for eight years, once a month, have been much appreciated by our own people living abroad.
964
I suppose that one could say that politically the increased fee would be violently unpopular; but whether it is unpopular or not is surely beside the point. One of the proud traditions of your Lordships' House is that we have never been particularly concerned about popularity. We have been informed that I.T.V. has more viewers than has the B.B.C.—58 per cent. as against 42 per cent. Whether that is true or not, it is quite irrelevant. Surely the main question we have to consider is this: is it desirable or not for a system of independent public service broadcasting to be continued in this country? And if it is, to achieve this, as the Pilkington Report reminded us, the B.B.C. cannot be asked to resort to any method of increasing revenue except that of increased fees.
In conclusion, may I quote from the Independent Television Authority's Guide to Independent Television for 1965?
"Television has emerged in its own right as a main form of relaxation, a main source of information and a growing medium of education."
That applies to the programmes of the B.B.C. as well—and that is why I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has raised this matter in your Lordships' House to-day.
5.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I entirely agree with the speech of the right reverend Prelate and with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, on the subject of the licence fee. It is very difficult for me to appreciate the arguments of those who oppose raising that fee to the very modest sum proposed, in view of the great financial responsibilities of the B.B.C.
I am myself a part of the financial problem, because I am an underprivileged citizen: I am one of the majority of the people in this country who cannot get B.B.C.2, a programme which I should appreciate very much indeed. I am told that by the end of 1966, if all goes well and if the planning permissions are all granted, as is hoped, some two-thirds of the country will be able to receive that programme; but that implies that, at the best, one-third of the country will remain under-privileged in that respect. And it is not a position

965
with which I or any other countryman can rest content.
One might say that parts of Wales and the Highlands are even more deprived than I am, since they cannot get television at all. Yes; but they do not have to pay for it, and I am paying the same as other people and not getting as much for my money as they do. Therefore the B.B.C. should be given the means to extend to the non-receiving regions the same facilities as London and Birmingham now enjoy and every other town will enjoy in future. This seems only just. Let city dwellers consider how fortunate they are. They have every means of entertainment at their doorstep—operas, plays, a wide choice of films, concerts, lectures. Contrast that with the situation of us poor, deprived rustics.
But I must thank the B.B.C. for giving me a little taste of the pleasures of the younger "kangaroo." They have included in B.B.C. 1 channel some of the best items from B.B.C. 2. And I was astonished, and not a little annoyed, to see that the Corporation were criticised for doing that—criticised by a London critic who obviously had not my situation in mind. Though under-privileged, I am still grateful for what I have received, and in particular for the repetition on B.B.C. 1 of that excellent series "The Great War".
I have cause to be grateful indeed to the Corporation for many new developments. I would say, "Thank you" for the music programme, which is giving me great and increasing pleasure. Perhaps I should include in my thanks the Musicians' Union, who have rendered it possible by their wise and enlightened policy in the matter of needle time. I believe that that decision on the part of the union will redound to the advantage of musicians, and that the country will become more music conscious and render better support to that art.
I am grateful, too, for the developments that have occurred in the region, and for the divorce affected between the West and the Welsh to the great benefit of both regions. I was most interested in the words that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Willis, with regard to regional development, to which I, too, attach great importance. However. I would differ from the noble Lord with regard to local broadcasting. In my
966
belief, local interests, both on sound and television, will be adequately catered for on regional transmissions, and it would be a great mistake to go forward with local broadcasting, whether it be in the Corporation's hands or in commercial hands.
No doubt it would be rather fun for the first time to listen to the local big-wigs and the local dons discussing local problems; but I very much doubt whether the interest would be maintained. I do not want the don because he is local: I want the best don, and I do not mind whether he lives in Exeter or in Edinburgh; and I shall feel no great advantage in the promised participation of my local university in the programme. But I am considerably alarmed at the prospect of local politics being discussed on the air. I have generally found local politics to be either very dull or very acrimonious, and from both of these points of view they should be avoided by the broadcasting authorities.
As regards television in general, I would echo the praises that have been given to our British system, but I would venture to express one word of criticism with regard to radio drama, which is the standby of the television service. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that we have some excellent radio dramatists and that our native dramatists ought to be encouraged. But I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that a dramatist is very much in the hands of his producer and his actor, and the best play in the world will not succeed on television, or for that matter on the radio, and will certainly not be exportable, unless the acting reaches a high standard. I urge the Corporation, and the producers of the Authority as well, to keep constantly in their minds the need for a high standard of acting in their productions. I would venture the opinion, with all respect to a profession which I love and admire, that the standard of acting is not at present as high as it might be. So may I beg the beloved children of Thespis to pull up their buskins and do a little better?
Mention has been made of the subject of challenging drama of the present day. I believe that this problem will be solved by putting what are called (I do not

967
know why) "kitchen sink dramas" on B.B.C.2, where they will be less generally seen and will be available to the cultured minority that will appreciate them, just as on the sound service the more experimental type of play is generally put out on the Third Programme as being likely to appeal to a minority rather than a majority of interest.
I apologise for not having said anything about independent television, and I think it is relevant for me to give my reasons. I do not see it, my Lords. My good lady and I like to plan our evening's entertainment. At tea-time we sit down with the Radio Times, and first of all we mark four or five items—usually on the Third Programme, sometimes on the Home, but rather less often on television—which will give us pleasure and interest. We then have to start to plan to avoid conflicts in time: if we see this, we shall not be able to see the other; and to which shall we give priority? That needs a certain amount of planning, and the kind of planning that we can perfectly well do between us with three programmes to choose from. If I introduced a fourth programme, then I should be fixed with the almost unbearable necessity of elaborate choice; and that I want to avoid.
It is for this reason, I think, that most viewers are one-programme men: they are either B.B.C. or I.T.V. men. I do not believe that any high proportion of viewers attempts to cope with both. Competition and freedom of choice is not, therefore, so important as we are inclined to think, and this particularly applies when we are considering the question of a second I.T.V. programme. For my part, I believe that the minority interests will be adequately catered for by B.B.C.2. Let us, at any rate, see whether that programme, still in its infancy, does not provide everything that minority interests really demand. If in a year or two that programme is shown to be inadequate and gives rise to dissatisfaction, then the time will come to stimulate it by a certain amount of competition from an independent body, but for the moment it seems a somewhat uneconomic use of our national resources to go to the great expense of providing another minority television network. There is no hurry in this matter, and
968
this is no time to increase our own luxury and happiness. I am sure Her Majesty's Government will agree that capital should be diverted into the export field, and that the import field should not compete with it. Therefore, let us avoid all unnecessary expenditure and wait and see whether, in due time, further developments of our internal services are required.
5.32 p.m.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, I have been fascinated by the domestic, cosy, picture presented to us by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. I am sorry that that should have caused him to feel that the intellectual burden of looking at I.T.V. was ruled out by the demands of planning. I, for my part, shall hope to introduce a little socialist realism into his liberal planning by devoting, unlike him, a good deal of attention to I.T.V.
But may I, at the beginning, say how delightful it is, speaking on such a subject, to have among one's audience noble Lords who include not only the Chairmen of the two broadcasting bodies in this country, the B.B.C. and the I.T.V., but what I think one may describe as the spirit of public service broadcasting, in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Reith. I am sorry that Lord Reith is not participating in the debate, because his views on broadcasting are always stimulating if, to some of us, occasionally wrong-headed. I particularly regret that he is not taking part on this occasion, because I have a feeling that some of the things I have to say may not secure his entire agreement—for which I am, of course, sorry.
Let me say at once that I agree entirely with those speakers who have said that the B.B.C. ought to continue as a Corporation financed by a licence fee; that it ought to be given adequate funds for its purpose, and that any question of its turning to advertising for its revenue, or receiving some direct grant, which would bring it in part under Governmental control—or, at any rate, the suspicion of Governmental control—ought to be entirely ruled out. We have in the B.B.C. the most notable example in the world of public service broadcasting, in both radio and television, and we ought to accept the necessity that that public service tradition in broadcasting, which was

969
established in this country, should be financed out of an adequate licence fee which will give the B.B.C. the right to do the things that it ought to do.
Having said that, I also want to add that in reading the B.B.C. Report I must say that I find some traces of a sort of self-satisfaction, which seems to me to be dangerous. The B.B.C. has developed into an enormous monolithic body, in which administration has sometimes taken over control of creative thinking, and in which it tends to feel that it alone knows the secret of a good life, when a good life has to be expressed, whether in words or vision, on the air. Of course, it has produced some very great programmes, although it has also produced some very bad ones indeed. I sometimes wonder what is going to happen when, in a month or two, one member of its staff, who has been the dynamo of ideas in serious broadcasting, Miss Wyndham Goldie, retires. Because it was out of her vision of television that such programmes as "Panorama", "Tonight", "Gallery"—a programme with which I myself once used to be associated—"Press Conference", and a great many others, arose. It was she who was the most dynamic force in that whole area and field of B.B.C. broadcasting.
I have considerable doubts, as I look at the B.B.C. and move among friends of mine in the B.B.C., whether it is doing anything to cultivate the same kind of experimental and new thinking in television that once went on; whether it is not in that rut which, I must say, I found existing even some time ago, when I was for a period a Governor of the B.B.C.: that the promotion of the creative producer in television should be to an administrative post, where he would cease to produce anything.
Not only in the field of ideas, but also in the whole field of the use of the medium, of finding methods and ways and techniques of developing the medium of television to its fullest possible extent, and using all the potentialities of this new and greatly flexible medium, I think that both the B.B.C. and the Independent Television companies are rather resting on their oars. It seems to me that both channels have got rather into a rut of producing only the kinds of programmes—some pure entertainment, some that are called serious tele-
970
vision—which on the whole it is known will "go over", and of not experimenting enough. Of course, the B.B.C. did experiment—I believe very successfully—in its original attempt of, "That Was The Week That Was". I do not think its successor has been anything like so successful. It has not risen from the ashes of "T.W.T.W.T.W." to become a really satirical, energising, programme in any way whatever. It is not so much a phoenix as an addled egg.
What I am particularly concerned with is that we should perhaps get a little out of the habit of thinking that the B.B.C. represents the top mark in television in the world, and of regarding commercial television as the rather poor (not financially poor, of course) and not very respectable brother—an attitude of mind which I find very much in the B.B.C. itself. The previous speaker, and also, I think, the right reverend Prelate, said they were a little amazed to find that television between the two systems went into a sort of rivalry.
I remember talking not long ago to some very senior executives of B.B.C./T.V., and being told by one of them, in the most emphatic terms, that, so far as Independent Television was concerned, it was on his part, and he believed on the part of the B.B.C. as a whole, war to the death. I doubt whether the Governors, a body of respectable and diplomatic people, would perhaps go quite so far as he did, but other B.B.C. executives, very eminent in producing in the executive field, who were present at the time seemed to agree with him that this was the right attitude to have towards the other channel. I do not think it is. I think that, although competition between them is necessary, there ought also to be complementary attitudes.
I have often wondered why there could not be, as there are in many other professions which are capable of stepping on each other's toes in their appeal to the public, occasional joint planning sessions at which some attempt would be made to ensure that programmes which are very close to each other in content and appeal do not absolutely compete with each other in time on the two systems, so that those who, unlike the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, do neglect their planning are not faced, as they frequently are now, with the immense problem of knowing that of two pro-

971
grammes, both of which are excellent, viewers may see only one because the two systems have been apparently determined that that should be so, instead of placing the programmes so that viewers can see them both at different times.
One point I want particularly to make is this. Taking into account the whole of the school broadcasting, the religious and outside broadcasts, and so on, for which it has, so to speak, a special dispensation over the normal hours of broadcasting, the B.B.C., with its two channels, commands on the air, altogether, I think, about 130 television hours a week. The I.T.V. Channels, on the other hand, command about 60 to 65 hours a week. The B.B.C.'s 130-odd television hours—90 if one excludes the educational and schools programmes and so on—are completely at the command of one Corporation, which is able to deploy resources, employ camera teams and set up planning organisations to utilise that very substantial body of television time to the best advantage.
The I.T.A., with only approximately one-half the televiewing hours at its command is, by its nature, divided up among a number of different companies. If the regional companies are taken into account there are 14, to which may be added I.T.N., as the provider of news and, to some extent, news-magazine programmes, making 15 in all. With half the viewing time of the B.B.C., I.T.A. is compelled to divide up its programming among this very substantial number of different companies. Even if one takes, as one must to some extent, the main network companies (although one hopes, as I think everybody will agree, that the regional companies will get in the future more networking than they have had in the past), this means that this comparatively small amount of television time (in B.B.C. terms) has to be divided up among four companies, or five, if one takes the news provider into account as well.
When one breaks down the amount of programme time that can be available for serious programmes, it comes to a very small amount. On its own figures, I.T.A. have reckoned that 35 per cent.—or about 23 hours a week—goes to serious programmes; about 55 per cent., or 35 hours, to entertainment in the very broadest sense; and about 10 per cent. to sport.
972
Television companies, like others, have to take some account of public taste, and I do not think anybody can deny that the broad division of 35 per cent. for serious programmes, 55 per cent. or so for entertainment programmes, in the broadest sense, and 10 per cent. for sport, is a reasonable allocation of the time to meet public demand.
But when one looks more closely at the amount of time that is on that basis available for serious television (meaning, by "serious television", according to one's own breakdown, documentary, discussion, examination of current affairs and so on) one finds that this is reduced to a very small part indeed. By the time the purely children's and educational programmes have been taken into account, about 12 per cent. of the viewing hours available to them, or only about 7½ hours a week, are left to be divided for serious television among four companies. That is less than two hours each a week. With only that amount of time—under two hours a week per company—available for serious television viewing, it is clearly practically impossible for any television company in the world to spend on creative thinking the time, the enterprise, and the planning required to produce the very highest kind of serious television.
The real trouble with Independent Television, as I would agree with many previous speakers, is that it is becoming a fact that there is not enough of it. The reason is that the companies, if they are to set their mind to producing new, serious, creative television in the serious field, must have more chance to experiment and to develop than is possible with the very small number of hours available to them in this field at present. That leads me to the conclusion—and here I find myself in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough (we do not always agree on such matters)—that it is very desirable that it should be accepted in principle that when a fourth channel is available it should be made available to Independent Television. Because I believe that only in that way will Independent Television be given command of the televiewing hours and the ability to test out its programmes, to experiment, to spend the time and money and application on trying out and thinking out new programmes which will effectively raise the standard.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to interrupt the noble Lord for one moment. He quoted me as saying that I should like to see a fourth service given to Independent Television. What I precisely said was that I felt that a second Independent Television channel and a wholly educational channel or wholly educational station should be developed simultaneously and in parallel.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: I am sorry; I quite agree and I thank the noble Earl for the correction. I was going to come to the educational channel later. The point that I want to make here is that part of the criticism that is often made against Independent Television arises simply, not because there is, as some people claim, too much of it, but because there is too little of it and because it therefore lacks the opportunities and the field of manoeuvre. It has to navigate in such narrow waters that it is unable really to fulfil its best.
I should like to touch also on one aspect of this matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, to whom we are all so deeply grateful for raising this subject in debate, has already touched, and that is the importance of the export market. I had something to do with this myself when I was a director of a small independent television company which was looking particularly to the export market. We found that there existed an enormous potential demand for British programmes in all sorts of countries. I think British television has in the past been very behindhand in developing that export market. Now it is beginning to do so. But here, again, I think it is very remarkable that, although the B.B.C. has picked up considerably and is now, with, I think, a 60 per cent. increase of its exports over the past year, getting a gross revenue from the export of films and programmes of about £1 million, Independent Television has gone a good deal further in this field. Indeed, one independent television company alone, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, mentioned, A.T.V., has in the last year obtained a revenue of somewhere around five million dollars from this source.
That is important not only from the point of view of the general export necessities which face this country, but
974
because it is, I think, enormously important that the British way of doing things, what it is common nowadays to call the British way of life, should be presented to the rest of the world, and it can be presented often in a more easy, attractive and acceptable form through television than it can in any other way at all. A good deal of what goes abroad is, of course, entertainment film, but why should it not be? People all over the world need entertainment, and if while they are entertained they get at the same time some reasonably accurate picture of how a country like Britain conducts its affairs, so much the better. But these exported films also include, both in the case of the B.B.C. and in the case of the independent television companies, a number of programmes of the highest value and standard in the cultural and documentary field, programmes which are of immense value as ambassadors of Britain in seventy or more countries, and which we certainly ought to stimulate in every possible way. And, again, I believe that those could be stimulated, when economic conditions make it possible to think in terms of a somewhat bigger television output than we now have.
Finally, on educational television, I find it very difficult indeed to agree with my noble friend Lord Willis that there is a great danger in having an exclusively educational television programme. He used the phrase, and it has been used several times—I think it was originally used by the Pilkington Committee—that one does not want an educational ghetto. I think it is very much to misconceive what television can do as an instrument of learning in the present age. I believe we have to think of television as an instrument of teaching, of teaching often quite specific subjects, either for young people, or for adults who wish to follow courses of further education; that it can be of immense value as a modern tool in that field; but that it is not right or appropriate to consider that television used for this technological purpose, if you like, in the broadest sense, should be incorporated in the broad programmes of information and entertainment to the general public.
I do not believe it to be the case, as has been suggested, and was suggested by

975
the Pilkington Committee, that if there were a separate educational programme then the serious content of general television programmes would be reduced. I believe that all the evidence shows that there is a general demand for serious general programmes, and I believe that not only the B.B.C. but the independent television companies have enough social responsibility to go on producing those serious programmes to the maximum of their ability, even if there should be a quite separate educational channel.
5.55 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Willis, not only on promoting this debate but also on his speech and the refreshing way in which he tackled the problem. I would agree with what he said, as I think all noble Lords will, about British broadcasting as compared with broadcasting in other parts of the world. It is supreme, though of course, as others have said, we can have some bad programmes here. I will refer to some other aspects of his speech later on, but I should like to support his robust appeal for the use of this medium in appealing to people for help and making potential youth leaders and the like aware that their help is needed in work with young people. Also, as a Scotsman, I was thrilled with his obviously knowledgeable criticisms and suggestions about Scottish services. At the same time, as he said himself, more resources will have to be employed if what he feels is needed, and I feel is needed, is going to be brought about. It seems to me that the Scottish services are doing quite a good best with the limited resources at their disposal.
I propose to concentrate my remarks mainly on the B.B.C., by which I mean radio and television, for somewhat similar reasons to those of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. For one reason, commercial television has only comparatively recently been available in the area in which I live. I only recently got a set that took it, and I have not learned—shall we say?—to like the texture of its material, if I may put it that way. I have never seen B.B.C.2. I look forward to doing so and hope that as little time as possible will elapse before it is avail-
976
able up and down the country. But that will have to be a long time, in terms of the outlay it requires, not only in dissemination, in the broadcasting of the channel, but the purchasing of the receiver.
I am not an addict of radio, either broadcast or television, but that is not to say that I do not follow certain programmes whenever it is convenient to me. I say "convenient to me" because I am certain that, great as is the influence—and I shall go on to that—of television and broadcasting as a disseminator of information, it can be the most dreadful time-waster, and that is a matter which I feel all of us, particularly the fathers of families, and grandfathers, must watch; it can be a dreadful time-waster. But I marvel at the wonder of it all. I have reason to say that because only recently I have been going over some papers of my father at the turn of the century, correspondence from the Middle East and India with friends and relations and with my mother at home. It is most striking to compare the limited spread of knowledge and information which was available only half a century or so ago with what is available to practically every household in the country to-day. What a spreader of knowledge, what a medium of entertainment, what an anodyne!
At the same time, I tremble at the importance of it all, its power over the mass of the people and its ability to—I nearly used the word "incite "—inspire mass feeling of a most extraordinary and mysterious nature which goes like wildfire across a community, certainly in the country. Consequently, I feel it is proper that we should criticise where we can, helpfully, the Reports to which the noble Lord opposite has drawn our attention in his Motion.
First of all, if I proceed to be critical of the B.B.C., I do so with an absolute declaration of congratulation to them for a magnificent organisation, even if it is expensive, the quality of the bulk of their material, the devoted service of their minions, especially their foreign correspondents—"From our own correspondent", "Eye witness "—their news readers, their "Panorama" organisation, travelogues, wild life, "Today", music and so on. All these are matters for real congratulation to them, though I must say that I wish that the producer of

977
"Today" and his staff would steer clear of witch-hunts. In my view, there have been too many of them. They were badly "off the beam" about a year or so ago at the time of the drug furore, a matter in which I was personally interested at the time. Similarly, the other day—although it was a matter in which I am not especially interested except as a consumer—they were again "off the beam" with a silly little item about packaging and misleading presentation of goods. This is a most complex problem, and it was presented in a way that, to anyone who understands, was a most amateurish one.
Before I get on to my main thesis I would refer to two other small items. One is the problem of background music, which to my mind is getting completely out of hand. I do not say it is not necessary; it is. There are those of us who remember the old silver screen with the piano and the fiddle tinkling away below. One realises that background music is necessary as an adjunct, as part of some of these programmes, but in my opinion it is much too loud. The trouble to-day is that so many young people seem to grow up and live in an atmosphere of noise, noise, noise; din, din, din. They cannot think, they cannot read, they cannot write unless there is some sort of music going on. Can the broadcasting media help in keeping down the volume of background music so that it is not offensive to some of us, as certainly it is to me?
Another small but important item which worries me a little is the prying into private grief. I cannot help feeling that at this particular moment of time it is ghoulish to have these gatherings at Hyde Park Gate. To me, it is offensive and an interference with private grief and private decency, whether it be the home of the greatest in the land or the meanest house in a back street. I believe that because the Press indulge in this sort of thing is no reason why the television media should do the same.
My major criticisms relate to my fear over the sheer power, to which I have referred, of this media, both politically and morally. I think that politically there is too much power in the hands of the interviewer, the political commentator or even the chairman chairing a panel, such as the right reverend Prelate
978
mentioned; or perhaps it is that they are allowed to use this power too much. I would urge the authorities to keep a firm watch on this. These people should be constantly reminded that they are in some measure performers—at least, I see them as such, and such they are. If they are not performers they are certainly journalists; and further, being so, they are entirely without responsibility. I do not say that they are irresponsible; that is not what I mean. Indeed, it would be quite wrong to refer to these people as irresponsible—far from it. But, except for their responsibilities to themselves and to the authority which employs them, they have none. They bear no responsibility to anybody else for their words and actions.
To my mind there is no doubt, for instance, that the B.B.C. staff's approach to the General Election was slanted against the Prime Minister and the Conservative Government. This may be a matter of opinion. But now the shoe may be on the other foot. The other night there was another tiresome programme to which the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, referred, in which a series of gibes was made at the Government of the day. As a member of the Opposition I must admit that I could not restrain a chuckle. But was it fair? Was it fair in the context of this trivial satirical matter? I do not think it was. Parliament or the hustings are the proper places for such exchanges. Or is it that these people regard it as entertaining to undermine authority, whatever it may be? That is what I fear. I do not think it is entertainment. Cynicism can be taken too far.
This brings me to my other serious criticism—namely, the undermining of moral standards. There is much too much of this. I protest that this requires urgent and careful study. I agree wholeheartedly with what Lord Willis said about the tone of much of the material which the television and broadcasting authorities put out. It is no use saying, "If you do not like it you can switch it off." That is rubbish. It does not work out in that way in the average family. For that reason, I repeat what I have said before—namely, roll on the day when another television channel, whether it be B.B.C. or I.T.V., can, as in the case of the Third Programme on the radio, be used for serious matter, or

979
matter which is not just on when the whole of the family, from old to young, are present at the "box"!
I think there is too much dirt in the stuff that is broadcast to-day. By "dirt" I mean lewdness. The main fault lies, in some respects, with the critics. I think that critics should look into their hearts and think about it, and that the people who employ them should think about it. Gradually I am ceasing to respect the critics, in general terms. There are individual exceptions of course, but to-day I do not ordinarily read criticisms of films, shows, broadcasts and the theatre. I am losing my respect for critics. I wonder whether they could not be changed around by their employers. I overheard a conversation the other day about a book. One person said, "How did you like it?". Said the other, "I thought it needn't have been so dirty". The other replied, "Oh, no; I think there was only just enough dirt to make it sell." What are we coming to?
The big broadcasting successes were, and are, absolutely clean. There was "Itma" and "Much Binding in the Marsh". May I say, too, that I include in this category "Dixon of Dock Green", "Take it from Here", and so on. Speaking of "Take it from Here", although I never saw eye to eye with Mr. Glum, on his attitude either towards his financial or his home affairs, I well remember a broadcast when Eth was planning a trip to the Continent with her fiancé à deux and Mr. Glum objected. Eth said "Ow, Mr. Glum, you must remember that lots of things have changed since you were young." "Yes, Eth", said Mr. Glum. "And lots of things have stayed the same." This is a profound and ancient truth, and one which we should all remember. Let us continue to honour chastity and marital fidelity.
Many noble Lords will have received papers which the B.B.C. have been kind enough to put about in connection with this debate. In this context I am particularly concerned with the article "Must Contemporary Drama be Sordid?", a reprint of a published article. I find much fault with it. First of all, there is an implication that because many of to-day's writers come from working-class backgrounds standards must be lower. This is nonsense. If we are asked to believe that so much of life to-day
980
is sordid or negative or pessimistic, who is to blame? The answer is the Press and/or the broadcast—always seeking for sensation, always poking about, like the man with the muck-rake. There is too much of it. Drama need not avoid dealing with the doubts and uncertainties of our age, but its contribution should be constructive, not, as so often, merely debilitating.
By reflecting so much the sordidness of life, the broadcast is helping to mould public opinion; there is no question about that. If life is continuously presented as hopeless, meaningless, with no visible gleam of light anywhere, people's resistance to despair or evil is diminished. Repeatedly rubbing people's noses in their private miseries does not help them to find remedies. There should be more plays about people whose courage or firmness of character have enabled them to triumph over circumstances. If more dramatic material is required—I may be open to correction for there may be masses of it available, but I have a feeling that there could be more to select from—let the word go forth that it is not necessary for such to contain "just enough dirt to make it sell".
To return to the article, it says and I quote:
"To demand optimism when the situation is fraught with danger, to demand moral certainties when many real people in the real world are perplexed, would be both foolish and impracticable."
Really! What a disastrous defeatism is covered by remarks like that. Surely we can be of good cheer. Let us see that these wonderful broadcasting facilities are used to help us so that we can have faith in something, trust in something, belief in something and love for something.
6.14 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Willis is certainly entitled to our thanks and commendation for introducing this subject to the House. The nature of most of the speeches which we have heard to-day gives an indication of the importance of the subject. This is understandable, because we all recognise that television and radio are to-day a part of our very lives. But it is essential to remember, in any consideration of television policy or programme content, that this is a matter of family participation and not individual participation. There is all the difference in the world between

981
one's attitude towards a book, where one has an individual reading of the book, and towards the time when one turns a knob to receive a television programme when there is no certainty that you, and you alone, will be the person to see that programme. Therefore, the general public's attitude towards television should of necessity be dominated by that factor, the factor of family participation.
I would agree with my noble friend, and with many other speakers, that the general standard of British television is high. I have seen television in other parts of the world and can subscribe wholeheartedly to this view. Yet, at the same time, it is not exempt from criticism, and at different times different bases of criticism apply. We all remember so very well the days of the Reith administration, to which compliment has been paid which I would subscribe to, which was stern and uncompromising and subject (in my opinion, justifiably) to much criticism, but for entirely different resons from those which are being expressed to-day.
I remember years back, as a youngster, attending a week-end school promoted by the B.B.C., held at the Hull University College. It was directed by Professor Searles of the B.B.C. and was intended to study the effects of radio. I moved a resolution condemning the dreary B.B.C. Sunday. I remember the consternation in B.B.C. circles as to the awful disaster that would fall on the whole administration if their policy were changed. There was criticism in those days, some of it justified, some of it not justified; but no one can doubt that the general attitude which dominated the B.B.C. at that time laid down a firm foundation in its recognition of public responsibility.
To-day television is the most important medium of communication, and one can argue that it is as vital to have free expression in television as it is to have a free Press. This appears to be logical, but to my mind is a specious argument, for not even the Press has approached the degree of monopoly which is possessed by television to-day—in one case a monopoly exercised solely for profit. Therefore, our responsibility, particularly that as Parliamentarians expressing criticism, is that we need to recognise the delicate balance between the protection of public interest and freedom of expres-
982
sion. I know that at times all of us—and this view has been freely expressed to-day—feel resentment against some programme or other. I have felt this at many times, and I will make comment on this in a few moments. Out of that resentment, and because of that resentment, we can be tempted to slip into the trap of censorship, under the guise of lofty motives. There is no doubt at all that all too often one finds the narrow-minded prude masquerading as the guardian of morality. There was in another place the suggestion that a viewers' council should be established which would be armed with teeth. I believe that such a body would be likely to have more teeth than tolerance.
I regret personally the introduction of commercial television, but we cannot turn the clock back. I believe that it was not the decision to have a second channel at that time which was bad, but the motive which prompted the decision. Profit at that time was the sole reason; public interest, social standards, culture, were of no consequence. I doubt whether it would have been possible to continue with one TV and radio authority. I think it would have been necessary, ultimately, to have more than one authority, though not necessarily one dominated solely by private interests and private profit.
I believe that the original policy in awarding programme contracts was open to criticism, because newspaper, film and theatre combines almost monopolised the programme contracting companies; and to-day that monopoly has been extended in certain fields even with regard to theatrical performers themselves. There was an opportunity at the time of the introduction of commercial television—and there may in due course be another—to broaden the sources from which the control and capital could be drawn. At that time the idea was rejected, but I hope that on a future occasion Her Majesty's Government will seize the opportunity of introducing entirely different forms of control with regard to television and radio.
To-day, my Lords, I feel that both I.T.V. and B.B.C. battle for viewership with no holds barred. I believe that the lowest common denominator is to maximise viewership; and even B.B.C. 2 has its all-in wrestling. I regret to say it, but I feel that both channels have formed

983
the opinion that the viewers are likely to be found at the bottom of the barrel, and even programmes which are supposed to appeal to intelligence descend to bawdy inanities which are served up as wit. Only this past week, even the programme "Not So Much a Programme, More a Way of Life", to which reference has been made, some of which was quite smart, or "smart alick" (I do not know which), found it necessary to descend to—I was going to call it a barrack-room ballad, but it would have disgraced a barrack room, when a lady sang a song,
"She was only a small-town whore
So they buried her flat on her back."
Could anybody justify a song of that description? Could anybody find in a programme like that any reason for introducing utter trash of that description? As a matter of fact, I think it was terrible to ask that woman to sing the song.
In the B.B.C.'s Report, the Governors speak of their rôle as trustees of the nation, and I think they recognise it as a trusteeship. Yet I would remind them that they all too frequently allow producers to set a course which is influenced by the track of the I.T.V. The Report of the B.B.C. which we are considering to-day, carries, to my mind, an air of self-satisfaction which the country itself would not share. I am conscious of the fact that my emphasis on criticism can possibly lead to a measure of distortion, because I recognise, as many others do, that first-class jobs have been done by the B.B.C.—and let me say that, here and now, with all the emphasis I can—many of them deserving of congratulation. But I do not think their record justifies their comment that,
"… for B.B.C. T.V. 1963 was a year of fruition and 1964 a year of fulfilment."
They are a little self-conscious in this Report, because they are quite mindful of criticism that is expressed, that the B.B.C. have tended to compete with I.T.V. at the lowest level. But the Report goes on to say (I think on page 23) that they
"cannot ignore the predominant literary mood of estrangement and loneliness"
What utter bilge! Of course there is loneliness here, without the B.B.C.'s telling us that in this nation of ours the people in the pubs, the clubs and the factories are the sort of people who are
984
weighed down by estrangement and loneliness. This might be the mood of the introverts who are hired by the B.B.C., but it is not the mood of the people, although it seems to be the intention of the producers and the authors to make it so. In my view, it becomes the responsibility of the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. to mirror the hopes and aspirations of the people; and even, possibly, to project something that will make a contribution to the life and thought and spirit of the nation, not to seek to perform in this manner because some writers, for reasons best known to themselves—God help them!—have a feeling of loneliness. I do not see why the B.B.C. should give them any encouragement.
But great things have been done, and can be done, by both the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. "The Age of Kings" and "The First World War" have already been mentioned, and they were first-class. I believe that both channels have reached a peak of perfection in documentaries, but the real curse lies in head-counting. We can understand the head-counting in the case of the I.T.V., because it is necessary; but that is not the case with regard to the B.B.C. I believe that many politicians and other critics of the B.B.C. are themselves responsible for this attitude in the B.B.C. We tend, as I am doing, to criticise the B.B.C. for its head-counting, for its emphasis on viewership; yet at the same time we tend to judge the merit of a performance by its TAM rating, which I think is wrong. I believe, too, with my noble friend, that the B.B.C. puts too great an emphasis on London and the South and that there is not enough regional expression. In that regard I would pay tribute to Granada, on I.T.V., who deserve a compliment, for they do try to capture the spirit of the area they serve.
I believe that the schools programmes are exceptionally good. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, made reference quite recently to the fact that there are no fewer than 8,000 schools with viewing facilities. I believe that this, and an extension of it, could be a development of the project of the "University of the Air", which could be linked up with extramural departments of universities. Great possibilities are available there, and I think that both channels should have the facilities for extending their viewing hours in order to bring this about.

985
We have heard a lot of talk to-day, my Lords, of the influence of TV on the thought and conduct of viewers. I am not so much concerned about adults—by and large, they can look after themselves—but I am concerned about the influence on youth. I know that there is a project in hand, which is likely to cost £250, 000, to study the effect of television on the morals and behaviour of the young. This study should be completed as soon as possible, and I hope that the findings will influence the nature of the programmes.
But, my Lords, I believe that the most serious dereliction of duty, by both channels, is in the abandonment of their responsibility to be a good influence on youth. When thinking of youth they can express themselves only in terms of "beat". Like many others here, I like "pop" songs. I like "pop" music on occasions. But I believe that the constant repetition of programmes like "Juke Box Jury", "Top of the Pops", "Ready, Steady, Go!" and "Thank Your Lucky Stars!" adds up to an irresponsible refusal to acknowledge that modern youth, or at least some of them, want something better. I recognise that such programmes are used as a bait for the teenager, but there is no reason why, having used the bait and attracted them, they cannot provide a better fare than is provided now. There is no attempt at all to take any of the arts as offered to adult viewers, and slant them to develop the interest of young people. To my surprise, even B.B.C. 2 jumps on the band wagon with its "Beat Room".
It is the record industry, of course, that gets the biggest boost out of this business; and I think that, because of it, youth itself gets a shabby deal. There is a massive, weekly deluge dedicated to the theory that young people are blind to any other interests outside the sub-standard. If your Lordships have not already seen them, I would advise you to look in, on occasions, to some of these programmes that I have mentioned, showing television studios bursting with sweating, gum-chewing youngsters contorting to a jungle rhythm, with sometimes the camera, diverted in almost a bored fashion, showing lingering close-ups of bosom-hugging sweaters and the like. Men like Jacobs, Freeman, Murray, Saville and others, are working themselves up into a phoney frenzy, doing a
986
magnificent job in pushing up the record sales to 55 million to-day as against 3½ million in 1950.
Any complete survey of the television field shows it is in the documentary field that television has done an outstanding job of work, combining education with information and entertainment, as prescribed by the B.B.C's T.V. Charter. We are steadily getting rid of some of the more undesirable aspects of T.V. drama, to which reference has been made, but we are now confronted with the B.B.C. obsession with satire, some of which may be suitable for smart West End clubs, but I fail to see that such a "snide" and cruel approach to life, inspired by smart-Alicks striving to say clever and outrageous things, has much place in family entertainment. Yet some sort of purpose can be served, within reason; and I believe, as has already been said, that the B.B.C. might take a leaf out of the book of Bernard Braden, who in that particular field can do a job far better than those responsible for some of these other so-called satirical programmes.
One could go on for quite a long time, my Lords, but I personally believe that the malaise which seems at the moment to affect the B.B.C. is brought about by a clash between those who think that the B.B.C's job is to beat I.T.V. in the running of such banalities as panel games, American serials and all-in wrestling, and, on the other hand, those who think that the B.B.C. should cater for minorities, with professors lecturing on abstruse philosophy and the like. It seems at the moment that the happy medium which has to be secured is agonisingly beyond the reach of the B.B.C.; and this situation, I believe, demands a drastic reappraisal of programme policies. To conclude, although I have been critical, I still believe that both B.B.C. and I.T.V. have done good work. I believe that there are still tremendous opportunities ahead for social good in television, and I refuse to believe that there can be no reconciliation between popular entertainment and good taste.
6.34 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I want to mention only one very small point

987
in connection with the Independent Television Authority's most comprehensive Code of Advertising Standards and Practice. Paragraph 14 of this Code deals with the unacceptable products or services for advertising purposes, and the last two matters dealt with in that paragraph are betting and betting tips. No doubt this is quite right. I should imagine that most of us are thankful that the I.T.A. does not allow advertisements from bookmakers to appear upon the television screen in people's homes: but they seem to me to permit their programme companies to pursue a policy which runs somewhat counter to this excellent prohibition against betting advertisements.
When a programme company televise a horse race, they naturally give betting information about that race. That, of course, they are bound to do: you could not convey the atmosphere of the racecourse to people sitting at home unless you did give information about the betting. But they are not content with that. They give not only betting information about the race which they are just going to broadcast: they give the betting on all the races at all the race meetings in England which are about to be run. If there are four race meetings in England, there are four 2.30 p.m. races. You are going to be shown on the television screen one 2.30 race, but you are going to be told the state of the betting on four 2.30 races. It seems to me that in this way the atmosphere of the betting shop is being brought into people's homes, and this is just the sort of situation which I should have thought the I.T.A. were trying to guard against when they so sensibly set their face against accepting advertisements from bookmakers.
The B.B.C. do not do this. The B.B.C. confine themselves to giving betting information about the races which they are going to broadcast, and about no other races. I wish that the I.T.A. would take a lead from the B.B.C. and would adopt this practice themselves, confining their betting information simply to the races which they are going to broadcast. If they want to do more for the betting public, let them televise more races, and then, at least, the betting public can have the
988
satisfaction of the thrill of seeing the race on which they are betting, and not be encouraged to bet blindly upon races which they are not going to have the satisfaction of watching.
6.37 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I want to say just a very few words on one very small aspect of the B.B.C. I happen to belong to an organisation known as the Composers' Guild, so I think it is hardly necessary for me to say that I must declare an interest. A few months ago that Guild was discussing the amount of music by present-day British composers which was broadcast. It got together a commission to look into this, and some of us were "roped in" to analyse some of the programmes. I happened to be one of those, and I was given copies of the Radio Times for four consecutive weeks and told to confine myself solely to the Home Service and the Third Programme. That, of course, is very reasonable, because one naturally expects the Light Programme to be what it is, and television, with few exceptions, is not a particularly ideal medium for music.
I did this analysis very carefully. I had had a slight suspicion for some years that the amount of serious music of any kind broadcast was rather small, and also, incidentally, that it was broadcast at times when people would not be very likely to listen to it. We were told to give the total time of serious music of all kinds, and then to analyse from that the percentage of music by present-day British composers. By "serious music" I mean everything except just "pop" music. Well I did so. And it was astonishing to me to find that one would quite frequently find no more than about two hours of serious music per day and that one would be lucky to find, perhaps, forty minutes of music by contemporary British composers. There was plenty of contemporary music, but it was not British.
Our composers are turning out a great deal of very interesting music, and the composer to-day does not have an easy job. I do not think that it is generally realised that publishers are closing down very much on what they will take for publication. In fact, one of our leading publishers have issued a statement that they will accept nothing for publication

989
except that which is quite certain of selling at a profit. Of course, one knows what that means. Nothing sells at a profit to begin with, unless it is what one might call popular music or, at any rate, well known music. Therefore, the present-day British composer is finding it very difficult to get a hearing at all.
The B.B.C. is absolutely ideally placed to remedy this. I hope it will not be very long before it will look into this and realise that we are producing good art. I am not speaking for myself in any way whatsoever, but merely for my contemporaries and colleagues. There is a great deal of very good music being written to-day, and I hope the B.B.C. will soon be prepared to let the public hear a little more of it.
6.42 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to begin by associating myself with those who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for giving us this opportunity to debate the Reports of the B.B.C. and I.T.A. If I may say so, he made a very interesting speech based on his own very considerable personal experience and, with due respect, I thought he spoke with great wisdom on the subject of programmes.
Both of these Reports in their own way make fascinating reading, but in most respects they are not really comparable. The B.B.C. Report covers the whole range of sound broadcasting as well as television, and in the field of television, where competition does exist, the I.T.A. stands in a very different relationship to its programme companies from that of the B.B.C. to its producers. Another point that struck me when I first came to look at these Reports, and which seemed to me fundamental to our consideration of the whole subject, is that there is such a vast output of both sound and television broadcasting that it is almost impossible for any of us to hear or to see more than a very small proportion of what is actually put out. Your Lordships, I know, are all particularly busy people and you may listen while you are shaving or may listen to the radio in your car as you come here, but I am sure it is impossible to do much more listening-in until you return home in the evening. Then you probably prefer to look at television rather than to listen to sound broadcasting. Certainly, when
990
I get home I am afraid I am tied down to "Pinky and Perky "—but then I have small children.
My Lords, it is impossible to cover the whole ground of these Reports and I should like to restrict myself to some of the main matters of policy that seem to me to arise. I should like to state frankly, to start with, that personally I am a very great admirer of the B.B.C. I must admit that I was once paid by them, but I was not paid very much and I do not consider myself in any way prejudiced for that reason. I believe that the B.B.C. is one of the great institutions that have been evolved by our society. I also should like to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Reith, who was instrumental in setting it on the right course. It is unique in its constitution and enjoys a tremendous reputation overseas. I am not saying it is perfect—and not even the B.B.C. would claim that; I am not saying it is a bad thing that the B.B.C. faces competition from commercial television; and I am certainly not saying I do not admire much that has been achieved by the I.T.A. What I do feel is that in considering future broadcasting policy we should be extremely careful not to take any step that might drastically alter the effectiveness of the B.B.C.
There are real dangers ahead and underlying them all is the root of all evil, money. The B.B.C.'s own broadcasting services, as has been said by other noble Lords, are financed by licence fees. This has been so since the B.B.C. began. It is this independence of Government finance or advertising pressures that has given the B.B.C. its unique standing both in this country and abroad. There is no doubt in my mind that to depart from the licence system would strike at the heart of the B.B.C.'s independence and would seriously damage its position in the world. The difficulty is that the B.B.C. requires a licence fee of £6 in place of the present £4. Obviously, no Government like to pass on additional costs to the consumer, and especially I can sympathise with the present Government at the present time. But I hope they will face up to the realities of the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, explained how very cheaply, on the whole, the

991
average British household was getting the service given it by the B.B.C. I can only add that, with the exception of Holland where the inclusive fee is some £4 14s. 8d., every Continental country within the European Broadcasting Union charges a combined licence fee of over £6 and, with the exception of France and Belgium, of over £7. Moreover, in spite of rising costs and increased services, No 1ncrease in the licence fee has been asked of the British public since 1957. The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, told us that this matter was under consideration. I very much hope that the Government, when they come to make their decision, will cherish that unique independence the B.B.C. enjoys and will stick to the well-proved financial arrangements of the licence fee.
Personally, I hope the Government will resist the blandishments of those who wish to start commercial sound radio. I know that in this respect I differ from some of my noble friends on this side of the House and I am, therefore, in this matter expressing only my own personal view. It has been suggested that local sound broadcasting should start and should be entrusted to commercial firms. I much prefer the alternative recomended by the Pilkington Committee that such local sound radio stations should be run by the B.B.C. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Worcester paid tribute to the experimental programme that had been put on by the B.B.C. in the Vale of Evesham. And I hope that in due course the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, will have a chance to look at that programme, which perhaps will allay his fears about local sound broadcasting, especially if it were to be produced by the B.B.C.
I would say a word on a subject which has not so far been mentioned—the external broadcasting services of the B.B.C. Noble Lords opposite do not believe in an independent nuclear deterrent, and many of them have often said in the past that this country can retain its prestige and influence in the world without it. I suggest that if they really believe that, the more firmly should they support the external broadcasting services, which do so much for British prestige overseas.
At the end of the last war the B.B.C. was the most powerful broadcasting in-
992
fluence in a world of 150 million radio sets. To-day there are 434 million radio sets and 138 million television sets, but the B.B.C. has sunk to fourth in the table of output of broadcasting hours, tailing behind the U.S.S.R., China and the "Voice of America" and hotly pursued by West Germany and Egypt. In 1950, the B.B.C. broadcast about 650 hours a week. To-day, this has decreased to just over 600 hours, at a time when other countries have been increasing their output. I think that opportunities at this moment are outstandingly good. The B.B.C. external services are re-broadcast by more stations than those of any other country, and this is still so, despite the fact that many emergent countries consider it inconsistent with their independence to continue broadcasting B.B.C. programmes. It is interesting to know that in certain of these newly independent countries, where the B.B.C. news bulletins are not now officially re-broadcast, the listeners' demands are being met by commercial broadcasting systems.
There is much to be done, however, if the B.B.C. is to maintain its position, and this must depend ultimately on finance from the Government. Increasingly listeners overseas are turning to the use of medium waves and no longer depend on short-wave broadcasting. The effectiveness of what can be achieved by our overseas broadcasting service on medium waves is shown by the success of the B.B.C.'s Arabic service. Of nearly 200, 000 letters received from overseas during the year, nearly one quarter are in Arabic. Moreover, a survey in 1963 in the four chief cities of the Lebanon shows that the B.B.C. Arabic services had a regular audience of more than half of the radio listeners. This is massive proof of the need to develop more medium-wave broadcasting, and I very much hope that the Government will look with sympathy on the B.B.C. plans for new transmitters to carry their overseas services on medium waves.
Another influence that the B.B.C. has on overseas broadcasting, both sound and television, is in training staff from overseas. There is a continuing demand for such training but, unfortunately, without further Government assistance the B.B.C. is not in a position to help as much as it could. Only recently the principal Director

993
of the Department of Mass Communication of Unesco advised developing countries not to send television trainees to Britain because of the lack of adequate training facilities, and stated that, although he personally regretted it, many emerging countries were now sending their trainees to broadcasting organisations in the Communist bloc. The B.B.C., I know, has discussed this most disquieting situation with: he Ministry of Overseas Development and has its plans ready to provide television training for overseas students. It would be a tragedy if this unique opportunity of influencing the development of newly emerging nations were to be missed owing to lack of finance.
I should like to pass now to the Report of the Independent Television Authority. It equally makes sound and sensible reading. The Television Act, 1964, greatly strengthened the hand of I.T.A., especially in regard to programmes and advertising. And, with respect, I would congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, on the active way in which he is implementing the provisions of this Act. Although it is still early to judge, I have the impression that his use of the powers conferred on I.T.A. will be nothing but beneficial to independent television programmes. I myself am particularly impressed by the fact that I.T.A. have not only established a Programme Policy Committee but have also constituted a series of periodic consultations between their own members in I.T.A., members of the 14 programme companies and outside experts on various fields of programme planning. The first, on children's programmes, is to be held in March, followed by one on drama and a third on current affairs. I believe that this attempt to bring a positive influence to bear on future programmes is not only creative but wholly praiseworthy, and bound to be of great value.
There seem to me to be two main policy matters concerning I.T.A. The first is the question of a second commercial channel, which has been lucidly and eloquently advocated this afternoon, not only by my noble friend Lord Bessborough but also by the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams. I should like to say that it also has the full support of
994
the Opposition, and I press the Government to accept that I.T.A. should be given a second commercial channel.
There are various advantages that this would bring. In the first place, it would introduce competition for advertising and remove the present monopoly which individual programme companies enjoy in their areas. In the second place—a point that was made in great detail by the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams—the B.B.C. already have a second channel and therefore enjoy more hours of broadcasting than the commercial companies. In fact, in present circumstances it would be possible for a commercial television company to argue that in order to meet the competition of two B.B.C. channels they have to pay more attention to nothing but popular programmes rather than those of perhaps more educative interest.
In the third place, with two commercial channels it would be possible to give a full seven-day franchise to independent companies, and this would certainly be of benefit. The fact is that at the moment an independent television company that has a franchise only at the week-end is inhibited from producing a fully balanced schedule, and might well not develop some of the better programmes that it would if it had a full seven-day franchise. Lastly, it would allow new companies in the field of television broadcasting. The present franchises granted to existing companies have been limited initially to three years to take account of a possible second channel.
The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, told us that this matter was under consideration and would be taken into acount, but I should like to suggest that, for many reasons, there is a good deal of urgency about this consideration. One of them is that the future planning of transmitters depends on the Government's decision. I know, for example, that in Wales T.W.W. are extremely interested in expanding their reception, and this requires more transmitters in different parts of the country; but naturally, the I.T.A. are reluctant to undertake the building of more transmitters until they know precisely where their future lies with regard to a second channel, which would, of course, be on 625 lines and

995
on U.H.F. I should like to press the Government to authorise the Independent Television Authority forthwith to seek the means of setting up a second independent channel, at least in the areas of large population, by 1966.
The second problem that faces the I.T.A.—or, at least, it is a problem with which they are concerned—is the control of hours of broadcasting. At present, both the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. are limited to 50 hours of broadcasting a week, with extra hours for outside broadcasts, educational programmes and religious programmes. The I.T.A., I think, feel that if they could secure more hours it would be a great advantage in producing more of the minority type of programmes and of allowing them to do more in the way of repeats. I must say that I have great sympathy with them in this request. The extra hours, of course, would not be at the most lucrative financial time, and therefore would be likely to lead to the better type of programme being put on in those extra hours. The possibility of putting on more repeats would provide programmes for shift workers and others who are not always able to view at the most popular times.
I realise that an increase in hours might be difficult for the B.B.C. from a financial point of view, but I am assuming that the Government will provide the B.B.C., through the licence fee, with sufficient money to finance their operations. I should like to see a better service provided to all viewers by an increase of hours.
I am sure it has been most useful for this House to have the opportunity to debate these two excellent Reports, though it is sad that neither the noble Lord, Lord Normanbrook, nor the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has been able to take part, by reason of the offices they hold. I know we all feel that we have been deprived of their expert knowledge. Broadcasting is one of the most powerful influences on public opinion, and it is right that Parliament should discuss the subject at periodic intervals. I think we must all welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in giving us this opportunity.
7.5 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRE TARY, MINISTRY of TECHNOLOGY
(LORD SNOW): My Lords, I think you would wish me to begin by saying again how much we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Willis for introducing this debate. It has been a debate which I am sure will be of immense help to Her Majesty's Government and to the heads of the two television services, the noble Lords, Lord Normanbrook and Lord Hill of Luton, who are sitting silently with us to-night. I have found myself fascinated by each speech—I have heard every one of them—and I do not think I have ever in my life felt myself more in accord with a group of fellow speakers.
Telecommunications have made more difference to our daily lives than any other invention of this century: of that I think there is no reasonable doubt. Television has reached people in a way that no other means of communication has ever reached them. Shakespeare could walk through the streets of Tudor London and no one would recognise him. The same would not happen to, say, Mr. Eamonn Andrews or a television announcer: they are recognised by face more than any people have ever been in any large society, or probably even in any fairly small society. None of us knows what this influence really means. We know that it is there. We know that this extraordinary force is going on around us, and yet we cannot measure what it really means in terms of influence or of life. This is the thing that we have to try to guess. I am told that it is rather odd to be a great television personality. It is not so much like being famous as being like a domestic pet, inasmuch as wherever you go people pat you on the head, or say, "It is nice to see you", or make some jocular remark. It is an odd kind of notoriety or fame. Television itself, to some extent, has this same kind of oddness. I am sceptical about some of the claims made for its influence—and I shall come to that later. But it is going to grow under our hands, and we should be far more irresponsible than we are if we were to let it happen without thinking about it.
My impression is that, on the whole, television has had a strongly beneficial influence. I believe that the level of interest of the ordinary working life has been immensely heightened by this invention; and that seems to me to be a great good. It is fashionable among some of my friends to think of the wonders of the

997
peasant life, this being seen from comfortable urban surroundings. I suggest to such gentlemen that they should go and see how peasants do live, and the intolerable boringness of the lives that most people on this planet still have to endure. In fact, television has removed part of the curse of that boringness more than anything I can think of; and in that way it seems to me to be a force far more for good than for harm. I believe there are some possibilities of harm, and I should like to make a personal contribution later to cover those. But now I think I should try to reply to the business part of the debate.
My noble friend Lord Willis made a speech which showed the warmth of feeling and depth of imagination which make him such a good writer. Most of his practical points, I can assure him, the Government are studying, considering or about to act upon. The first point is, of course, the rather crude one of the B.B.C. licence fee. I cannot give your Lordships a categorical answer about that this evening. I should like to answer the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, with the same courtesy which he extends to us; but we cannot do this. We have had a certain amount on our plate, if I may say so, and this has not been absolutely first on the list. But we are taking it seriously, and we want to give the right answer.
There are certain ways of maintaining the B.B.C.'s independence, which we desire just as much as noble Lords opposite, that would not necessarily involve an increase in fee. It may do, but we are not sure. Quite clearly, no Government, in the present state of our economy, wants to impose an extra charge, even of this kind, unless we are completely forced to do so. I can assure the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Worcester, that his desires for the integrity of the B.B.C. and its freedom from influence are being extremely carefully watched. Let us have no doubt about that; that is completely common ground.
The second point that my noble friend raised was the part the regions play in television. This is a complex administrative matter which is being actively analysed at present. How we are to get the full contribution from places other than London is something we should all like to know, and not only in television but in everything else in
998
this country, since it is true that it is concentrated in one part of England, and anything we can do to break that up we should like to do. In fact, quite a lot of programmes reach the national services from the regions, both on B.B.C. and I.T.V. Quoting figures offhand, I think I am right in saying that on B.B.C. in 1963-64 something like 2,000 hours of programmes originated in the regions, of which something like 600 hours were spent on the national network. That is not contemptible.
I agree that more could be done, but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and other persons from Northern parts, that these things are not being forgotten. We want any kind of devolution, and we do not share the fears of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, that he will be stupified by the conversation of the dons of that excellent University of Exeter. We suspect that regions, if properly used, can be extremely valuable. Anyone who has had any American experience will agree with this. It is done, particularly in sound radio, to a very large extent. Almost every university in America has its broadcasting station, and they do many extremely interesting things with this, including broadcasting programmes which could never in American circumstances, find their way on to the air at all. These tangled administrative arrangements about regions, and so on, we are at the moment working on very hard.
That leads me to the question of the fourth channel, and the pleas made by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for an immediate decision about the destination of the fourth channel, or, rather, where the fourth channel is going. Here again, we all want the same things. I can assure noble Lords opposite that there is no prejudice in the Government against I.T.A. Indeed, I should like to associate myself with the compliments paid to the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, for the work that he has done with the Authority. There is no prejudice whatever. We should all like more channels of various kinds, and it is merely a question of how soon we get them into effect; which we do first; what the order of priorities is, and how much we can afford. All noble Lords will realise that these are complicated administrative problems, not large, so much as tiresome. It may be some time before we get them

999
sorted out, and I am afraid that it may be some time before we can possibly do everything we want. Money is short and, to some extent, other resources also are short.
We have one complication. We are committed—and we wish to be committed—to a serious educational channel, or, shall I say, a serious source of educational material. This was for some time resisted by educational circles, academics and the like, but the present mood has changed. I think it is now generally agreed that in our real educational predicament television could make a serious contribution. Whether we call it the "University of the Air", or whatever we call it, we could, in fact, get education of a serious kind, rather in the same sense that at the beginning of this century the university correspondence colleges did splendid work. It is not ideal, and not up to the standard of education which most of us have had; but it is a great deal better than nothing.
We suspect—in fact we are sure—that with sensible treatment this particular educational use of television can be one of its real values to our society. So this, to us, has a very high priority. Whether it means immediately giving the fourth channel to such education, or whether we can find another way of doing it, is again for discussion; and it was being seriously considered, I can tell your Lordships, by Ministers last night, in conjunction with the B.B.C.
This does not mean that the normal services of either the B.B.C. or I.T.V. will be shorn of their present educative contribution. It would be very wrong if we had an educational channel which was deliberately designed for people wanting to obtain degrees and if this were regarded as a reason for taking away the serious educative programmes—if your Lordships will allow me to use a different adjective—which are now one of the best parts of the B.B.C. and I.T.V. Let us be quite clear about that. We wish those services to go on in something like their present distribution time.
Like my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams, I wish we had more time for them, but they must have something like their present balance, whatever we do with an educational programme. We should propose to further such an educational service by a proper use of regional
1000
sound broadcasting, which, we suspect, could be very useful as a follow-up weapon to this kind of use of television as the main teaching instrument. This matter has not yet got much beyond the study stage, but we believe that we can weave the two together in a way which has already been tried in the United States and elsewhere. We are fairly sure that this will be a useful method of using local sound broadcasting which again, if it is really local, can have some virtues. If it is just an excuse for having songs sung from the centre, so to speak, but produced in the North, that is nonsense. There is no point in local services unless they are really local. On that, I think pur minds are already made up.
My noble friend Lord Willis laid great stress, and rightly—and he was backed by other noble Lords—on the problem of export. Here we are in great sympathy. What we can do is not quite so obvious. It is worth mentioning, of course, that some of the more distinguished achievements of British television have been extremely effective in the United States. The "Age of Kings", which my noble friend Lord Willis mentioned, took the more cultured part of America completely by storm. That is an example of what could be done with real skill in this medium. It was an immense success.
While I am on the subject of external broadcasting, I should like to say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in his praise of the external services of the B.B.C. They are one of the great contributions of the B.B.C., and, indeed, there we have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. Far from it, we have every reason to be deeply proud. Some parts of British television are better than anything I have seen elsewhere in the world. Here I would agree with the compliments which have been paid by noble Lords on both sides of the House. The science programmes on B.B.C. television, for instance, at the moment are quite first-class; they are marvels of expository skill. A series like "The Plane Makers" on I.T.V. is as well done of its kind as I can imagine anyone doing it. In sound broadcasting our external services are first-class.
I do not think I am quite as optimistic as my noble friend Lord Willis in thinking that there is an infinite or very large

1001
supply of talented dramatists just waiting to be given a free go by both television services. I should have thought that play-writing, as he should know better than any of us, is in fact a rather difficult game, and that most playwrights, if they can write at all, would prefer to write for the stage, for the very crude and simple reason that the commercial rewards are about ten times as great. I find it really hard to imagine that this enormous demand for dramatic hours, so to speak, which the television services are throwing up, this constant appetite for plays, is going to be seriously satisfied. If so, we are richer in talent than any country in the world has ever been, because no country can cope with this. I am not sure what the answer is.
I should now like to come to what has been on the mind of many noble Lords throughout the debate and with which my noble friend Lord Willis encouraged us all at the end of his speech. When all this is over, when we have got through the administrative problems which broadly we are all agreed is a matter of priorities, the actual ends are clear. We all know approximately what we want to do with the arrangement of services and so on; there are no real differences between us; and we also know some of the technical problems with which my noble friend Lord Hobson coped: whether colour television is really a high priority (all this is for sensible discussion and will not give us any great pain). But at the back of most of our minds there is the thought, how serious we do not know, that we have here a medium which we do not fully understand, whose powers we do not really know, whose influence we can only estimate. And here (God help us!) we are having to try to cope.
No one in the history of this kind of communication has really had a coherent view of what he wanted to do with it. with the single and startling exception of the noble Lord, Lord Reith. He began with a vision which I must say I do not entirely share but which I deeply respect, of what can be done with such a medium. In the process of carrying out his vision, though many of us disagreed with him, often violently, he raised the tone of our national life. Of this we are quite clear. We are not so sure that the same vision is easy to sustain at present.
1002
I find myself in serious and fundamental disagreement with the kind of implicit attitude which I suspect is present somewhere beneath the consciousness perhaps of those most responsible for the programmes on television. Much of it is excellent. As I say, on this there is no difference between any of us. Much of our television is as good as anything in the world, or better. But there are bits which stand out like sore thumbs. We are uneasy; we do not know how much they matter or how much they mean. We do not know whether the passionate eloquence of my noble friend Lord Peddie or of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has exaggerated the case or whether it is true. But I would suggest that we ought to think about it as deeply as we can. We can conceivably do real harm; we do not know.
The influence on children of a medium like this may be negligible; it may be very great. I should like to see some serious sociological and psychological examination. Whether repeated sexual programmes really have an impact on many people, again we do not know. Whether the incursion of violence is serious, again we do not know. I should suspect that it was rather more serious than the first, but I have no basis for that remark; it is just a hunch. These are problems which no responsible man in Parliament can possibly ignore. If we try to ignore them we are merely trying to be "with it", as the fashionable phrase is; and nothing is more contemptible than middle-aged or elderly gentlemen trying to be "with it". It does you no good; it is bad for the soul; it is very bad for the young with whom you are trying to be "with", because the only way in which you meet anyone different from your own age is acting in your own freedom, as the existentialists say, and letting them act in theirs. That is the only serious way for a human relationship.
So I often have a feeling that part of our television friends try to be "with it" much too much. It does not fit them very easily and it leads to some curious results. There is a fashion to say things like this: "Violence is the artistic climate of our time", or is the "climate of our art". I do not believe anyone can say that, who has ever seen or been concerned with violence. It is always said by people who have com-

1003
pletely escaped it. Go to Russia, to people who really know something about violence, who lost 20 million dead, and see what they put on television. Some of it you will not like, some of it you will find dull; but the idea that they ever have a programme of the kind of violence that we had about two years ago—I think the position has improved much since then—would be absolutely unthinkable and intolerable, as a great deal of the sexual expositions would be.
This would be true not only of old-fashioned Russia, of hard doctrinal Russia; this would be true of my young intellectual friends. When they see our television, though they admire 95 per cent. of it passionately and think our skills are wonderful and they always admire our acting—and I thought the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, was rather unfair here—our most emancipated friends, people passionately longing for emancipation in their own society, say that, whatever happens, they are not going to have this. I think we ought to take that kind of outside reflection to heart.
I suspect the difference between me, at least—and here in all that I have just said I am speaking for myself and not for the Government—is that there is a difference in attitude. I believe that men are wild and dangerous animals with some possibilities of goodness and grace. I do not believe in a sort of romantic Rousseau-ish idea that if you just let everything go, all will turn out well on the night. This seems to me destructive in the extreme, because by doing so, by letting all the destructive impulses in your own nature go, you know in your own life what may happen, far more than you know if you encourage the destructive impulses in other people.
Another of these manifestations which I, like the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, find extremely distasteful, is an element of defamation. He protested with chivalry against defamation of this side of the House. I am going to return the compliment. I heard as a casual insult, not the least witty, a remark about a member of the last Government whom I happen to know. I know this remark to be totally untrue; it was an insult without any humour, just thrown out, as though I said "You are the stupidest man I have ever known". This is intolerable;
1004
this sort of defamation no society can survive for ever. It wears down the good nature which is essential if we are to live a corporate life. Cruelty comes very easily to most of us; it takes a lifetime to get any sort of kindness. It is putting that opposite the present conventional view where I find myself in real antagonism.
The Government, however, believe that the content of programmes is entirely the responsibility of the two authorities. There is No 1ntention in anyone's mind of departing from that attitude. It is our right, and I think our duty, to say what we feel on these matters, as persons in Parliament and, presumably, persons who are interested in how our society is going; and this we must continue to do. But the responsibility is fairly and squarely with the noble Lords, Lord Normanbrook and Lord Hill of Luton. There is no getting away from that. We will not attempt to alter that by one inch. But I still find it necessary to say some of the things I said tonight. But to be just—let us end on a more cheerful note—I believe that, in fact, both in violence and in over-sexuality, both services have improved since the very bad period about two years ago when things really were getting somewhat absurd. I have no particular love for incest, but incest several nights of the week is getting rather too much. Defamation still seems to me to continue its gay and giddy way, quite unfounded. This I regret; but, as I have said, things are improving.
I believe that noble Lords can make a contribution by expressing their views to the television authorities. I am sure they will be grateful for it. In fact a great deal of writing books or public entertainment or instruction is a curiously lonely thing; you write a book or send out a programme, and you have not the faintest idea of what is happening. I suspect that a great deal of the alienation and loneliness mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, derives from that: they have not anybody to talk to them, even to disagree. I believe this kind of thing is largely prevented by people talking vigorously to one another.
My Lords, with all these qualifications we still have one of the best television services in the world. It has skills and devotion beyond compare. It produces a quite remarkable amount of talent. I

1005
repeat that, in general, it has done incomparably more good than harm. It has enlivened life for thousands and millions of people. Like my noble friend Lord Willis, I do not think the people who watch it are stupid. I believe, in fact, that they are picking out what they want; they are getting great enrichment; the quality of their lives is going up. It is now our duty to see that they get even more and even better.
LORD ABERDARE: May I ask the noble Lord one question? In the course of his most interesting speech he mentioned that the Government were considering some method of financing the B.B.C. which would respect its independence but, at the same time, would not involve an increase in licence fee. Could he give some idea of what he had in mind? Would it be a Government grant?
LORD SNOW: No. 1 did not wish to be drawn into this matter, but as I am pressed I must.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Do not go too far.
LORD SNOW: One possibility, which I know would be acceptable to the B.B.C. and which the Government might consider, would be if we had an educational channel that might conceivably be financed by the Government as a separate institution. This would not impair the B.B.C.'s independence but would take considerably from their overheads, and in fact would be another method of doing very much the same thing.
7.36 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I should like to thank very much all those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate to-day, which I think has been extremely interesting and useful. I had thought that since it was fixed for virtually the first day of discussions in your Lordships' House after the Recess there might be a little difficulty in getting it going and we might have what the Light Entertainment department might call a "flop", and what the Third Programme might call an unfructifying manifestation. In fact, we have had, 3 think, an extremely useful and interesting discussion. I think it is a pity it has drawn to a close, because I should like to clash swords a little with one or two things
1006
my noble friend Lord Snow said and argue them a little further. But I am not going to detain your Lordships any longer.
I would thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his very generous and, I thought, wise statement. In particular I was pleased that he corrected what I thought was a rather unfair balance creeping into the discussion of an anti-BBC kind. I think that would be wrong; I think nobody in your Lordships' House would want this to exist. I think we should want to say that what criticisms we have made have been made fairly, in relation to the immense and very valuable job being done.
I think also that perhaps I have been a little ungracious, and I apologise for not having thanked the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and the noble Lord, Lord Normanbrook, for the pleasure that their organisations have given us in the last few years: I wish to convey my own personal thanks and those of this House. I have, as I say, a lot more things to say, but I am not going to say them tonight. I wish to thank your Lordships once again, and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ABERDARE MARKETS AND TOWN HALL COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
BARCLAYS BANK D.C.O. BILL [H.L.]
BRIGHTON SKYDECK BILL [H.L.]
CRUDE OIL TERMINALS (HUMBER) BILL[H.L.]
DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
DURHAM MARKETS COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE BILL [H.L.]
MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL[H.L.]
PEMBROKESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
POOLE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
PORT OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [H.L.]
SAINT LAURENCE, CATFORD, BILL [H.L.]
SAINT MARY, ALVERSTOKE, BURIAL GROUND BILL [H.L.]
WALTON AND WEYBRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read la.

PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS OF PERSONS FOUND GUILTY OF CAPITAL MURDER

A. ENGLAND AND WALES

Year

Number of persons found guilty of capital murder

Number of previous convictions, by types of offences (excluding additional findings of guilt recorded at the same time as the conviction for the principal offence and offences taken into consideration by the court in passing sentence)

Total

Violence against the person

Sex

Breaking and Entering

Receiving, Frauds and False Pretences

Larceny

Motoring

Other

1957

3

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1

4

—

—

1

—

2

1

—

1

1

—

—

1

—

—

—

—

1

1

—

—

—

1

—

—

—

1958

1

6

—

—

3

—

3

—

—

1

4

—

1

—

—

1

—

2

1

12

—

—

2

—

8

—

2

1

3

—

—

—

1

1

—

1

1

5

—

—

2

—

3

—

—

1

21

—

4

—

1

15

—

1

1

18

—

—

5

—

10

—

3

1

5

2

—

—

—

3

—

—

1959

2

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1

4

—

—

2

—

2

—

—

1

2

1

1

—

—

—

—

—

1

1

—

—

—

—

1

—

—

1

1

—

—

1

—

—

—

—

1960

2

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1

3

1

—

—

—

2

—

—

1

5

—

—

—

—

2

3

—

1

4

—

—

—

1

3

—

—

1

5

—

—

1

—

4

—

—

1

7

—

—

1

—

6

—

—

1

3

—

—

2

—

1

—

—

1

6

—

—

—

—

2

2

2

1961

3

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1

4

—

—

—

—

3

—

1

1

6

—

—

—

1

1

4

—

1

3

1

—

—

—

2

—

—

1

12

1

1

1

1

5

—

3

1

4

—

—

1

—

2

—

1

1

4

—

—

4

—

—

—

—