Lords Sitting of 16 July 1968

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

NEW FOREST PONIES
LORD AMULREE: 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 can confirm the statement made by Mr. David Burgess, a veterinary surgeon (quoted in the Guardian newspaper) that owing to insufficient food in the New Forest many ponies face starvation; and, if that is so, whether they will carry out his recommendation and ensure that for three months each year the Forest is cleared of ponies.]
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, my information is that this report is in some respects exaggerated. I am told by the New Forest Verderers that the ponies were in unusually poor condition in the spring of this year—following an exceptionally wet winter—but that with few exceptions they are now in generally good condition. It is the regular practice of the Verderers to have an inspection of the animals made in the autumn and to request the removal from the Forest of any which seem unlikely to come through the winter in reasonable condition. The Verderers have given notice to the Commoners' and Pony Breeders Associations that a particularly thorough inspection will be made this year.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his most helpful reply. May I ask him whether the Verderers will take particular care to see that the virus diseases which occur in the Forest among ponies that are under-nourished are not allowed to spread? Can he say whether
178
it is the fact that if these diseases occur they begin to spread with great rapidity?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, this is one of the reasons for having this special examination of all the animals later this year. I agree with what the noble Lord has said.
LORD AMULREE: I thank the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, would the Minister agree with the New Forest Society that there will now be a further profit in the sale of scrub ponies for meat?
LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, that really is another Question. I personally have no knowledge of this; but I know that the noble Marquess is greatly experienced in these matters.

MOTORWAYS CRASH BARRIERS AND SAFETY FENCES
2.38 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: 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 the tests on crash barriers and double steel rail safety fences being carried out on an eighteen-mile length of the M1 have now yielded enough information for further barriers to be erected on all motorways.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, we took full account of these experiments in reaching our conclusion that it would not be an economical use of our limited resources to install central crash barriers along the whole length of all motorways. But we shall install further lengths wherever particular road conditions or traffic volumes make this desirable. The reasons for this decision are set out in full in the sixth Special Report from the Estimates Committee for 1967–68.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him whether the steel rail fencing would be cheaper to install than actual crash barriers?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord now because I am not informed on that matter, but I will write to him about it.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is it intended to do any planting on the central reservations where crash barriers are not going to be fixed, so that at least there will be the benefit of preventing headlight dazzle?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me I will write to him on that point, too.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether the central crash barriers will incorporate an anti-dazzle screen as well?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would care to await my answer to the next Question which deals with this point.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, would the Government bear in mind that tough shrubbery as an alternative to a steel barrier has a cushioning effect on a vehicle that is out of control, and does not have the effect, which a rigid steel barrier has, of causing such a vehicle to bounce back into the highway?
LORD WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I will note that point.

MOTOR CAR HEADLAMP DAZZLE
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to lessen the danger caused to motorists and other road users by dazzle from the headlamps of motor cars.]
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport hopes to make an announcement about this before the Recess. Motorists themselves can help by getting the aim of their headlamps checked and by dipping their headlamps when meeting or overtaking another vehicle.
LORD SEGAL: Yes, my Lords. While thanking my noble friend for that reply, so far as it goes, can he explain why, after seventy years of motoring progress in this country, no efficient means have yet been evolved for preventing a motorist from blinding other motorists with his headlights or preventing other motorists from blinding him with theirs?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is unfortunate that we have not been able to find the answer to this problem. Of course, the Road Research Laboratory has conducted extensive experiments, in particular experiments with anti-dazzle screens on the M.1. The peculiar thing is that these screens did not show any significant saving in accidents; in fact, the accident rate was higher when the anti-dazzle screens were used than where they were not installed. We believe that we must spend the money available for road safety on measures which we know will give us a return in terms of lives saved and accidents prevented.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if a motorist adheres carefully to the Highway Code he is perpetually occupied in dipping and beaming his headlights instead of concentrating all his attention on the road?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am afraid that that is one of the facts of driving.

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL
2.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short Bill to amend the law about Restrictive Trade Practices. It has two main purposes—on the one hand to make the operation of the legislation more flexible in the light of present day needs; and on the other hand to prevent evasion of the existing legislation and to strengthen the hands of those whose duty it is to enforce it. The legislation is complex, and it may be helpful to the House if I said something about the framework of the existing legislation against which the changes now proposed have to be set.

181
The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 catches within its scope a broad range of agreements by which commercial enterprises agree on restrictions on the production, selling, acquiring or processing of goods. Agreements relating exclusively to exports are excluded but they are required to be notified to the Board of Trade. Also outside the scope of the Act are all restrictions on the supply of services; for example, restrictions in transport and in professional services. These are, however, to some extent covered by the provisions of the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965.
Agreements covered by the Act are required to be registered with the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements. The parties to an agreement covered by the Act are under a statutory obligation to register it with the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements. The Registrar is required to bring registered agreements before the Restrictive Practices Court for judgment. Restrictions in agreements are deemed against the public interest unless the defending parties satisfy the Court that the circumstances set out in one or more of the seven "gateways" of the Act are satisfied and that, further, it is not unreasonable, having regard to the balance between those circumstances and any detriment occasioned to the public or to persons not party to the agreement. The gateways are mostly concerned with specific benefits, but one is of a more general character—that the removal of the restriction would deny the public as purchasers, consumers or users of goods specific and substantial advantages.
There were in 1956 a large number of restrictive agreements which fell to be judged by the Restrictive Practices Court. In the event, a large number were determined voluntarily or were not defended at a court hearing, so that of the 2,600-odd agreements which have been registered only a comparatively few cases have given rise to a contested hearing. Thus only 315 agreements have been referred to the Court: 34 were defended, 11 successfully. The task of dealing with the backlog of pre-Act Agreements is now largely completed and the Registrar can bring proceedings without delay on any new agreement of substantial importance. The cost to the Government
182
of administering the 1956 Act has been comparatively small in relation to the large number of agreements dealt with.
The overall result of the legislation so far is that less than 1 per cent. of the agreements registered have been found consistent with the public interest. The legislation in its operation has clearly had a substantial impact on the extent to which trade and industry can overtly by collective action seek to restrict competition. The Government believe that the legislation has done a good job. Many hundreds of agreements which were designed to maintain the status quo and impede desirable change have been got rid of. At the same time, the legislation has provided a sieve through which beneficial agreements could pass. Although there is no evidence that agreements in the public interest have been condemned, there are grounds for thinking that the making of new agreements which could be beneficial to the national economy have been at times inhibited. This is one of the main reasons why the Government consider that changes are necessary.
It has been claimed that the 1956 Act inhibits the rationalisation and modernisation of British industry, by, for example, impeding the adoption of cooperative schemes which the Government have, through the Economic Development Councils and as a consequence of recommendations made by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, been urging industry to adopt. Industry has generally taken the attitude that it is not prepared to embark upon any scheme which involves the making of a registrable agreement. The sort of schemes to which I am referring cover such matters as variety reduction in a number of industries, co-ordination of plant building programmes to make the best use of process plant capacity, and the possibility of import saving through arrangements to phase the installation of new plant according to the level of demand The developments in Government policy towards industry which have taken place since 1964 have laid particular emphasis on encouraging co-operative action to improve efficiency, and although there are other factors which bear on industry's decisions whether or not to take the sort of action which the Government has been urging on them, it is clearly undesirable that any avoidable impediment

183
should be placed in the way of the Government's industrial policy. It would of course be possible for the industries affected to register their agreements and be prepared to defend them before the Court, but the delay and expense involved might deter action which is positively welcomed in the national interest.
There is another class of agreement which requires special treatment. In connection with prices and incomes policy, the most effective way of ensuring that an industry holds down its prices may be for the trade association concerned to recommend to its members not to put up prices or not to increase them by more than a figure agreed by the Government. Such a recommendation could, however, give rise to a registrable agreement.
Apart from these changes to make the operation of the 1956 Act more flexible, legislation is also needed to remove certain weaknesses which have become apparent in the operation of the 1956 Act. Agreements to exchange information, for example about prices, are thought to have become widely spread over industry in the place of agreements swept away by the 1956 Act. The definition of a registrable agreement is not wide enough to include all information agreements which can be operated to produce the same effect as restrictive agreements. Nor is there any effective deterrent against failure to register an agreement. At first the expectation that parties would register agreements of their own accord was substantially justified, but recent experience has demonstrated that there is now a wide realisation that no ill befalls parties who do not register their agreements and, once registered, the agreements' chances of survival are slim.
Finally, changes are required in order to enable Her Majesty's Government to honour the obligations which they have accepted in two international agreements they entered into since the passage of the 1956 Act. These are the Stockholm Convention establishing the European Free Trade Association and the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. Both these Treaties provide that certain types of restrictive practices are incompatible with them. In the case of the Stockholm Convention Member States have accepted that they should take account of their
184
obligations when contemplating changes in their legislation. Consequential changes in United Kingdom legislation are therefore required and the Government have decided that they should apply to the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement as well as to the E.F.T.A. Convention.
To meet these criticisms of the operation of the existing legislation and also to deal with a number of other points the Bill makes the detailed provisions which I will now describe. Clause 1 vests in the Board of Trade a discretionary power to exempt from registration under the 1956 Act (and thus from judicial examination by the Restrictive Practices Court) for a specified period agreements of substantial importance to the national economy which promote industrial efficiency or provide for new capacity. The object of this provision is to facilitate co-operative action by industry to carry out schemes of modernisation and rationalisation of the sort which the Government has been urging it to adopt and to which I have already made reference.
The exemptions procedure is subject to a number of safeguards. Thus the Board of Trade must be satisfied, after taking into account the interests of consumers, that on balance the making of the agreement is desirable in the national interest; that its object cannot be achieved in a reasonable time except by means of the agreement; and that the restrictions it contains are no more than is necessary to secure this object. Provision is also made for orders affording exemption and for copies of exempted agreements to be laid before both Houses of Parliament and for copies of exempted agreements to be made available for public inspection save in certain exceptional cases to which I shall refer later. On the other hand, industry must have some assurance that an exempted agreement will he allowed to run for a reasonable period. Although the Board therefore have, in certain limited circumstances, power to withdraw exemption before the period for which it was granted has elapsed, they may not do so in the first year of its operation except which there has been misrepresentation or where information has been withheld.
Clause 2 is designed to assist the administration of the prices and incomes policy. Government Departments have

185
found it necessary in connection with the implementation on a voluntary basis of prices policy to secure the acceptance by industry of restraints upon price increases. In particular, Departments need to secure undertakings under the early warning system that advance notice of proposed price increases will be given to them and that price increases will be deferred or limited in amount. Action on these lines involving trade associations or two or more suppliers may involve industry in the making of an agreement which will be registrable under the principal Act. Industry is, however, unwilling to risk proceedings before the Restrictive Practices Court by making such agreements. The Bill, therefore, empowers those Government Departments (named in subsection (6)) which are involved in the operation of the prices and incomes policy to exempt from registration agreements and terms of agreements made at their request for the purpose of preventing or restricting increases in prices, or to reduce prices. Exemption may be given for a period not exceeding two years and it may be extended or withdrawn for misuse. Exempted agreements are required to be made available for public inspection. The procedure is designed to be as simple as possible, having regard to the need for appropriate safeguards. The power applies to agreements made both before and after the commencement of the Act.
Clause 3 makes supplementary provision about agreements exempted by Clauses 1 and 2. For example, it permits trade association recommendations (which are deemed to be agreements by the existing legislation) to be exempted; makes provision for securing copies of exempted agreements or parts of them to be kept secret where this would be in the public interest, or where legitimate trade secrets are involved on similar lines to the provisions of the 1956 Act in relation to registrable agreements. It also deals with the variation of exempted agreements. The present legislation exempts from registration agreements to make goods in accordance with a British standard. Clause 4 widens this exemption to cover agreements about the acquisition or supply of goods made in accordance with British standards. It also extends the exemption to agreements about standards and arrangements for the
186
provision of information or advice to purchasers, consumers or users approved by the Board of Trade and made by standard-making bodies other than the British Standards Institution. The provision supplements the provision empting agreements of importance to the national economy.
As I have already indicated, agreements to exchange information, for example, by notification of prices, can be used to evade the provisions of the present legislation. Clause 5 therefore empowers the Board of Trade, by Statutory Instrument, subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, to require any class of information agreements to he registered. The Board is given a wide power to classify agreements. The power is an enabling one and it is not the Board's intention to call up for regisstration beneficial classes of agreement—for example, agreements made in support of work on inter-firm comparisons. Provision is included for interested persons to make representations o the Board of Trade before a calling up order is made. I also referred to the difficulties which the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements has experienced in securing compliance with the provisions of the existing legislation. While the present legislation requires particulars of an agreement to be furnished to the Registrar within three months it imposes no penalty upon those who fail to comply. The Bill therefore seeks to impose additional pressures upon parties to agreements to compel them to register them.
Clause 6 prescribes the periods in which particulars of agreements are to be sent to the Registrar for registration. The period is normally three months (as at present) or before the restrictions in the agreement come into force, whichever is the earlier. Clause 7 makes unlawful any agreement which is not registered within the appropriate period laid down by Clause 6. No criminal sanctions are imposed but persons damaged by the operation of an unlawful agreement may seek civil remedies. This follows the precedent of the Resale Prices Act. The Registrar is also empowered to seek an injunction to prohibit parties to an unlawful agreement from operating it; or from carrying out or enforcing any other registrable agreement if they have not duly

187
registered it. Issues of fact decided in actions brought by the Registrar may be used as prima facie evidence in civil proceedings brought by third parties, and decisions of law are to be binding in the same circumstances on the same facts.
Under the principal Act the Registrar has a statutory duty to refer all agreements to the Court, including agreements which have been determined, or whose restrictions have been removed or abandoned. To relieve the Registrar and the Court of much unnecessary work, Clause 9 gives the Registrar discretion whether or not to refer such defunct agreements to the Restrictive Practices Court. The only purpose in instituting proceedings in respect of an agreement which is genuinely defunct is to seek a Court order precluding the making of a fresh agreement to the like effect. Proceedings to inhibit the making of like effect agreements are likely to be rare, but will sometimes be necessary.
The Board of Trade already have power under Section 12 of the 1956 Act to exempt insignificant agreements from examination by the Restrictive Practices Court on the ground that they are of no substantial economic significance. In practice, the definition of such agreements has proved to be too narrow. There are a large number of agreements on the Register which do not warrant legal proceedings but do not seem to satisfy the criteria of Section 12. Moreover, the requirement that the Registrar should remove particulars of insignificant agreements from the Registrar has proved to be a nuisance. One agreement has been removed and then had to be restored because of trivial amendments no less than six times. The Bill therefore repeals the existing Section 12 (except for certain transitional purposes) and substitutes for it a power for the Board of Trade to direct that an agreement should not be referred to the Restrictive Practices Court, if it is not of such significance as to call for investigation by the Court.
Clause 10 provides a new ground for defence which will allow parties to plead before the Restrictive Practices Court that a restriction is not contrary to the public interest because it does not have the effect, directly or indirectly, of restricting competition to a material extent. This ground is intended primarily to provide a
188
defence for information agreements, for which the other so-called "gateways" set out in Section 21 of the principal Act are not likely to be appropriate. It is not, however, confined to information agreements. Parties to agreements may advance it in defence of any restriction.
Article 15 of the Stockholm Convention establishing EFTA, recognises that certain types of restrictive practices and monopoly practices are incompatible with the Convention. Member States of EFTA have accepted that this carries with it an obligation that it should be duly implemented. The Bill therefore provides that the Board of Trade should have a discretionary power to declare void in respect of its restrictions any agreement which the EFTA Council has found by formal resolution to be in breach of Article 15 of the Convention. Restrictions which were successfully defended before the Restrictive Practices Court before the commencement of the new legislation may not, however, be condemned under these new powers. The Board of Trade may exercise their powers in relation to registered agreements and to export agreements, notified to the Board under Section 31 of the 1956 Act.
My Lords, much of this Bill is non-controversial. Indeed, the provisions it contains relating to enforcement cover very much of the same ground as that covered by the previous Administration's 1964 White Paper. Judging by the Bill's reception in another place, noble Lords opposite will, I hope, recognise the need for the provisions of Clause 1, although (to echo the words used in another place) they may regard it as latently controversial and will wish to see how it is operated in practice. I should therefore like to stress that the operation of the provision is subject to appropriate safeguards, and that applications for exemption will be examined most stringently.
Although there have been differences of emphasis, the approach of both Parties to monopolies and restrictive practices has been broadly bipartisan. Indeed, the first Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act, that of 1948, was based on a White Paper of the war-time Coalition. Since then the Party opposite have been responsible for the Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1956, and the Resale Prices Act of 1964. More recently the present Government extended the field of

189
operations of the Monopolies Commission in the Monopolies and Mergers Act of 1965. The underlying objective of both Parties in the evolution of this legislation has remained the, same: to check restrictions of competition and undesirable market power, without at the same time impeding improvements in efficiency or desirable changes in industrial structure. I hope that we shall be able to consider the present Bill in the same spirit. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Brown.)
3.1 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the clarity with which he has introduced this Bill. I am afraid that I shall not be able to emulate his clarity, nor the expertise with which he introduced the Bill—nor indeed the tremendous gallop at which he managed to take us. However, I shall do my best to beat him in the matter of brevity. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for the references which he made to the legislation passed under Conservative Administrations. I personally hold, and hold strongly, the immediate parents of this legislation, the 1956 Restrictive Trade Practices Act, and the 1964 Resale Prices Act, as very important landmarks on the highway of greater economic efficiency. There is, of course, a limit to which any Government can by legislation alone stimulate efficiency. However, legislation can materially help to create the right conditions, the right climate for increased efficiency. In so far as legislation can serve this purpose, I think no Acts on the Statute Book have contributed more than the two I have mentioned, but to echo the bipartisan approach of the noble Lord to this matter, I should also like to recognise for my part the value of the Act of 1948, which was introduced under the post-war Labour Administration.
In so far as the Bill at present before us is designed to strengthen and improve upon the 1956 Act, I say straight away that we on these Benches welcome it. Indeed, I think we would have welcomed the Bill had it been introduced a little earlier. It covers a very important field. Indeed, modest though it may be in appearance, I think this Bill deals with far more important matters than a great deal of the legislation with which the
190
Government are at present encumbering Parliament. Your Lordships may recall that in a White Paper published in March, 1964, the Government of the day made it clear that in their view certain Amendments to the 1956 Act were called for. I hope noble Lords opposite will not think it churlish of me, therefore, when I complain that we have had to wait rather too long for this Bill.
Having said that, I should like to pay a tribute to the work of the Registrar, for the most part silent and pretty well unsung, and to the equally valuable, work of the Restrictive Practices Court. I think a glance at the Registrar's four reports is enough to demonstrate the great volume of business which both he and the court have discharged since the 1956 Bill became law. I have said that we on these Benches in principle welcome the second part of this Bill, that which is designed to improve the enforcement machinery. We shall, of course, reserve our right to suggest Amendments or improvements to it during its passage through your Lordships' House.
Meanwhile, may I put four specific questions to the noble Lord on what appear to be omissions in the present Bill? He will doubtless recall that in the 1964 White Paper attention was drawn to the fact that one way of circumventing the 1956 Act was by means of a series of bilateral agreements which were apparently unconnected. In paragraph 36 of the White Paper, for example, the Government of the day stated that it was their intention to bring in amending legislation designed to catch such agreements. I cannot find mention of that in this Bill, but that may be because I am not an expert in this field. When the noble Lord winds up, perhaps he could deal with that aspect of the matter.
Secondly, the Government of the day, the Conservative Administration, stated that it was their intention to close another bolthole here. They pointed out—and I should like to quote, if I may, from paragraph 37 of the 1964 White Paper —that,
"Experience has shown that it is possible to reproduce the restrictive effect of an agreement which the court has already condemned, by making another agreement which is restrictive in somewhat different terms."
So far as I can make out, agreements to the like effect—as I think they are

191
technically termed—of the type which I have mentioned, are not covered in the Bill before us. I may again be mistaken, and perhaps the noble Lord could enlighten us.
Thirdly, the White Paper quite rightly referred to the growing importance of services in the contemporary economy, and ventilated the desirability of bringing services within the scope of restrictive practices legislation. I think it was the intention to refer this to the Monopolies Commission and thereafter, if necessary, to seek legislative authority to bring services, in particular services relating to goods within the 1956 legislation, or its successors, within this corpus of legislation. It is my understanding that this matter is now before the Monopolies Commission. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us what the Government's programme and intention in this particular field may be.
In addition, there is a relatively small point—I think it is almost a Committee point—relating to Clause 9. As your Lordships who are interested in this matter, and who have had to deal with it will know, companies can be put to very considerable expense, and a great deal of trouble, in preparing and presenting their case before the Restrictive Practices Court. I have no quarrel with that, but it would seem reasonable, therefore, that when agreements are not of any significance and are unlikely to merit investigation by the court, there should be some machinery by which companies could receive early warning as to whether or not they are going to have to prepare a case for a court hearing. This new clause, Clause 9, admittedly provides machinery under which the Registrar himself can apply for discharge to the Board of Trade. That is fine, so far as it goes. We believe this machinery could be usefully reinforced if it were possible for a company which believes the agreement affecting it to be quite insignificant, could apply, if need be through the Registrar, for discharge; and such a reinforcement of an early warning system would be of substantial benefit to the companies concerned without in any way abating the effect of this legislation.
Subject to these queries, I should like to reaffirm that we welcome this Part, the
192
second Part, of the Bill. I should like to make it equally clear that our welcome for the first Part, the first three clauses, is more muted. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord has said, but I should like to make it clear that it is the definite view of the Opposition that competition not only makes for industrial efficiency but also, in so far as it leads to reduced production and distribution costs, very much helps to the benefit of the consumer, too. Undoubtedly I would carry the noble Lord with me there.
Again, in an increasingly competitive world, we strongly feel that we must somehow contrive to be that much more competitive, and this can come only through giving free play to the cutting edge of competition; and for that reason we on these Benches are necessarily opposed to any unnecessary restraint on competition. I do not wish to be unduly dogmatic about this. I recognise that in the industrial climate in which we live the economics of scale are vitally important whether we are dealing with research, development, production, or indeed marketing. There may very well be cases in which a single firm, or even a single plant, can serve the total requirements of the United Kingdom, including the export requirements. I accept that this may mean in certain instances—but I hope in rare instances—that the full rigour of the 1956 Act may require abatement.
I also recognise that both industry and bodies like the N.E.D.C. have brought pressure to bear on the Government, and that is to some part reflected in the first two or three clauses of this Bill. On the other hand, my Lords, all of us have witnessed a fairly steady drift over the last few years towards greater Government intervention in industry, whether by nationalisation, renationalisation or backdoor nationalisation. We recognise that in the modern industrial world the State must inevitably be prepared to intervene more than in the past. Nevertheless, again without being unduly doctrinaire, I must make it perfectly plain that we on these Benches feel that this drift has gone far too far. Moreover, in so far as these first three clauses of the Bill are designed to aid further Government intervention of this sort, we can only view them with considerable scepticism. We shall therefore watch them in their operation of

193
these clauses with very keen interest, and we shall certainly criticise and feel free to oppose any orders brought before us which show that there is discrimination in favour of companies in which the Government themselves may have a stake.
It would, of course, help to relieve some of the doubts which at least some of us feel about these first three clauses of the Bill if, when he winds up, the noble Lord can say rather more about the sort of cases which they are designed to catch. How many of them do they anticipate there will be? Apart from this, the Government could go at least some way to reassure us if they could show themselves in this House more disposed than they were in another place to accept the need for some definite time limit to exemptions given under the Clause 1 machinery of this Bill. In another place the Secretary of State said on Second Reading that there would need to be a reasonable duration for Clause 1 agreements. We could not agree more. There may be an initial case for exemption, but we all know that monopolies or quasi-monopolies can well get soft or soggy; and it is of course quite true—I recognise this—that subsection (2) of this clause lays down that exemption should be given only for a specific period. That, again, is all very well so far as it goes. However, I should be a great deal happier if a definite maximum period for any exemption were written specifically into the Bill.
My Lords, I think I indicated at the start of my remarks that I would try to be brief, and I propose to redeem that pledge. In concluding, I should like once again to re-emphasise that we are glad to welcome in principle that part of the Bill—in fact, all of it from Clause 4 onwards—which strengthens the enforcement machinery of the 1956 Act. However, we do have certain reservations, to which I have given some voice, about the first part of this Bill.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I want to ask one question before the Minister replies. What is the increase in staff which he contemplates the Registrar of Restrictive Practices will require to put the provisions of this Bill into effect?
3.14 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the noble Earl was courteous enough to give me
194
notice of most of the points he proposed to raise, and this has been a great help to me because I have been able to work out a response beforehand, a crisp answer; and I think we shall not find ourselves too far apart. I will take the points he raised in turn. The first was that of bilateral agreements; that is, agreements under which only one party accepts a restriction. The 1964 Conservative White Paper suggested that the 1956 Act could be circumvented by a series of such agreements. The Bill does not deal with bilateral agreements. There are two main reasons for this. First, on closer examination it was realised that an appropriate provision would have been almost impossible to draft because of the difficulty of excluding a wide range of normal, commercial, bilateral agreements in which only one party accepts a restriction. Secondly, it seemed likely that a court would, on the basis of the 1963 decision in the Basic Slag case, interpret "agreement or arrangement" sufficiently broadly to catch a series of one-party agreements—and I think it is a series of these which concerns the noble Earl. Our legal advice is that that case has set up a situation where there would he a good deal of trepidation before anybody indulged in a series. I hope that will satisfy the noble Earl.
I move now to agreements to the like effect, to which the noble Earl has referred. The White Paper noted—I am referring to the Conservative White Paper now—that experience had shown that it was possible to reproduce the restrictive effect of an agreement which the court had already condemned by making another agreement which was restrictive in somewhat different terms. That is the noble Earl's point. It proposed that provisions should be made to cover such evasion, but the nature of the provision was unspecified. The Bill does not deal with this problem. The problem is far less important than appeared to be the case in 1964. Two recent decisions of the Restrictive Practices Court, first in the Galvanised Tank case and secondly in the Tyre Manufacturers Conference case, have demonstrated that the court is prepared to impose heavy fines, totalling almost £200,000 in the two cases mentioned, on those who make like-effect agreements. I think industry is unlikely to "try it on" when faced by penalties of that magnitude. I think the

195
courts have again done us a good turn to get us out of our difficulties here.
On the question of services, I do not know that I am quite so likely to satisfy the noble Earl. Certain powers to deal with services were taken in the Monopolies and Mergers Act, 1965, as he has already indicated. That Act empowered the Board to refer to the Monopolies Commission monopolies in services or restrictive agreements or situations affecting firms responsible for more than one-third of the supply of any particular service in the United Kingdom. The Board of Trade were empowered to act on an adverse report from the Commission. This follows the proposal of the 1964 White Paper, which proposed that the Monopolies Commission should be empowered to make investigations in this field at the request of the Government. Indeed, it is a wider power than that envisaged in the White Paper, because it deals with all services, not merely commercial services. I am not certain whether or not this satisfies the noble Earl. I rather gathered, in one sense, that he hoped to see service agreements brought within the general provisions of the Bill. This, as I have pointed out, has proved too difficult.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I also am not quite certain whether it satisfies the noble Earl or not. I should like to read what the noble Lord has said and study it. But in fact I was not proposing at this stage that services and service agreements relating to them should be brought within present legislation. I was interested to know how matters stood in relation to the Monopolies Commission.
LORD BROWN: The next point raised by the noble Earl concerned insignificant agreements. Here, I suggest there is no need for an early-warning system, as suggested by the noble Earl. The Registrar said in his first report, in paragraph 35:
"Whether or not the parties request it, the possibility of making a representation under Section 12 is always considered before an agreement is referred to the Restrictive Practices Court".
The Registrar always examines. The Registrar has assured us that this is still his policy, and he will continue it when Clause 9 replaces Section 12. He regards it as of importance that public money
196
and the time of the Court should not be wasted by inappropriate references. Firms or associations desirous of entering into a registrable agreement or making a recommendation may always ask the Registrar informally for indication whether the proposed agreement or recommendation is likely to be a successful candidate under Clause 9(2); that is, for exemption. How clear an indication can be given in any particular case must depend on all the circumstances; but, short of a binding promise, I think you may take it that the Registrar will be as helpful as he can. Of course, the firm, in registering an agreement, is perfectly entitled to accompany it with a memorandum of an explanatory sort which may help the Registrar to get a clear insight into the agreement and to give guidance. We certainly do not envisage any difficulties on these scores. Perhaps those comments will help the noble Earl.
The noble Earl was also concerned about the possibility, under the first three clauses, of wider-scale Government interference. I believe that it is possible to have a difference of opinion about these clauses when they are looked at in general; but if we were to be able to concentrate our different views on particular cases then I think we should rapidly come to agreement. The testing of the intention behind these clauses lies in how they apply to the individual cases as they arise. The noble Earl will be aware, and I am sure that he is, that circumstances are now emerging in industry where the amount of capital investment required to start a process is enormous and the risks involved are very great, but if the risks are not taken by British industry then some of our large competitors overseas will capture the markets. There should be agreements to look at capacity and organise it so that there will not be appalling losses which will inhibit further development. This is very much in the national interest. Cases of this kind and many others will be the likely recipients of attention under these first three clauses.
On the question of the anxieties about the period of exemption, again one must retain flexibility; one must not lay down a specific period but relate it to the circumstances of a particular case. These will be looked at carefully. There is a bipartisan approach. We are no more anxious to set up great monopolies

197
to exploit the situation than are Members of the opposite Benches; one can be assured of that. In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, I can say that the Registrar does not envisage any staff increase.
I should like to join with the noble Earl in congratulating the Registrar and the Court on the enormous number of cases dealt with successfully. It is a success story. I hope that I have answered the questions to the satisfaction of the noble Earl. I shall not detain the House any longer. I am grateful for the swift way in which this matter has been dealt with; and I think we can look forward to proper modification of the 1956 Act which will be helpful to all concerned.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.23 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Succession in cases of illegitimacy]:
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection (1) of the proposed new Section 4 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, after the first "children", to insert:
", whom that person has at any time during his life acknowledged as children of his,".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to the first two Amendments together, since they deal with opposite aspects of the same problem. These two Amendments relate to the new Section 4 (substituted by Clause 1 of this Bill) of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 which provides for succession in cases of illegitimacy. I think I should say that at present the law in Scotland is substantially the same as in England and Wales under the Legitimacy Act 1926.
198
If a woman dies intestate and is survived by no legitimate children, then any illegitimate children of hers surviving her share her estate; and if an illegitimate child is survived by his mother and has no legitimate children of his own or no spouse (or, in the case of a woman, if she has no legitimate children of her own), the mother succeeds to the illegitimate child's estate.
Under Clause 1 any illegitimate children are entitled to succeed equally with legitimate children to the estate of their father or mother. The parents both have the right to succeed to the estate of illegitimate children having no surviving children or no spouses The Amendments would limit the right of illegitimate children to succeed to the estate of a parent, or of a parent to succeed to the estate of a childless illegitimate child, to those cases where the parent has acknowledged the illegitimate child as a child of hers. This is the purpose of the Amendment. It is the acknowledgement of the illegitimate child as a child of the parent.
The Russell Committee on the Law of Succession in Relation to Illegitimate Persons considered whether there should be a distinction between the right to succeed a father and the right to succeed a mother, and whether some closer family relationship should he required for a father; but they gave their opinion, without giving any reasons, that the blood link should suffice in both cases. They recognised that it was more difficult to establish fatherhood than motherhood. They said that the facts dictate that. They also considered that affiliation orders cannot be regarded as sufficiently reliable to be taken as conclusive evidence of paternity. They then went on to consider whether any act of recognition should conclusively establish paternity for the purpose of succession; but they dismissed the idea of a formal declaration (having regard, they said, to the possibility of fraudulent declarations), and considered that it should be left to the courts to decide. In the last resort, of course, the courts will have to decide in any case. But I should have thought that one object should be to prevent many cases as possible from coming to the courts because of the distress that court action is likely to cause to the families of the deceased.
So far as the right of parents to succeed is concerned, the question of distress is in the hands of the parents concerned. I should have thought it not unreasonable that, as the Amendment suggests, the right should be subject to the requirement that a parent has acknowledged the child and has contributed to his maintenance. A mother should have little difficulty in establishing this without a court action unless she has, as the Committee put it, "jettisoned" the child at birth, in which case she has no claim in justice or morality on the child's estate. On the other hand, it seems to me quite unreasonable that a mother who has brought up a child should have to share the estate with a father who has never acknowledged the child and has never supported it in any way.
When a father claims the estate of an illegitimate child it should be up to the father to prove in court that he has supported the child. The Society of Writers to the Signet, one of the four legal bodies in Scotland who were consulted, said this in their observations on the Committee Report:
"Perhaps the most serious criticism which this Society would make on the recommendation of the Russell Committee is directed against the proposal that the father should have the same rights as the mother on the intestacy of the bastard. What is this, the Society must ask, if not a reward or a consolation prize for the not particularly commendable achievement of having sired a bastard? No justification for this recommendation is to be found in the Russell Report on the grounds of justice, morality or otherwise. It has all the appearance of an ill-considered and ill-advised attempt to simplify the rule of intestate succession by placing both persons in a similar position."
My Lords, that is fairly strong language, but in view of the fact that the Russell Committee did not themselves seek to justify their conclusions there, and they have not really been justified since, I hope that the noble Lord, in answering the second Amendment (unless he is prepared to accept the principle of it; I would not commit him to accepting the actual words) is able to tell us what is, in the view of the Government, the justification for this recommendation.
Turning to the right of an illegitimate child to succeed his mother, here again there seems no reason why he should succeed to the estate of a mother whom he has never known and to whom he
200
owes nothing except life itself. I recognise that this changes the existing law, but I think that most children who are jettisoned nowadays are adopted, so losing their rights to inherit from their natural parents while at the same time gaining the right to succeed to the estate of their adopted parents.
I come now to the question whether an illegitimate child should have the right to succeed to his father's estate and, if so, in what circumstances. The Russell Committee said, "Yes, in all circumstances," provided that the father can be found. If he cannot be found, he should be presumed to be dead. This recommendation is accepted in subsection (3) of the clause, but the Committee practically ignored the fact, which is revealed in the Appendix to their own Report, that in every single one of the countries quoted, except possibly Sweden, in which an illegitimate child has a right to succeed to his father's estate that right is conditional upon recognition by his father or else a formal declaration of paternity. Perhaps I might list the countries concerned: Australia, U.S.A., Belgium, Denmark, France. Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal. These are the countries that are given here.
The Committee do not appear to have inquired whether there were any grounds, in the experience of these countries, for the fears they expressed about fraudulent declaration. They give no reason at all for not coming into line with those countries. My first Amendment would make the right to succeed dependent upon acknowledgment by the parent during his lifetime. There seems to me no point in specifying what sort of acknowledgment. It could be by formal declaration; it could be through the father's signing the register at birth; it could be through less formal recognition—for example, by the child's living in the father's family. But in the absence of an acknowledgment of some sort the courts would have nothing but circumstantial evidence to go on; and plainly this has been firmly rejected by all the other countries quoted in the Appendix. So far, the Government have completely failed to justify their acceptance of this departure from experience.
My Lords, one of the members of the Committee, Sir Hugh Munro Lucas-Tooth, in his dissenting note, suggested

201
that one of the following tests should be applied. First, that the father signs the register of birth; second, that the father signs a document, possibly in some prescribed form, (recognising the bastard as his child; and, third, that the child lives for some period, however short, with the father as his acknowledged child. My Lords, it seems to me that in the broadest terms these Amendments give effect to the recommendation of Sir Hugh Munro Lucas-Tooth, and I commend this first Amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, after first ("children") insert (", whom that person has at any time during his life acknowledged as children of his,")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
3.35 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I welcome the fact that these Amendments represent to some extent a broadening of the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to illegitimate children. Having said that, however, I regret that I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept either the first or the second Amendment. My objections to the Amendments are quite simple. The Amendments are based on the view that the rights of illegitimate children to share in the estate of either parent could flow only from the acknowledgment of the child in some fashion or other. This was the view which, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, was considered by the Russell Committee, and considered very carefully. Indeed, it could be said to be the viewpoint expressed in the Note of Dissent, to which the noble Lord referred, by Sir Hugh Munro-Lucas-Tooth. The rest of the Committee who considered the matter in relation to a father's estate without exception came to the conclusion that it was wrong in principle that succession should be limited to cases where there had been voluntary recognition, whether formal or informal.
My Lords, this is the view which the Government completely accept. An illegitimate child whose father has chosen to acknowledge him during life would get the additional bonus of a right to succession, while the unrecognised child would, with the blessing of the law, continue to be ignored. This is a view which I find quite unacceptable. I appreciate that part of the noble Lord's anxiety
202
springs from the difficulty which he foresees of proving paternity for the purpose of succession under the Bill as al present drafted. We have acknowledged this, but I am not clear that with his formula it would necessarily be any easier to prove. The Amendment does not say what he intends by acknowledgment, and the noble Lord has made it quite clear that he wishes acknowledgment to be in almost any form: anything which could be described as acknowledgment would be acceptable to him.
In the second Amendment the noble Lord does not indicate how a contribution of maintenance to the support of an illegitimate child is to be proved in the many cases where such payment as there is is irregular and entirely formal, and in many cases quite unrecorded. The only equitable way in which to equate the rights of illegitimate children with those of legitimate children in relation to their parents' estate is, in the Government's view, to make the basis for these rights the same; namely, the simple test of paternity or maternity, as the case may be.
The question of maternity, as the noble Lord has said, is generally accepted not to present difficulties. The noble Lord's Amendment, by insisting that a mother must acknowledge her child, seems to raise an unnecessary complication and is the one point at which the noble Lord appears to be retracing a step which I thought he had taken at the last stage. There may be a great number of factors pointing towards or away from paternity, of which acknowledgement in any form is only one, although I readily concede that it is an important one. For example, a man, while never expressly acknowledging a child as his, may support or contribute to the support of the child either voluntarily or under a court order for affiliation and aliment.
In the light of these facts, the Russell Committee concluded that in cases of dispute the courts should be left to reach a decision on the basis of all the relevant information available to them. Thee courts are accustomed to dealing with claims against the estates of dead people, and no doubt they will establish appropriate practices for dealing with such cases. It may be that, without acknowledgement by his parents in his lifetime, or some firm evidence of a similar kind pointing

203
to paternity, the illegitimate person will have great difficulty in establishing a claim, particularly with the passage of time. Nevertheless, it seems to the Government that it would be totally wrong to refuse by Act of Parliament to recognise a child's moral claim simply because he will have difficulty in establishing it.
Coming to the second Amendment, if it is accepted that an illegitimate child should have equal rights with legitimate children in the estates of both parents on the basis of maternity or paternity, as the case may be, then I think the reciprocal right of the parents follows as a matter of equity. I know that one can argue that a father who has not contributed to his child's maintenance should not have a right to succeed the child, but this argument could apply also in the case of legitimate children. There are, as we all know, unfortunately a fairly large number of husbands who desert and fail to maintain their wives and legitimate children at present; but there is no suggestion that in these cases their succession rights should be curtailed. The reciprocal right of parents in their illegimate children's intestate estate on the simple basis of parenthood seems to me to follow as a natural corollary of an acceptance of the principle of equating the status of both types of children. We should bear in mind, too, that the right of a parent in any case is a conditional one. It operates on intestacy only where there are no children, legitimate or—under the new provision made by the Bill—illegitimate, and is of course subject to the prior and legal rights of a surving spouse.
I appreciate the care with which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has gone into this matter and the clarity with which he has presented his views to your Lordships. However, we come back to the fact that there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the noble Lord and me on this matter. He does not accept the principle that we should remove entirely the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children in this matter of succession, and that principle is one which I think must be accepted in its entirety.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, first of all, may I refer to the noble Lord's last remarks? He is talking about
204
removing entirely the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children in succession. Of course, this Bill does not do that. It does it only in respect of succession to the parents' estate and reciprocally. If it were the case that this Bill put the illegitimate child exactly in the same position as the legitimate child everywhere, then it would be much more logical than it is at present, when it is restricted.
I would like to make clear that the real difference between the noble Lord and myself is about whether we are broadening or narrowing the position. I see this question of the illegitimate child as one to be settled within the whole context of society, in the broadest possible context, and not in the narrow, blinkered limits of what is in the interests of an illegitimate child. That is the main distinction between us. The noble Lord said that he wanted this matter settled on principle, but it seems to me that the defect in the Committee's Report is that it has not shown how these principles are going to work out in practice. Principles are all very fine, but I venture to criticise the Report in this respect. The Committee should have considered more carefully how this would work out. They had the opportunity to see how this Amendment was working out in practice in other countries, but they do not appear to have done so. That seems to me a very remarkable gap.
At the moment noble Lords may be saying to themselves that this refers only to Scotland, but the Russell Committee was made up of six English and Welsh members and five Scots, or something of that order. As the Government have accepted this principle for Scotland, the possibility is that they will introduce it for England as well; so I think it is a pod thing, in view of the much greater number of illegitimate children that are to be considered, that the Government should consider its full implications and consider in much more detail the experience on the Continent than appears to have been done. I say no more than "appears to have been done" because, if the Committee did consider it in detail, they did not put it into their Report.
I do not think I can say anything more on this point. I do not know whether

205
I have convinced noble Lords or not that I am right in this matter of principle. I do not say that the exact terms of my Amendment are right and, if they were to be redrafted, I should be glad if the Government were to keep the law as it is so far as succession to a mother's estate is concerned, and vice versa. With that exception, I would leave this with your Lordships. I would just add that this is the sort of thing that time and again has been the subject matter of Private Members' Bills and it ought to be left to individual members and not treated on a Party basis. That being so, I am content to leave this Amendment to the decision of the House.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.48 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I come to a different point. Clause 2, unlike the previous one, has no parallel in the law of England. I hope that that will not mean that all English Peers will depart from the Chamber, because I think that this is a matter of some interest to all noble Lords. Clause 2 deals with rights to legitim—that is, the right of the legitimate children of a marriage to share equally a fixed proportion of the net movable estate of a parent; half of the net estate of a parent who is not survived by the other parent or, if the spouse does survive, one-third of the net estate after satisfaction of the prior rights of the spouse. Apart from the satisfaction of the prior right of a spouse, this right exists, whether there is a will left or not. If there is, it overrides the express wishes of the testator.
May I be allowed to comment that this right is something of an anomaly, since the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 abolished the distinction between heritable and movable property so far as succession is concerned, except in the case of legitim—that is not to say it is not a valuable protection, for example, for the sort of dependant who in England and Wales would be likely to obtain from the courts an award out of the estate under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 where he, or more likely she, was left out of the will. The difference is that in Scotland it is a fixed right, whereas in England the court has discretionary power. In practice, a Scottish testator,
206
guided by his legal adviser, is careful to see that his wishes are framed in accordance with the requirements of legitim. In some cases this right may already have been satisfied by a gift inter vivos in exchange for which the child may have renounced his right to legitim.
But is the testator as likely to take into account illegitimate children who have not grown up in his family? Does this not mean that many more wills will he upset than are now? Does it nut also leave the way open to demands not only by illegitimate children but by persons fraudulently claiming to be illegitimate children of the testator? And will not the beneficiaries under a will normally be anxious to avoid a court case, and so perhaps concede claims which have no justification in fact. In practice, the right of legitim is often waived by some members of a family in favour of others, or another, or in favour of the other parent. Is it as likely that an illegitimate child would waive the right if it were given in this Bill? I venture to doubt it. And if the illegitimate child did not waive that right, human nature being what it is, the probability is that other children may not waive their rights either.
My Lords, what I find most repugnant about this proposal to give the illegitimate child a claim to legitim is that it is an invasion of a peculiarly family right by an outsider in most cases, in the sense of someone from outside the family, and in most cases by one who, admittedly by no fault of his own, has never been a member of the family and has never shared its ups and downs or common bonds of duty and affection. The illegitimate child, in the vast majority of cases, like everyone else outside the family, will never have earned his right to legitim. The right is not just by right of birth and blood, I submit, but by right of being the issue of a lawful marriage; by right of birth into a family, and a participation in that family. It is one thing to allow an illegitimate child a share with his half-brothers and half-sisters in the intestate estate of a parent; it is quite a different thing to allow him to override the last wishes of that parent, duly expressed in a will.
What is the argument by which the Russell Committee seek to justify this recommendation? They say it is not

207
enough that a Scottish bastard should be on an equal footing with an English bastard by sharing with legitimate children rights of succession on intestacy; he must, they say, so far as rights of succession in Scotland are concerned, be placed on an equality with a legitimate child in every respect and in particular by sharing rights of legitim. I have already made clear that he is not to be completely on a par with legitimate children, but so far as succession to the rights of the parent is concerned he will, according to the Bill, be placed on a par.
May I again quote from the observations of the Society of Writers to the Signet, who said:
"In the view of this Society, the Committee has underrated the practical results which the changes in law which it recommends would have upon the institution of marriage, briefly referred to in paragraph 21 of the Russell Report, and upon the happiness and security of legitimate families, and has ignored the embarrassment which would inevitably be caused to several equally innocent persons closely related to the deceased who might otherwise have remained in total ignorance of some incident which may have occurred in the distant past of the deceased's life. In the words of a leading member of the Law Reform Committee of the Bar Council in England, which we have been privileged to read, it might be hard on a wife bringing up the children of her marriage if her husband's children by one or more mistresses were on an equal footing with her own. Such a change in the law would be to introduce polygamy by a sidewind."
This is the trouble about setting up a predominantly lay Committee to consider an isolated aspect of family law—and I say this knowing that the Committee was set up by the previous Government. If the Report truly reflects their considerations, the Committee have looked at their remit, in my view, from the point of view of the illegitimate child and his rights, to the almost total exclusion of the effect upon the community at large and the feelings and interests of others affected. The Committee, in my view, have taken the narrow view in this respect, and not I, as the noble Lord suggests. I am trying to look at it in the broadest context of the community and the nation.
Of course, where the illegitimate child is accepted into the family and brought up in the family, the child will in these days probably obtain rights through adoption. But if he does not, it is inconceivable to me that if the family is that
208
of his mother she will not make provision for him in her will, if she remembers to make a will; while if the family is that of his father, it is almost equally certain, I should have thought, if the child is brought up in the family, that the father will make provision in the will. In practice, therefore, illegitimate children who form part of the family are likely to share in the estate of the parent by whom they are brought up, without any need to perpetrate what is, in my view, the absurdity of giving illegitimate children the right to legitim without any form of adoption or even informal acknowledgment of the blood group. On the other hand, is it sensible or fair to give illegitimate children a right to share in the estate of a parent whom they may never have seen, for whom they have no feelings whatsoever, and with whom the parent/ child relationship has never existed except in pure procreation? Is that not bad social legislation? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I deal first with the reference the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made to the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, when he suggested that this perhaps made legitim an anomaly. The 1964 Act did not alter the right to legitim. The assimilation of heritable succession to movable succession had no effect on the matter. Legitim is still paid only out of movable estate.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That, if I may say so, is exactly what I said.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry. I understood the noble Lord thought that the situation had changed and that legitim now applied over the whole Bill. In that case, we need not worry your Lordships about it at all.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I should make the position clear. What I said was that an anomaly lay in the fact that the distinction between movable and heritable property, so far as succession is concerned, has been removed by the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 except in regard to legitim, where it still relates to movable property only. It is only in regard to legitim that the distinction which has been abolished by the Succession Act remains.
LORD HUGHES: I think the exchanges make it clear that the noble Lord and I are of exactly: he same opinion as to where the law now stands. On the question of the Amendment that we are now discussing, we have covered fairly fully the same ground as was covered in Committee, and I do not wish to go over all that was then said. However, I should like to remind your Lordships that, following pressure in this House and elsewhere for action regarding the succession rights of illegitimate persons, and on the recommendation of the Russell Committee, the Government introduced this clause giving illegitimate persons the same right as legitimate persons to legitim from their parents' estate. It is this right which the noble Lord would remove from the clause. He would in fact take out the only indefeasible right that the Bill confers on illegitimate persons, the other main right, that on intestate succession, being one which can be removed by the making of a will. Thus I think I can safely say that the carrying of this Amendment would strike at the roots of the purpose of this Part of the Bill, which is to improve the succession position of illegitimate persons.
Looking again at our discussion at the Committee stage, I realise that there may have been a misunderstanding between the noble Lord and myself when I referred to the English Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938. I of course appreciate—indeed, at Committee stage I said so—that the provisions of this Act are dissimilar to the Scottish law of legitim. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has made perfectly clear, legitim is a right fixed by law to a share of an estate. The provision made under the 1938 Act is at the discretion of the court. But the point I was seeking to make at the last stage is that neither in English law nor in Scots law is it acceptable for a father to have the right to cut off a child without a penny. In both cases the children are given a claim against the estate of their parent which the parent cannot defeat by making a will. It is this right, different in nature in the two countries, which the Russell Committee recommended should he conferred on illegitimate as well as on legitimate persons.
If the noble Lord prefers the nature of the English right, rather than the long-
210
standing Scottish tradition, it is of course open for him to accept his own advice as to the way in which these matters ought to be followed by seeking to introduce a Bill to amend the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 by substituting provisions on the English lines for the Scots law of legitim. But I should not wish to suggest that he would have much prospect of success if he were to venture into that field.
The noble Lord referred to the possibility, indeed the probability, of disturbance of the family at or after the time of the father's death if an unknown person comes forward claiming legitim. I must admit that this is not impossible. How can it possibly be said to be impossible? On the other hand, the chances of a person's establishing a claim without good evidence, such as past recognition, must be very slight. But what is the morality of this situation if from time to time it may occur? Of course it may be unpleasant for the family. But who carries the responsibility? Surely it cannot be a good reason for depriving an illegitimate child of its inheritance that its father has during his lifetime successfully concealed its existence from his family. This is a simple point. The Bill sets out to improve the illegitimate child's situation by improving its succession rights. It does this by equating its successive rights against its parents with those of a legitimate child. The noble Lord's Amendment would defeat both the purpose and the method of the Bill by removing the one indefeasible right that it provides. For that reason, I must advise your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
In what the noble Lord said, although I am completely disagreeing with the principle which lies behind it, I must freely admit that he stated the case for it both with clarity and with fairness, except on one point. When he referred to the rights of legitim which a child had, he added the words, which so far as I can gather have no basis in law, "and of participation in that family". A legitimate child is not deprived of its share to legitim because it has not participated in that family. There can be circumstances where for one reason or another this does not arise. I know that when he put in these words the noble Lord was describing a situation which undoubtedly will exist

211
in the overwhelming mass of cases of ordinary family life consisting of parents and their legitimate children. But in fact when he added it to an expression of the law he appeared to be importing as law something which of course is not so, and using it as a justification for excluding in the case of the illegitimate child, because non-participation in the case of the illegitimate child may be as much the rule as participation is in the case of the legitimate child.
In conclusion, I would say this. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made reference to the views of one of the Scottish legal societies. Your Lordships will recollect that at the Committee stage he asked about the consultations that had taken place, and I gave a list of a very large number of bodies, legal, religious, voluntary and so on, which had been consulted; and out of all that number the noble Lord has fallen back on one. On the question, which he also brought in, of the effect on marriage, I should like to say this. The evidence given by the Church of Scotland (Social Interests Sub-Committee of the Church and Nation Committee) was very brief. This was the view they expressed to the Russell Committee. The only expression of substance which I have been able to find is this sentence:
"It is the opinion of my Committee that the question of any possible weakening of the marriage bond should not be taken into consideration in any discussion of the legal status of the child born out of wedlock as there is no moral justification for penalising the child for the sins of the parents."
The Sub-Committee put forward no proposals as to how the law should be amended. When the Church of Scotland was consulted by the Government about the Russell recommendations, after the Report had been issued, the views again expressed were very brief:
"… there are no more observations to be made".
My Lords, the view expressed by the Sub-Committee is the view I have put forward time and time again in our discussions on this Bill. If anybody has done wrong in this matter it is not the illegitimate child, and the Government are seeking in this Bill to remove, in so far as it is appropriate to do so, the penalties which are being visited upon the illegitimate child. The noble Lord
212
referred to the fact that I had said we wanted this to be on the widest possible basis, and he said that we were not in fact doing so. But he will recollect that when there was a reference to applying it, say, to grandparents, I dealt with that point. The illegitimate child is not there as a result of any action taken by the grandparents, so therefore the interaction in relation to succession is between parents and children, between children and parents, and this is a perfectly logical justification for confining it in that way.
I appreciate very much how the noble Lord feels about this matter. I appreciate the attitude which he has in relation to the value, say, of adoption into another family, rather than hanging on or conferring the rights of a legitimate child on an illegitimate child. It may well be that with the passage of time, and the greater use of adoption measures, much of what we are doing in this Bill will not in fact arise. But this is a case where we cannot wait for perhaps many years to pass during which time some, perhaps many, illegitimate children will continue to suffer the disadvantages they have at the present time. As I have said, this is the one right conferred on the illegitimate child which no action of the parent can take away from him, and it would be wrong that we should accede to the deletion of this clause.
4.9 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I think he has replied to my arguments extremely fairly, although every now and again he has come along with an argument ad hominem, which in some cases I do not think was quite justified. For example, at no point (I think he rather pulled my leg about this) have I given advice that we in Scotland should substitute the provisions of the Inheritance Family Provision Act for the present law of Scotland, legitim and the rest. The noble Lord seemed to think that in the Committee stage I had rather suggested that we should get rid of legitim. I did not do so, and I did not do so this afternoon. I said that the position is somewhat anomalous in law, and that is so. But I made no suggestion whatsoever that we should get rid of legitim.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, may I say that I am relieved to hear

213
him say that. But to a certain extent I was pulling his leg, because at one point he appeared to be inciting English Peers to rally to his support. I thought it might be worth while to point out that if he felt there were advantages in trying to adapt Scottish law to English law, there was a way in which this could be done.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is perfectly clear, and I suppose in that case it would be possible to have exactly the same legislation for Scotland as for England. The Russell Committee did not think that it was within its terms of reference to recommend the answer, but since a United Kingdom Committee was set up the implication was that the intention of the Government then appointing it was that the laws on the succession of illegitimate children should be as nearly as possible assimilated. Does that, or does it not, mean that since there is no legitim in England it should be left out of account altogether? The noble Lord says that if we take this clause out we are removing the one indefeasible right that the Bill provides. By the same token, if legislation is introduced for England it will not be possible to introduce an indefeasible right at all because there is no legitim in England. Unless legitim were to be introduced specifically for the purpose of allowing illegitimate children to share in it there would be no point in the argument about similarity between England and Scotland. I should have thought it would have been sufficient to have brought the law of succession on intestacy into line without touching legitim at all.
I take the noble Lord's point that, when I brought together the facts of being born into a family and participation in that family, I was going beyond the law. I did not mean it as an expression merely of the law but as an expression of life as it really is—if you like to put it thus, a philosophical expression—and I would not accept his strictures that I was unfair in that regard. I was portraying exactly what the position really is legally and morally—or perhaps I should say legally and practically.
In spite of what the noble Lord has said about the support that the Government's proposal received from the Church and Nation Committee, I am bound to confess that that is information which I failed to elicit, although I tried to get it.
214
I think one has to bear in mind the fact that on balance we have had advice from the legal bodies against the Government's proposal. I have before me what the noble Lord said. I did not obtain the views of the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Court; I did not obtain the views of the Scottish Law Agents and the Law Society of Scotland, to which the noble Lord did not refer. I am sorry, the noble Lord did refer to that Society. At any rate, up to the very last point when the Bill was sent along all three bodies were strongly against the views of the Government.
1 think possibly that once a lawyer sees a Bill in draft form he is apt to take a slightly different view and say: "Well, that is that; we had better accept it". But in the early stages the lawyers accepted that the S.S.C.s were, I think, stongly against the proposals of the Government. I know that at the last stage of the Bill the noble Lord said that it was by no means conclusive, but the reason why I referred to this point on the Committee stage was because, after all, these lawyers see more cases in the course of their experience than most other people. I say "most" and not "all" because, of course, there are the social workers as well; they are giving advice in these matters and weighing the pros and cons, and I should have thought their advice was well worth listening to. I am bound to say their first reactions were the best, as being the most natural reactions.
I agree that there is a difference in philosophy, but as I have indicated before I doubt the validity of the maxim from which this policy has been deduced. It is easy to talk about injustice being done; it is easy to say that the illegitimate child should not suffer for a wrong for which he is in no way responsible; but to deduce a whole series of law from that theoretical consideration, without considering its practical effects, seems to me to be a quite mistaken approach. And so far as legitim is concerned, I think this is the point where we have to consider whether the wishes of the testator ought to be overriden in this regard; whether a right to legitim should be given to all kinds of people, some of them perhaps well up in years, who have never had any expectation of such a right and who had never thought they had

215
such a right, because they were not identified with the family.
It seems to me that so far as legitim is concerned this is something which could well be left out of the Bill altogether. For my part, I am prepared to accept the right to succeed on intestacy. I am prepared to see, in that respect, the law of Scotland being assimilated with the law of England, but I do not see why, so far as legitim is concerned, there should be a right—what the noble Lord has described as "the one indefeasible right in the Bill". I do not see why that should be made available to an illegitimate child who, in the vast majority of cases, will have had nothing whatsoever to do with the parent, because certainly in recent years, and from now on, those children who are brought up in the families will normally
be adopted; and at any rate it seems to me almost certain that if they are brought up in the family they will be provided for in a will.
As for the rest, the noble Lord is quite right. I take the view that if the child cannot be brought up in the family of its natural parents the best thing for it is to be adopted and thereby to gain rights of succession to the adoptive parents. But as we have already dealt with the rights of succession for Scotland in this Session, this seems to me to be as far as we should go at the present time, and I hope noble Lords will support me in this Amendment.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mar, E.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Margadale, L.

Albermarle, E.

Essex, E.

Milverton, L.

Atholl, D.

Falkland, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Auckland, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Audley, Bs.

Fortescue, E.

Moyne, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Oakshott, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Glentanar, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Rockley, L.

Carrington, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sackville, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Colgrain, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Guest, L.

St. Just, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hawke, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Cromartie, E.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Sandford, L.

Daventry, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Selkirk, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Dilhorne, V.

Ilford, L.

Somers, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Dudley, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Teviot, L.

Dunleath, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Thurlow, L.

Eccles, V.

Lambert, V.

Vivian, L.

Effingham, E.

Lothian, M.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Willingdon, M.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Crook, L.

McLeavy, L.

Airedale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Amulree, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Meston, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Morrison, L.

Balogh, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Moyle, L.

Bannerman of Kildonan, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Ogmore, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hall, V.

Plummer, Bs.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Brockway, L.

Henley, L.

Rhodes, L.

Burden, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Carron, L.

Hughes, L.

Rowley, L.

Champion, L.

Latham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Samuel, V.

Citrine, L.

Lindgren, L.

Segal, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Shackleton, L.

Sorensen, L.

Swaythling, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Williamson, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Wade, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.29 p.m.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONANmoved, to leave out Clause 8 and to insert the following new clause:
"8.—(l) The principle of primogeniture and the existing rights in succession shall stand, subject to modification as follows—

(i) the widow shall be first in line of succession,

(ii) illegitimate children shall have equal claim with legitimate children in line of succession.

(2) In the event of a crofter dying intestate the Scottish Land Court shall have power to determine the succession to the croft and shall take into consideration the line of succession but shall have power to depart from the line of succession in order if their study of the human situation justifies the selection, as tenant of the croft of a person in line of succession other than the first."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the advice he gave me at the Committee stage of this Bill on June 13. He said, referring to myself, "He must work out his own salvation" (col. 264), and that I think was because I moved the deletion of Clause 8 but I did not substitute any other clause. I am glad to say to your Lordships that I have now found a "salvation" Amendment; to leave out Clause 8 and insert the new clause as printed. I hope that, as true Scots, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes and myself, it will not be a case of Greek meeting Greek. I do not think the noble Lord will quarrel with sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (1) of this new clause. There I think we are in some agreement. But subsection (2) is designed to restore to the Scottish Land Court power to deal with croft succession.
Until 1955 the Scottish Land Court was responsible for dealing with succession. It won universal respect and confidence among crofters, and as a court of law can safely be entrusted with the powers in the second part of my Amendment—powers that could not be vested in any other body. It must be remembered that the Scottish Land Court is not only a court of law, free from pressure of any kind and concerned only
218
with justice and fair dealing; but a body uniquely adapted to administer where it will—in a court house, a village hall, a schoolroom, or even in a croft kitchen. Indeed, I have known the Land Court meet in a bedroom. For the, time being that bedroom was the court, because someone who was bedridden there was connected with the case being heard. It has always had members who are, and were, Gaelic speaking, and who can establish a clear understanding of the minds and wishes of those who will be able to explain themselves clearly and without effort only in the Gaelic language. There are still many of these people left.
The crofter's economic situation, his geographical position, the fact that he does not own his croft—that so Jar as his croft is concerned he has rights but no property in it—all justify restoring to him the services in this matter of the Scottish Land Court, which was originally set up to assist him. By abolishing inequity, this action would secure flexibility in intestate succession, and also, by presenting crofters with familiar and comprehensible circumstances, serve to increase stability in crofting. That is a thing that we have to do, so far as the Highlands and Islands are concerned, to increase and develop the stability of indigenous working on the land, of the small man. This would accordingly help the Crofters Commission in their work, and also ether agencies charged with the development of crofting and the Highlands.
I should like to quote what the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, said on July 4, in the debate on the Medicines Bill:
"We who are lawyers, or concerned with the machinery of Government or with constitutional matters, have a growing anxiety about the way in which the rights of the citizen are increasingly interfered with otherwise than by judicial procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 527].
What a lawyer of the standing of the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, says should receive considerable attention in your Lordships' House. On June 13, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said:
"I am advised that in the large majority of cases the bulk of the crofter's estate consists of the croft, and the most important asset

219
there is the croft house."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13/6/68, col. 262.]
If there were no estate except the croft, each person who has a claim to a share in the estate would appear to be entitled to a share of the croft in some way in accordance with the terms of the 1964 Act.
If a man is awarded the croft, he will surely have to pay cash to the others to equalise the inheritance. If, for example, four persons had equal claims to share in the estate valued at £2,000, the person awarded the croft would presumably have to pay each of the others £500. Not many would do this. Where, for example, would the money come from? It would be a quite unrealistic removal of capital from the croft, from which in fact and in law the capital cannot be separated. The crofter does not own his croft or any of the improvements on it, including the house. They belong to the landlord, and when the landlord dies his property—which must appear on the inventory for confirmation—includes the crofts in his estate. The crofts cannot therefore appear on the crofter's inventory for confirmation as well as the landlord's.
What the crofter has are rights, and these can be valued by the Scottish Land Court; and they are valued by the Scottish Land Court only when the croft is given up by the crofter. One of the crofter's rights is to provide himself with a house on the croft, in which he can live while he exercises his other rights as a crofter. The house is legally an improvement, and as such is not the property of the crofter. For example, he cannot get a loan from a bank with the house as security as it is not his property; nor can the house be valued as part of his estate for confirmation, because the inventory can include only his property.
If a crofter is put out of his croft or surrenders it, then the Land Court will assess the value of the rights he is losing. These rights include a right to receive compensation for any improvements that he or his predecessors have made, including drains, fences, and the house he has the right to provide himself with for his use. Crofters are most disturbed at the power that might be vested in an executor or executors as envisaged in
220
the Government's Bill, and would much prefer to have restored to the Land Court the power it had originally. To submerge the crofter's succession law in the general law of Scotland is, in my opinion and that of many of the crofters themselves, to undermine the confidence of the crofter and take from him the certain knowledge that the croft can continue as such.
Through nearly 100 years crofting law has been built up to enable people to live on what, often enough, is the poorest land in the Highlands and in the most remote areas. These small men of agriculture will, I hope, be there in great numbers when the Highlands and Islands Development Board put into force the Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, the other day, the Highlands and Islands Development Bill, giving the Highlands Board the authority to lake equity shares in businesses of small character right throughout the whole Highland area. That is what is required to restore the economic fabric of the whole of the Highlands which has been for so long patched. Conurbations of a seashore character will never succeed in solving the Highland problem. Conurbations will come of their own accord; profits will push them into the area. But what we really need is a rejuvenation of the whole fabric of crofting; and it can be rejuvenated, because these people are there, and have been there for a hundred years, provided they are allowed to have this security of tenure which has never been interfered with since the Napier Commission in the time of 1866. It cannot be right that the law of crofting should be altered merely to suit, say, departmental convenience or for other reasons of that character.
My Lords, I hope and I beg of the Government that they will do nothing to diminish the role of the small man in agriculture—and he is still legion throughout Scotland—and do nothing to interfere with the security which has been his up to date. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 8, and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Bannerman of Kildonan.)
4.42 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: With much that the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, has said I do not disagree, and I

221
do not propose to comment upon it for the simple reason that so very little of what he said has any relevance at all to the Bill which we are discussing, or even to the Amendment which he himself is moving. I do not say this in any unkind way, because the noble Lord, because of his interest in these matters, has ventured into almost a dissertation of his philosophy on the way of life in the Highlands, particularly in relation to crofting. That could be quite appropriate in one of our ordinary Scottish debates, but in relation to this Amendment I suggest that it is a little away from the strictly relevant.
There is one matter I was a little alarmed about. The noble Lord started to quote from something which I said, I think, on June 13. He then went on to read other things which were quotations from somebody else, or he was reading a brief which somebody had given him—and I began to be alarmed at some of the things that I was purported to have said on June 13. Then I realised that the noble Lord had not indicated when he stopped quoting from me and started quoting from somebody else. I received an agitated note from the Box saying that these extracts attributed to me were not known. So I would be grateful if, when the noble Lord is consulting with Hansard, he would let them know when my quotation marks come in at the finish and when somebody else's start.
It is true that concern has been expressed throughout the passage of the Bill about the proposals for crofting tenure. Both here and in another place repeated efforts have been made by my colleagues and myself to explain the effect of these provisions and to answer a variety of criticisms about the framing of them. Despite this, some doubt would appear to remain in at least one quarter. It would be a great pity if your Lordships were left with the impression that this is other than an excellent measure and one widely welcomed in crofting circles. I should therefore like to deal, I should hope once and for all, with the various criticisms that have been made —and repeated—despite the fact that they have been answered again and again.
Your Lordships will appreciate that I am not dealing solely with what the noble
222
Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, has said in your Lordships' House, but with some of the things which are being said outside your Lordships' House, and particularly with reference to the debate here at the last stage and to my own remarks during that debate. One of the things which has been said was that preliminary consultation was inadequate. The short, and I should hope convincing, answer to that is that each body consulted in 1964 when crofters were excluded from the ordinary law of succession was again consulted on this occasion. This includes the question of reference to the Land Court which was not consulted either in 1964 or on this occasion.
Secondly, it has been said that there has not been adequate time for discussions during the passage of the Bill. It was said, in fact, that this was "rushed" legislation. The Bill was first introduced in another place on February 21 last, and a period of almost five months has passed during its passage through both Houses. It cannot be said, therefore, that there has not been adequate time for consultation and explanation of the crofting provisions of the Bill. There has been no after tilt to restrict discussion. My colleagues and I have dealt with questions and doubts that have been raised. There has been adequate opportunity for any broadly based concern or any justified criticism in to emerge. Neither has happened and it will simply not do to imply there is some objection which would have manifested itself in some other circumstances.
Thirdly, it has been suggested that the provisions are bad for crofting. My Lords, none of the criticisms made has proved to be of any substance. All that is left is that in some cases, not many, it may cost the beneficiary a little more to have the estate confirmed. Your Lordships must appreciate that in many cases there will be more in a crofter's estate than just the lease of the croft and the permanent improvements, and they are, as the noble Lord described them, croft house, byres, fences et cetera. For example, except in rare cases, there will always be some stock on the croft, furniture in the house and perhaps there may also be other movable estate such as, for instance, some money in the bank. Such items would at present be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the

223
Succession (Scotland) Act 1964. Confirmation is therefore—at least in theory—necessary even at present for such items, and for this reason it is not considered that the present proposals, requiring the lease of the croft to be included in the confirmation, would add appreciably, if at all, to the cost. In this the crofter is in the same case as every other member of the community and enjoys the same reliefs and benefits as other small estates.
I wonder whether these few people who are objecting to these proposals really understand what the present law is and what the change will be. Do they understand that what is excluded from the succession law at the present time is merely the croft and its permanent improvements? Do they realise it does not cover the stock on the croft? Do they realise that the furniture in the house is not excluded at the present time? Do they realise that the money in the bank, any investments—that none of these is dealt with solely under crofting law, but that all of these items come under the ordinary succession law at the present time?
In so far as there may be any little extra cost in some cases on confirmation, this represents a price to be paid for the provision I have no doubt, but especially in view of the greater benefits it will confer on the women of the crofting community, it is a small price and one that no crofter will begrudge. Your Lordships know that through the generations it has all too often been the womenfolk who have held the crofts together when their menfolk have had to leave the township in search of work, in defence of their country, or for some other reason. What has tended to become obscured in all the exchange of discussion is that this is primarily a provision to protect the widow. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord has abandoned the previous attitude and now brings in, in another form, protection for the widow as being the first claim with which the Bill would deal.
To turn to the terms of the Amendment itself, although I must congratulate the noble Lord on accepting my advice to put down an Amendment of his own —and he quoted my words that he must seek his own salvation—I am afraid that I must disagree with him if he thinks that he has found any salvation. I must em-
224
phasise the fact that, so far as I am concerned, he has not managed to find a provision better than the present one. Clause 8 applies the provisions of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 to the tenancy of a croft. The main effect of the 1964 Act is that in the case of an intestate estate which is less than £2,500 (or where there is no issue £5,000) the widow will receive the whole estate including the tenancy of the croft. The proposal now made would mean that the widow would receive the whole of the intestate estate, even where it was much greater than £5,000.
The Succession (Scotland) Act went reasonably far to protect the rights of a widow, but to do what the noble Lord suggests, to provide that because it happens to be a crofting estate the widow should get the lot, no matter how much it shall be—and there are occasions when a crofting estate can be reasonably substantial—is just going too far. The Amendment starts off by stating that the principle of primogeniture should be perpetuated. This is what we are trying to get away from in the Bill. For example, if the principle of primogeniture were applied where there was no widow, the eldest son, whether he were legitimate or illegitimate, at home or an absentee, could claim the croft to the exclusion of another son or daughter who might have stayed at home and worked the croft during the later years of the father's life. The noble Lord, Lord Bannerman, then saw where sticking to the principle of primogeniture would lead him, because he then went on in the second part of the Amendment to depart from primogeniture.
Going behind the Amendment itself to what I think may be the purpose rather than the effect of the Amendment, I should think that the aim of the Amendment is to accept all that the Bill proposes, with the single exception that it would substitute the Land Court for the executor as the body empowered to make the selection of the successor to the croft tenancy. I think that this is what lies behind it. Unfortunately, that is not what the Amendment does. I have suggested on previous occasions that when we consider Amendments we must consider what the Amendment does; we must leave aside for purposes of our decision what the mover of the Amendment

225
thought his Amendment was going to do. I am afraid I cannot see why the noble Lord should consider that crofters are less able to manage their affairs than all other classes of the community are. Therefore, I cannot follow him in the suggestion that the Land Court in these estates is to be preferred to an executor.
Three things that I said in this House were sought to be criticised. First of all, I was accusx1 of saying that consulting the Crofters Commission is the next best thing to consulting individually with every crofter in the Highlands. That statement was characterised as non-sense. It would have been if I said it, but I did not. What I said was "Consulting the Crofters Commission as I have suggested …". The words "as I have suggested" were very carefully excluded from the reference which appears in the Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald. "As I have suggested" refers hack to the earlier part of the paragraph, where I said
"The obvious body to consult is the body which looks after the interests of crofters; that is the Crofters Commission, and through them the direct representation of the crofters." —[OFFICIAL REPORT 13/6/68; cols. 264–5.]
One can make something look very foolish if one quotes it out of context, or leaves out anything which is inconvenient to the argument.
Could I give some indication of who were the people consulted? Following a revision of the procedure for appointing panels of Commission assessors, these undoubtedly now provide the most democratic method of sounding crofter opinion which has ever existed in the crofting areas. Nominations were asked for from more than 700 grazings committees which are themselves elected direct by the crofters in the townships. Where more than one name was suggested by the grazings committee in an area the committee were asked to put the nominees into an order of priority. The only difficulty arose in areas where there are no grazings committees, and in these cases crofters were invited through the Press to submit nominations direct. In every instance the Commission appointed as the Assessor the person preferred by the majority of the grazings committees who replied to their inquiry.
In addition to all this, the Commission have appointed to the panel a nominee of
226
each of the crofters' unions which may wish to be represented, and it must be borne in mind that many of the nominees of the grazings committees are also members of the unions. I know of no body which has gone to such lengths, in the Highlands and Islands or elsewhere, to establish such good lines of democratic communication. Furthermore, the Bill is not law until it has passed through all its stages, and the main part of the democratic process lies in the discussions and dialogue taking place during that time. It would be wrong to allow emphasis to settle the other way—that is, on pre-consultation, especially when, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the same procedure has been followed this time as last.
Moreover, immediately the Bill was published the significance of its provisions were given much wider publicity than the 1964 provisions. They were explained to Conferences of Assessors in Stornoway, Lochboisdale, Lerwick, Dingwall, Oban, Ullapool and Thurso, to the Lochaber Crofters' Union, to the Shetland Crofters' Union and representatives of the Council of Social Service in Shetland, to representatives of the N.F.U. at a meeting in Sutherland. Representatives of the N.F.U. were also present at the area conference in Thurso. The Commission even arranged for an explanation of the proposed change to appear in the Shetland Times, the Stornoway Gazette and the Oban Times. Yet we are accused of not having consulted the views of the crofters!
Out of all this has emerged the opposition to this particular aspect if at it will break up crofting in the Highlands if the lease of the croft is subject, to the same provisions of the law as c very-thing else which the crofter may own. In some cases, as I said in Committee, it may be that the lease of the croft is the biggest single asset the crofter has. It may in some cases be the bulk of his estate, but there will be other cases where it will be only part of his estate. We know the extent to which crofters have branched out into other lines to make crofting a way of life which they can continue by supplementing it by the creation or other assets. All this is to be regarded as of no importance.
The last thing I ever expected to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman

227
of Kildonan, was that salvation in the Highlands rested on going back to something which existed before 1955. Yet that is what he said. He said that a change was made in 1955, and that we ought to get back to the position which existed before then. The small opposition, from a very small part of the crofting community, which has been made to this proposal arises from what I believe is a genuine misunderstanding of the provisions of the Bill, a misunderstanding which persists despite all the efforts that have been made to get the position clear. I do not think that any Government, or any body such as the Crofters Commission, could possibly have done more to make the matter clearer. I am quite certain that where they may have failed with a few individuals—and I repeat, it is only a few individuals—nothing that I could add in this debate in your Lordships' House will make any difference to these few individuals whatsoever. What I am quite certain about is that this is something which can be applied with equal justice in the crofting communities as elsewhere, and the crofting community has absolutely nothing to fear; rather it has much to welcome in this proposal. I therefore invite your Lordships not to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan.
5.1 p.m.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, I see that I have the sympathy of the House. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, should take exception to anyone quoting from a brief.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I want to make it perfectly clear that I took no exception to the noble Lord quoting from a brief. I was taking exception to his not making it clear when the quotation from my remarks ended and the quotation from somebody else started. I do not mind having my own words fathered on to me, but I do not want anybody else's illegitimacies.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, the whole point about it, if I may say so, is that I expressly quoted the words which he said to me—that I must work out my own salvation. I did not say, "finish quotes". I should have said that to make it quite clear to the
228
noble Lord that the rest of the quotation I was talking about was not in any portion his. "Here then", I said, "is the salvation Amendment." I have it written down here. Surely, that is quite a distinct break from the quotation which I made? Later on I certainly made a quotation concerning the court, and its effect—the Scottish Land Court particularly being left out of the judicial decision concerning succession. This is important. I quoted the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, to the noble Lord. He took no account of Lord Shawcross's statement concerning interference with the individual in this country by other than a judicial body.
I am trying to see to it that the crofter receives some attention from the Scottish Land Court, which has been the instrument for a long time in decisions concerning the crofter's wellbeing, including succession. I would say that it is far more necessary for the crofters to have the Scottish Land Court operating than a body of a non-judicial character, an appointed body, a body which can be affected from the outside, and by influences from outside. I would far rather see a judicial body like the Land Court, which could not be influenced, deciding some of the interests of the crofters.
It is not going back in anything but time to 1955, and that was when the Scottish Land Court decided succession. Now we are making the situation of succession to the croft more complicated. But what the noble Lord has never referred to is the fact that this Bill suggests that the executor is to decide in the intestate crofter's case. Who are the executors? The executors are interested people in the crofter's croft and the succession to the croft. Surely, there is no parity, no equality, no justice in the fact you should employ a judge who is an interested person in the disposal of the crofter's estate? This the Bill provides for and asks for. We protest, and the crofters protest, that the executor whom you are proposing in many cases will be an interested person. Not only that, but the Bill allows not only one executor but one, two, three, four or perhaps five executors, all of whom would be concerned to fight it out concerning this little right of the crofter in his croft. That is how I interpret this Bill. He can suggest himself as an executor; he can put himself

229
forward as an executor when he may have an interest of some character. I want a disinterested person, a judicial party outside of the crofting interest entirely, to do something about the bequests of the croft. There may be five or six who are prepared to inherit interests in the croft.
The noble Lord mentioned the fact that there may be one or two cattle on the croft and some furniture in the bedrooms. As if that is going to affect the issue in any way to any great extent! If there are five people with an interest in the croft (this is the thing that we want to avoid in crofting) there may be a possibility in the end that the croft will be divided into four or five portions in order to satisfy the interests of the people who consider they have a share in the croft. What happens then? In the end the croft disappears. Unfortunately, the outlook to-day is an outlook which says that the small man in agriculture is a difficulty. The economic farmer does not like him. Big business, if applied to crofting, would not work. Business methods of a farming character might not work. What we feel is hopeful in the crofting future is that ancillary industries may be brought in (and we have been waiting for them long enough) so that the crofter may have an extra cash wage with which to carry on his living and stay in areas that are remote and not very kindly ones.
These are some of the things which perturb me, and perturb the crofter. I am not here merely to say something concerning a Bill that "shoves" crofting law into the middle of what is Scottish general law. Crofting law is of its own, building up, as it were, over a hundred years. It may be old, but it is valuable and good, and it has enabled thousands of people to stay on the land who might otherwise not have been able to do so. Now they are being, in a way, threatened in the security on the croft, and we do not wish any possibility of division in the croft to come to upset and reduce the number of crofters on the land, although that is what official opinion would like to see, crofters' assessors.
In preparation for this Amendment I consulted for my salvation the Crofters' Federation in the Highlands and Islands. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has not mentioned them at all. He has mentioned the Crofters Commission's
230
assessors. He has said that they are elected by townships of crofters in the various parts of the Highlands; b it that is not the fact, either. Often enough there is no election whatsoever, but the name of a nominee is sent in by the secretary. That happens quite frequently.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, would the noble Lord give the origin of that statement? What authority does lie cite for making a statement of that kind?
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, I can refer the noble Lord again to the authority. I will give the noble Lord the specific authority, but the general authority for that statement is the Federation of Crofters Unions.
I would finally say this. One cannot dispose of an issue of this kind in a facetious manner. It is not at all a question of scoring debating points. This concerns the livelihood and the future security of a section of people whose living and being has had to be, in a way, protected because of the difficulties of their whole situation. We do not wish that the law applying to these crofters and to their succession should be taken and put into the general law. Take 1964, for example. It was excluded then. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, does not tell the House why it is not excluded now. It was good then. Why is it not good now? All these matters are matters, of serious moment. I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. So far as I am concerned, as a debater it your Lordships' House I still have a long way to go, but when I say something concerning the people of the Highlands and the knowledge I have of their living, I say it not lightly but seriously.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the Amendment?
LORD BANNERMAN or KILDONAN: No; I wish to hold to it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 15 [Procedure]:
5.13 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, with permission I would speak to Amend vents Nos. 5, 6 and 7, which are related. The first two, while primarily of a drifting

231
nature, remove some inflexibility from Clause 15 so as to give a wider power to the Court of Session to prescribe by Rules of Court times within which a notice under subsection (2) is to be given and a requirement under subsection (4) is to be intimated. The third Amendment is purely drafting. It removes a possible ambiguity from the word "prescribed" in paragraph (6)(c) of Clause 15. The word "prescribed" is used throughout Clause 15 to mean prescribed by Rules of Court made by the Court of Session, but in paragraph (6)(c) what the court is given power to do is to prescribe exceptions to requirements "laid down" in Clause 15, and not exceptions to requirements prescribed by the court itself. My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 2, leave out ("at") and insert ("within").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("require") in line 31 and insert—
("(4) Any party to whom information is furnished under subsection (3) of this section may, within such time as may be prescribed,").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 14, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("laid down").—(Lord Hughes.)
Clause 17 [Interpretation of Part III, and savings]:
LORD HUGHESmoved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"(5) The Clerk of any court having custody of any document shall, on the application of any person who wishes to rely, by virtue of section 10(2), section 11(2) or section 12(2) of this Act or any corresponding provision for the time being in force in any part of the United Kingdom outside Scotland, on the contents of that document in proceedings which he proposes to raise, or which are pending, in any court in the United Kingdom, and on payment by that person of such fee as may be prescribed by act of adjournal
232
or act of sederunt, as the case may be, made with the approval of the Treasury, issue to that person a copy of that document, or of the material part thereof, certified or otherwise authenticated by or on behalf of the court."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subsection which this Amendment proposes to introduce into Clause 17 is necessary to ensure that Clauses 10 to 12 work smoothly. It will be recalled that those clauses deal with the admissibility in subsequent civil proceedings of the findings of courts in earlier criminal and certain types of civil cases. The purpose of the new subsection to enable litigants or prospective litigants to obtain copies of the relevant documents relating to an earlier case from the clerks of court who have custody of them. The Lord President of the Court of Session has been consulted and is satisfied with the proposed new provision. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 22, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hughes.)
Schedule 1 [Modification of Succession (Scotland) Act, 1964 Consequential on Sections 1 and 2 of this Act]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 17, leave out paragraphs 3 to 7.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not agree with this Amendment hut, as the noble Lord has said, it is consequential on Amendment No. 3.

HOVERCRAFT BILL
5.17 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this Bill was given a very thorough examination in another place. It is primarily an enabling Bill, and we do have other business to get through to-day. I thought, therefore, it would be acceptable if I limited my remarks to a few general comments about the Bill, with an undertaking, of course, to try to answer any questions which may be posed to me.

233
First, it may be asked: why do we need the Bill? The need springs primarily from the present uncertainty about where hovercraft stand before the law. These vehicles are new. They can be amphibious; they combine some characteristics of a ship and some of an aircraft. In many ways they are neither ships nor aircraft. All this could cause difficulty in the courts. At present they are treated as if they were aircraft for purposes of safety, and are given "permits to fly". Though the system has worked so far, there could be doubt whether hovercraft properly can be called aircraft within the Civil Aviation Act of 1949. In this context it is relevant that the International Civil Aviation Organisation has chosen not to regard hovercraft as being aircraft. Clause 2, which deals with jurisdiction, is therefore required as a matter of some urgency.
I may also be asked why so much of the required regulations are left to be dealt with by Orders, and why Clause 1 gives such wide enabling powers. The answer—the acceptable answer, I hope —is that this new field of endeavour is so much in the development stage and offers so many divergent opportunities of development that the utmost flexibility is required. The regulations will be tailored to developing requirements. In some cases it will be possible to adapt existing enactments, such as the Civil Aviation Act and the Merchant Shipping Acts. But I am sure that the House will agree that in all cases it is advisable to provide for the maximum flexibility. If we had time I have no doubt that we could discuss at length the definition of the family of vehicles for which provision is made in this Bill, and indeed the title that it is proposed to give to it. The term "hovercraft" is not, to say the least, universally accepted by those who take a professional interest in this matter. "Air Cushion Vehicle", abbreviated to A.C.V., would probably be preferred by those who are involved and take a special interest in this field. Certainly in many ways it can technically be justified as the better generic term for the different variety of craft using the air cushion principle. All this I gather was the subject of a good deal of discussion, but the Government eventually came down in favour of the word hovercraft as one which the general public appreciated and which was most widely used.
234
Needless to say, there are high hopes of expansion of the hovercraft industry, and it is important that we should take the lead in framing special regulations. I hope that other countries will be encouraged to follow our lead, and I gather that there are some waiting to see how we propose tackling the problem of certification and regulation. I trust, therefore, that this Bill will be given a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
5.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lards, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for introducing this small but important Bill in such a clear and concise way. The very word "hovercraft" fills most of us with a sense of justifiable pride in this outstanding British invention which seems poised, as many of us believe, on the threshold of world success. But fewer of us notice how versatile this remarkable invention is proving, not only in its capacity as a passenger-carrying marine vehicle skimming the water between Southampton and the Isle of Wight or as a two-seater pleasure craft which is increasing in popularity month a by month; but also in its industrial capacity, in lifting pallets, in moving large oil storage tanks, and in the temporary damming of rivers. In its medical capacity, there is the hover-bed designed especially for badly-burned patients; and, finally, there is its capacity in the form of the hover-rail. To cover in one Bill all these multifarious uses, with the likelihood of further differing uses being discovered later on, was, I am sure, a daunting task for any Parliamentary draftsman. For this reason, I am sure that it is right that the Bill before us to-day does no more than to provide the framework upon which the body of future law covering hovercraft can be constructed, limb by limb, by means of Orders in Council under Clause 1.
The Bill, as the noble Lord said is an enabling Bill. Although I am sure that its wide powers will raise doubt in many people's minds, it should be supported because it gives the necessary flexibility required in a rapidly-changing new technological industry and will help surmount any legal obstacle in its path of progress. Having said that, my only

235
criticism concerns the extremely long time that this immensely energetic Government have taken to produce this simple legal framework for the industry. In 1965, we were promised that legislation was "shortly to be introduced". In 1966, we were told that it was now imminent. Now, two years later, it is born. I think it is fair to comment that this has been a rather long gestation.
The only possible reason, as I see it, for this delay is the immensely varied list of previous Acts to which this Bill will refer: the Dockyard Port Regulation Act 1865; the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928; the Explosives Act 1875; the British Nationality Act 1948; the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949; the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962; and last, but by no means least, the Docking and Nicking of Horses Act 1949. Perhaps the noble Lord when he comes to reply could enlighten us as to what relationship this last Act has to the Hovercraft Bill.
My Lords, the necessity for this fairly urgent hovercraft legislation was demonstrated in another place during the Second Reading debate when, despite the fact that the Sea Speed and Hover Travel companies have been operating for the past three years and carrying over 100,000 passengers a year, as recently as May 16 the Government's view was:
"We are not totally sure that they are legally covered in operating at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 16 / 5 / 68, col. 1480.]
With this in mind, I think it fair to ask the noble Lord this question. How soon do the Government expect to introduce an Order covering the operating of these services? Is it to be in this Session, or in the next Session, or next year?
Another factor came to light in another place. It was the difficulty that the Government were having in deciding which body should be responsible for the certification procedure. As I understand it, a Working Party has already been set up by the Government and is, in fact, examining this question at the moment. Should it still be the Air Registration Board (to which I should like to pay tribute for the work it has done in the past), or should it be Lloyd's Register of Shipping or should it be yet another new body? Perhaps the noble Lord could
236
indicate later how soon he expects a decision on this issue to be announced. This Bill is so wide that it gives those of us who are interested in many aspects of the matter the opportunity to seek information from the Government. I hope that there will be others besides myself and my noble friend Lord Bessborough. I hope that Lord Granville of Eye will also take part.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his offer to reply to questions. I should like first to ask about the progress of the hover-bed, although I know that this does not come within this Bill, for it is not strictly a vehicle. I am a little concerned about the hover-bed, because in our short debate last March the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, failed to reply to a question on this subject. I was even more concerned to see that in another place during the same debate the Government spokesman, when winding up, stated in reference to the honourable Member for Eastleigh:
"He spoke of the air cushion bed. I have not heard of that before …—[col. 1517.]
I think that is rather an extraordinary remark from any Government spokesman speaking on a Bill of this sort. As I understand it, there have been various trials in hospitals which have demonstrated its effectiveness in use for badly-burned patients. I should like to ask the noble Lord if he can say whether it may shortly be installed for general or limited use in hospitals and what interest has been aroused by other countries abroad.
The second question comes within the scope of the Bill. It is this. What is the latest news of hover-rail? I believe I am right in saying that the N.R.D.C. has awarded a £2 million contract for the development of the hover-rail and that there is a new company now set up at Cambridge. Could the noble Lord tell us how long this development programme is likely to last before a commercial judgment on its future can be evaluated? Is it intended that there should be any collaboration with other countries on the development that will take place?
The third question I should like to put to the noble Lord is this. Can he tell us what export figures have been achieved by the British Hovercraft Corporation with their S.R.N.5 and their S.R.N.6?

237
Also, assuming the operating costs of the S.R.N.4 prove economic—and I am sure the eyes of the world are on this aspect at the moment—what is the estimate of the potential world market for this craft? While speaking on the S.R.N.4, I should like to mention to the noble Lord the concern felt at the way the British Railways Board are prepared to purchase and operate only one craft at present. It does not seem to present a good picture of confidence, nor a picture of enthusiasm, nor a picture of reliable service. Yet here is the time, on August 1, when this magnificent new craft is about to be launched and I do not think that the British Hovercraft Corporation have been given the support they deserve by a nationalised transport undertaking.
One of the many aspects of the hovercraft industry, which I consider has a very great future, is the development of the small pleasure hovercraft which will seat two, four or perhaps six passengers. As the noble Lord will know, there are already quite a number of British companies specialising in this field with their eyes not only or the home market but on potential markets abroad. There are also a number of clubs which have been formed and I believe that this legislation, or rather the legislation which is to follow within the framework of this legislation, as regards matters of registration, safety of construction and noise, will be a very useful guide-line to manufacturers and customers and will create an added confidence in this new form of pleasure craft.
I would conclude, my Lords, by repeating my welcome to this Bill. Despite its permissive character, I believe it is the only practical way to allow the necessary flexibility of legislation to cover a very rapidly changing technology. I do not think that it is a form of legislation that many of us would wish to see often, but I believe it suits the purpose of hovercraft development. It is, of course, only stage one of legislation for hovercraft and I hope it will not be too long before stage two is introduced by Orders. I believe that the Bill is an important landmark for the industry and in the short history of the hovercraft. For those who believe that only the tip of success in respect of hovercraft manufacture has been shown, and that there is much more
238
to come, the Bill is a welcome recognition of the importance of the industry, and for that reason I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
5.32 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked me to support this Bill, and I must say that I am very glad he has gone over the subject so very carefully. When I get on my feet no one knows when I am going to stop, but now it is quite simple. We have this afternoon been away among the bog myrtles, the crofts, and the coulees, and I feel that the time of the House has been delayed. The noble Earl has covered the whole subject completely, and you will be glad to hear that I feel there is very little that I can add. I am a member of the Inventors' Society: I myself try my hand at inventing, and I appreciate that this is a British invention. Legalising it in this Bill will mean that we are supporting an invention which has been copied all over the world and, so to speak, putting the trade mark of British goods on it, which I consider is a step forward.
My Lords, one aspect was not mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, but is important. The spread of bracken throughout the world is very serious, and all sorts of ways have been tried to stop it in out-of-the-way places where the loss of grazing land in some countries is very considerable. Attempts have been made to destroy the bracken by means of spraying machines attached to helicopters; but the helicopter is not altogether suitable because in some of the valleys "choppers" have crashed. The f over-craft may well play an important part in the future in the disposal of bracken—at least I hope so. I am glad that we made the hovercraft a "lady" and have made, or are going to make it, a recognised mechanical invention. It will be of help to everybody like the tractor, the train and the teacup.
5.35 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the importance of encouraging exports in this field. It so happens that this year I have travelled to Vancouver, in one direction, and to Irkutsk, in the other. Over hose vast frozen wastes, with enormous rivers

239
wandering across them, it seems to me that the hovercraft must have an enormous future. It is not dependent only on open water on which to travel: it can travel equally well over frozen, or partly frozen, ice or snow, or over reasonably flat land. I should like to see a big export market develop and every facility given by the Government to the companies concerned to try the craft out in different circumstances.
In this connection it is important that the permissive powers given in this type of legislation should be used in order to assist the companies concerned and that they should be as little restrictive as possible. Such restrictions as are applied should be only those that are vital to the safety of life, and perhaps the prevention of excessive noise in our country. I hope that we shall not by the regulations we issue under this legislation discourage prospective buyers from abroad from trying out this type of craft because they think it has turned out, for some reason, to be objectionable or dangerous in our country. I should be grateful if the Government could give us an assurance about how these permissive powers will be used.
5.36 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am bound to say that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, took my invitation to ask questions very literally. I will do my best to answer those that he put to me, but if I cannot give him all the answers I will try to find out and write to him later. I am very grateful for his general welcome to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, asked for an assurance that the enabling powers which the Bill will provide will not be used in any restrictive sense. I think I can give the noble Lord that assurance. Whatever is done will be done after the fullest consultation with both the manufacturers and users. I think that there is a happy relationship with the representatives of these people now and I am certain that eventually the Orders which are brought forward will be designed to enable the maximum development of this invention. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strange, for his comments. The noble Lord is an inventor of note, and I thought he was most generous in the way he referred to this invention by a rival in his field.
240
On the question of the regulations, I should say that at the moment the Hovercraft Consultative Committee, set up to advise on the Orders and regulations, and representative of the interests to which I have referred, are now working on the Orders. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, it is not possible to give exactly the time table for the laying of Orders, but it may well be that the first one will be brought in quite expeditiously. Recognising the need to limit their restrictive capacity and to ensure their helpful nature, a little extra time spent on this task might well be advisable.
The noble Earl asked me about the relation to this Bill and the hovercraft to the Docking and Nicking of Horses Act, 1949. I am not absolutely certain, but as I follow it, it would seem that horses which have been dealt with in this way cannot, without permission, at the present time, be brought into this country by either aircraft or ship. It would seem that there is a possible loophole and they might he brought in by hovercraft. Similarly, as I understand it, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act makes it illegal to bring unlawful Commonwealth immigrants into this country by aircraft or ship, but under the present law the captain of a hovercraft would not be caught by the Act. Under this Bill the position will be dealt with.
The noble Earl asked me about the hover-bed. In fact, he gave a very reasonable explanation of this bed. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Kennet was not aware of all those details. I should like to say to the noble Earl that on some future occasion, when he has charge of a Department, that it will be more than likely that there will be some technical development with which he will not be completely familiar. The hover-bed has been devised for the treatment of people suffering from severe burns. Air is pumped into the bed from a mobile unit. The patient is laid on the pockets, which open away underneath, forming a perfect seal along the side of the body, so that the patient is left floating on a cushion of warm, sterile air.
The N.R.D.C. are now sponsoring the construction of a two-bed clinical trial unit by Allen and Hanbury Surgical Engineering Limited, and at this stage of development the beds are being used

241
under the strictest of surveillance and I think that it is a little premature to discuss its full application. We must wait and see what is learned in this experiment. Having said all that, I must now tell the noble Earl that the hover-bed is one form of the air cushion principle which is not covered by this Bill. It is not a vehicle, and we are here talking about vehicles. But I hope that this information will be useful to him.
I was asked about the position of exports. Of the 47 or so S.R.N. 5 and 6, built or under construction at B.H.C., 26 have been or are being supplied to overseas orders. The B.H.C. exports to date, I gather, are worth about £5 million. Hovermarine have received three firm orders for the H.M.2 from overseas customers and have a further ten unconfirmed foreign orders. This firm estimates that about 90 per cent. of their output will be for overseas requirements. The noble Earl asked about an estimate of the world market. I have no doubt that B.H.C. have made a survey. I am not aware of the figures they have come up with, and to some extent the figures cannot be definite, certainly not final, because a good deal of the activity at the present time is in persuading parts of the world that they are a market for this new form of transport.
The noble Earl asked about the position of the Working Party which has been set up to consider the certification and registration of this new vehicle. I understand that there were discussions at the Board of Trade between the Air Registration Board and Lloyd's about the way in which registration and certification will be dealt with. Both these important and experienced bodies are interested in this, particularly A.R.B. who have carried responsibility so far. I understand that both organisations are now considering what has been said and will submit proposals, and further discussions will take place.
With regard to certification of small sporting hovercraft, small craft of this sort will presumably have safety requirements, but just as we have contrived in relation to yachts and gliders, for example, to encourage amateur builders and operators the same principle will be applied to sporting hovercraft. The noble Earl asked about the
242
tracked hovercraft experiment about to take place at Cambridge. The position is that the N.R.D.C. have formed a subsidiary company, Tracked Hovercraft Limited, to continue the development work on the hover-train. It is expected that in about two years they will have a manned tracked hovercraft motel in operation. Initially they are building a test track of about five miles, to be extended later to ten or twenty miles. The commercial application, of course, will depend on the lessons learned from that experiment. I think that I have dealt with all the questions, but if not, having read what the noble Earl said, I will endeavour to send him the answers. In the meantime, I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IRON AND STEEL (COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES) REGULATIONS 1968
5.46 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Iron and Steel (Compensation to Employees) Regulations 1968, which were laid before the House on July 1, 1968, be approved. These regulations give effect to the duty imposed on the Minister by Section 41 of the Iron and Steel Act 1949, as revived and amended by the Iron and Steel Act 1967. They require the British Steel Corporation to pay compensation to those staff, or former staff, of the Iron and Steel Board and the nationalised companies who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of nationalisation or subsequent organisational changes giving effect to conclusions reported by the Corporation to the Minister in a report on organisation, or to a direction by the Minister to the Corporation on organisation. The pattern of compensation embodied in them is based on the pattern for statutory redundancy which, with minor modification called for as a result of changing circumstances, has been applied by successive Governments over the last twenty years. The most recent example is the Harbour Reorganisation (Compensation to Employees) Regulations 1967.

243
As the Act requires, we have consulted the British Steel Corporation and the trade unions in the preparation of these regulations. The regulations will have effect from July 28, 1967—that is to say, vesting day. If the House wishes, I will gladly give a fuller explanation of the regulations. But as they give effect to well-established policy followed by Governments of both Parties, what I have said may be sufficient; and it might be better if, with permission, I were to speak again in reply to any points which noble Lords may wish to raise.
Moved, That the Draft Iron and Steel (Compensation to Employees) Regulations 1968, laid before the House on July 1, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL
5.48 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment made instead of one of the Lords Amendments, the Commons consequential Amendment, and the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments he now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment made instead of one of the Lords Amendments, the Commons consequential Amendment, and the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, with permission of the House, I should like to say a word or two on this Motion before we go on to the actual Amendments. We will, of course, accept this Motion in a moment and consider these Amendments, as we always try to help Her Majesty's Government with the passage of their business; but they do try us very sorely. Here we have a further example of what I can only describe as the mismanagement that has occurred over and over again on this particular Bill. In almost all respects it is a wholly admirable Bill, but there is one matter which has given us trouble right from the beginning.
We shall have an opportunity of discussing this on its merits when we discuss
244
Amendment No. 2, printed under the heading, "After Clause 58", but I should like to spend a moment criticising the way in which this issue has been handled. It makes it very difficult for us to believe that the Government have been acting in good faith in this matter. The clause which has caused the trouble all along, and is still causing trouble, is the one dealing with drugs patents. There was nothing in the Bill about this when it was presented to the other place for Second Reading. Nothing was said about it in all of the 12 days in which it was in Committee in the other place. It was tabled for the first time in the other place over the week-end before the Monday on which it was actually discussed, and then it was forced through on a Division.
Here we made it clear on Second Reading how much we disliked this particular clause, and we went into consultation with the industry about it. At the last minute, just before our Committee stage, an entirely fresh clause was tabled by the Government. Lastly, in our Committee stage we had a confusing debate on the clause that had originally been tabled on Report stage in the other place, on an entirely fresh clause which we tabled after consultation with industry, a second Government clause tabled just before our Committee stage, and a proposal from the Liberal benches that all the clauses should be deleted. It was not, therefore, surprising that we did not have a very good debate in Committee. And on Report we deleted the clause. I am glad to say that that action has been accepted by the Government. But this last week Her Majesty's Government tabled yet another clause. It was dealt with early on Thursday morning of last week, and the first that we knew about its being considered in this House was when a Motion to debate it to-day appeared on the Order Paper yesterday. It appears that this was done without any consultation through the usual channels.
Unlike Members in the other place, here we are not full-time professionals, paid to be here all the time. It takes us a little time to arrange our other affairs, in which we are all engaged, and on this particular occasion my noble friend Lord Newton was unable to rearrange his affairs to be here. In any case, it has not been possible for any of us interested

245
in this Bill to have any consultation with interests outside the House, who are very much concerned with this clause. And if that was not bad enough, we now know—which we did not know when we had this Bill before us on an earlier occasion—that the substance of this clause was never a product of deliberate Government decision, following consultation with industry. It was—and two honourable Members of the Party opposite confessed this quite blatantly on the Report stage (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 10/7/68; col. 659)—inserted as a result of Party pressure on the Minister, to which he succumbed. I think your Lordships will agree to consider these Amendments now, but I hope your Lordships will agree, also, in the light of what I have said, that it was my first duty to protest.
5.54 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord feels that this is the result of some deliberate machinations on the pan of Her Majesty's Government. The facts as he described them, of course, sound extraordinarily sinister, but I would point out that it is not unusual (I have checked this) for Bills to come here so quickly from another place, or indeed Amendments of this kind. I am empowered to make a very full apology for the fact that consultations did not take place through the usual channels.
So far as the question of the Committee stage in this House is concerned, I agree with the noble Lord that it was a complicated and confused debate. Quite frankly, I am not used to coping with introducing an Amendment and at the same time replying to an Amendment which leaves out the thing which you are trying to put in. I must repeat—and I think I said this on each stage of the Bill—that on Second Reading I mentioned that there 'was to be a new clause, and it is not quite true to say that it was an entirely different clause. The substance of this clause was not changed, and has not been changed throughout.
I am sorry that the noble Lord feels the way he does. I can only assure him that the Government feel that it had the opportunity of an airing in another place, although perhaps not as fully as on other occasions. I hope the noble Lord will accept my assurance that this is not a
246
matter of great sinister content. I feel that much of this arises from the pressure of business, and, if I dare seek the sympathy of the noble Lord, this falls as hardly on junior Ministers as on anyone else.
COMMONS AMENDMENT TO THE BILL INSTEAD OF WORDS LEFT OUT BY ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE BILL, AND COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (93) as first printed for the Lords. Commons Amendments are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 1]
Leave out Clause 25.
The Commons agreed to this Amendment and made the following Amendment to the Bill instead of the words left out:
[No. 2]
After Clause 58, Insert the following new Clause:
Extension of power of user by Crown of patented invention to user for certain health services.
".—(1) The powers exercisable in relation to a patented invention under section 46 of the Patents Act 1949 by a government department or a person authorised by a government department shall include power to make, use, exercise and vend the invention for the production or supply of drugs and medicines required for the provision of pharmaceutical services, general medical services or general dental services, and prescribed for the per poses of this section by regulations made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State acting jointly; and any reference in that section or in section 47 or 48 of the Patents Act 1949 to the services of the Crown shall be construed accordingly.
(2) In the foregoing subsection references to pharmaceutical services, general medical services and general dental services shall be construed as referring to services of those respective kinds under Part IV of the National Health Service Act 1946, Part IV of the National Health Service (Scotland) Ac, 1947 or the corresponding provisions of the law in force in Northern Ireland or the Isle of Man.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) above to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) This section shall extend to the Isle of Man."
The Commons made the following Consequential Amendment to the Bill—
[No. 3]
Clause 78, page 55, line 31, after ("Act") insert ("except section (Extension of power of user by Crown of patented invention to user for certain health services) thereof.")
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, which they have made to the Bill instead of the words left out by the Lords Amendment No. 1. I will not repeat the whole of the arguments, which were put very fully before your Lordships when we discussed the original clause. It will be quite obvious to your Lordships who have studied the Bill that this new clause reinstates in principle Clause 25, which was left out by this House on Report stage, and extends to the general medical, dental and pharmaceutical services the provisions related to Crown use of patented drugs and medicines, which under Section 46 of the Patents Act already apply to the hospital services.
My Lords, I hope I have established the fact that there would never be any sudden or arbitrary use of this power, which is essentially one of last resort. Therefore Her Majesty's Government have tried to find a practical way of reinforcing this assurance and the new clause limits the use of Section 46 for the purposes of the services covered by the clause, to drugs and medicines which have been specified by Regulations. This provision will not only give due warning (and this is a point that was stressed by many noble Lords in earlier debates) should it ever be necessary to invoke these powers, but it will also give Parliament an opportunity of discussing and approving their use in a particular case.
I think I am correct in saying that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, sought to do something of this kind: and as I recall he said that he was putting forward Amendments which were a genuine attempt to make it possible for this to be included in the Bill. The concession which has been made by the Minister will, I hope, be seen by your Lordships as evidence of the Government's intention to make use of this power only if we have to, responsibly and with due opportunity for Parliamentary debate.
The clause is one part of a set of proposals which was recently explained to the House and which will beyond dispute provide a moderate and comprehensive settlement which is both fair to the industry and to the taxpayer. It is neccesary for
248
Ministers to have an effective and expeditious power of last resort, because normal competitive conditions do not exist for the supply of drugs to these services, and it is on Ministers that the duty mainly rests to ensure that proper value is obtained for the expenditure of public funds. Bearing in mind the previous debates, this is a concession on the part of the Minister and an attempt to provide a compromise. I hope that your Lordships will accept it in this form.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the Amendment No. 2 which they have made to the Bill instead of the words left out by the Lords Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is really disarming when one has a bone to pick with the Government, to be faced with one of these charming noble Baronesses. I cannot say that we, on this side of the House, welcome even this new clause but it is undoubtedly a considerable improvement on the previous attempts, particularly because of the inclusion of what now stands as subsection (3), which will have the effect of ensuring that this power cannot be used without Parliament's having an opportunity to debate it. This is, of course, an extremely late stage at which to introduce new material, and from what I was just saying I think the House will feel that this particular matter has not been introduced into legislation in a way that is at all satisfactory. If it works—and we hope it will—it will be very much by good luck and certainly not by good management.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has tried to persuade us to accept this Amendment by the Commons—the new clause. In this House we rejected Clause 25 on a Motion moved by myself and supported widely on various Benches in this House. It went down to the other place, and they, by only three votes, failed to agree with us. That was very nearly a victory in those circumstances. In this Parliament I do not know when there has been such a close thing as a Government victory with only three votes, and that on a Government measure. That in itself is one indication of the justification that we had for moving

249
our Amendment to leave out Clause 25. Further, the fact that the Government have gone some way—and I think quite an important way—to meet us in the Amendment we are now discussing is another indication that we were right.
The House of Lords is often criticised these days. Not long ago the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, said the House of Lords was a mountain which only prod iced mice. That is completely untrue; very often we produce some very important matters in this House, and this is one of them. This is a case in point. It affects an important, exciting and new industry, and furthermore it affects by implication a large segment of British industry, and I am grateful to the Government for meeting us in the way they have. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I would not say that I am entirely satisfied. I am not. It would be better to leave out the clause altogether, but the Government have gone some way to meet us, and we are grateful.
In future this "measure of last resort", as the noble Baroness calls it, is fortified by the fact that there will have to be a Statutory Instrument which is capable of annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament. I presume that this in fact means "either House". It does not mean that if a case comes up, as one did quite recently—although on that occasion I voted for the Government—it will be said, as it was then said, that we had abandoned our powers on Resolutions. I hope this will not be the fact. I do not think there is much good in putting in an Act of Parliament something giving us power at this late stage in our history to annul a Resolution unless we are going to be able to do it. It would be far better to "come clean" and not to put it in at all. So I am assuming that now, in this year of grace 1968, if the Government put in a condition—and it has been stated by the noble Baroness to be a very important condition; that is to say, that a Resolution can be annulled by either House of Parliament—this House can take advantage of that provision if, in its wisdom, it so desires.
I see that this cause extends to the Isle of Man. I do not quite know why the Isle of Man is mentioned here. Surely it should be mentioned elsewhere or not at
250
all. Why should this very doubtful privilege and benefit be conferred on the Isle of Man? If the noble Lord, Lord Strange, were here I think he might be able to tell us what the Tynwald thinks about it.
NOBLE LORDS: He is here.
LORD OGMORE: The noble Lord, Lord Strange, is of course a descendant of the ancient Kings of Man and he will be able to tell us what the Tynwald thinks of this, because, as I understand it, the Isle of Man is one of the federal parts of this country. We have a Federal Parliament and not a unitary Parliament. We have powers over the subordinate Parliament of Northern Ireland; I suppose we have some powers over the subordinate Parliaments of Guernsey and Jersey, and obviously considerable powers over the Tynwald, the Parliament of the Isle of Man. As your Lordships know, I moved a Bill in this House on January 30 to provide for a subordinate domestic Parliament for Wales, and it intrigues me greatly to find that the Isle of Man is still in some way subject to the powers of the Federal Parliament at Westminster. With those few words, I have no strong objection to this Amendment—or no sufficient objection which impels me to carry this to a Division—and I am grateful to the Government for making it.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has just said about this clause being an advance upon the one taken out of the Bill by this House. At the same time I should have liked to see it go further and, as I suggested in the previous debate, a measure of compensation settled by an independent body might have been a better way of approaching the matter. On the other hand, with the Report of the Banks Committee still to be published, it is conceivable that there may be some necessity for revising legislation when we see that Report. Meanwhile, I feel certain that the House will be happy to accept this advance on what was in the original Bill.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I feel I should answer the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, because apparently something was being said about our "Legs"! As the noble Lord knows, it belonged to my family and it was sold to the Queen and the Royal

251
Crown, under slight duress, because they did not approve of the way we were smuggling, and it has been run, in a way, by the British Government ever since. But the oldest Parliament in the world has continued there, and of course we fly the Queen's flag as Sovereign—the Manx flag with the Legs—rather than the Union Jack, which is the Government flag.
I must say for the Isle of Man that it had, per head of the population, more freely enlisted men in both Wars than any other colony in the British Empire, which shows that we are fantastically loyal to ourselves and most other people. We do not stand (or sit) with a cup out, but if anything drops into it we say "Thank you" very nicely.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, may I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Strange, for his, as always, fascinating account of the Isle of Man. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that Northern Ireland requested to be included in this, so one can only assume that the Isle of Man equally requested it. I am quite sure that even a Socialist Government would hesitate to extend any legislation where it was not wanted—
LORD STONHAM: Particularly a Socialist Government.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords —if it had not been requested.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ferrier, Lord Ogmore and Lord Sandford, for accepting the fact that the Government have gone some way to meet their point. Also, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, in regard to the Banks Committee. We are, of course, awaiting an opportunity to debate their recommendations.
I should like to repeat that it is in the interests of the Minister of Health to have a strong and healthy pharmaceutical industry, and that there would never be an attempt to drive a wedge between the industry and the Minister. I think I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that if an Act of Parliament in fact says "either House of Parliament" this must mean just that. I am very glad that all noble Lords have accepted the genuine
252
attempt to meet the point made by your Lordships.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(Baroness Phillips.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 4]
After Clause 30, insert the following new Clause:
Certificates for exemption from prescription charges
"—(1) Regulations made under section 38(3) of the 1946 Act (which authorises regulations providing for the making and recover}, of charges in respect of pharmaceutical services) and regulations made under section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 1952 (which authorises regulations providing for the making and recovery of charges in respect of the supply, as part of hospital and specialist services under Part II of the 1946 Act, of drugs, medicines and appliances) may each provide for the grant, on payment of such sums as may be so prescribed, of certificates conferring on the persons to whom the certificates are granted exemption from charges otherwise exigible under the regulations in respect of drugs, medicine and appliances supplied during such period as may be so prescribed: and different sums may be so prescribed in relation to different periods.
(2) This section shall have effect in Scotland as if, for the references therein to section 38(3) and Part TI of the 1946 Act, there were substituted references respectively to section 40(3) and Part II of the 1947 Act."
The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment there-to:—
[No. 5]
Line 9, leave out ("so") and insert ("thereby")
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5 to the Lords Amendment No. 4. This is in fact a drafting Amendment, substituting the use of the word "thereby" for the word "so". My own explanation of this is that "so" refers to the past and "thereby" in fact refers to the present and to the future.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I will not attempt to enter into the discussion of whether this makes any difference at all to the Bill because I am not at all clear that it does. But I should like to say that we are happy to see this clause about prescription charges in the Bill. I think one could say in passing that if the Government had been able to control their reflex actions rather more carefully when they first came into power, and had retained prescription charges, they would have saved themselves a great deal of trouble.

BRITISH STANDARD TIME BILL [H.L.]
6.12 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to the British Standard Time Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Stonham.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 52 as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1 and 2]
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Commencement and duration
"(1) This Act shall come into force on 27th October 1968.
(2) Sections 1 to 3 of this Act shall expire at two o'clock Greenwich mean time, in the morning of 31st October 1971 unless made permanent under subsection (3) below; and the provisions of Schedule (Provisions contingent on Expiration of Sections 1 to 3) to this Act shall have effect in the event of the expiration of those sections.
(3) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the said sections 1 to 3 shall have permanent effect; and any such Order may repeal subsection (2) above and the said Schedule (Provisions contingent on Expiration of Sections 1 to 3).
(4) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under subsection (3) above unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament passed before the end of the year 1970."
Clause 4, page 2, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. The Bill as it left your Lordships' House made the decision to institute British Standard Time as from October 27 of this year irreversible. The new clause added in another place provides for the change to be introduced in the first place for an experimental period of three years. The Government recognise that, whatever opinions may be expressed, or deductions made, about the effect of the new time system on different parts of the country or sections of the community, the present arrangements must be largely speculative. They think it right, therefore, that before finally committing themselves to the new system it should be tested in the light of actual experience; and this is what the new clause will achieve. It will thus be possible to test whether all the advantages seen in the new system—in the way of improved contacts with continental countries, coordination of international transport schedules, increased opportunity for leisure time activities, reduction in road accidents and so on—are as great as has been expected; and, contrariwise, whether the disadvantages, for it stance to the agricultural and constructional industries, and particularly in Scotland, prove as serious as opponents of the Bill have claimed that they will be.
Subsection (1) of the new clause provides, like Clause 4 of the Bill as first introduced, for the measure to come into operation on October 27 next; but subsection (2) goes on to provide that it shall automatically expire at 2 o'clock Greenwich Mean Time on October 31, 1971, unless made permanent by Order in Council made under the provisions that follow. It also paves the way to the new Schedule (Amendment No. 3), which deals with the provisions contingent on its expiry, should that be allowed to occur.
Under subsection (3) the substantive provisions contained in Clauses 1 to 3 may be given permanent effect by an Order in Council approved in drift by Affirmative Resolution passed by both Houses, in which case both subsection (2) and the Schedule may be repealed by the Order as having no further relevance. Subsection (4) requires that any such

255
Affirmative Resolution must be passed before the end of 1970. The effect, therefore, is this: that the decision whether or not to make British Standard Time permanent is to be taken after the experience of two winters—the coming winter and that of 1969–70—but that if the decision is not to do so but to allow the measure to lapse, a further winter will pass under British Standard Time before the actual date of expiry in October, 1971.
The Government are convinced that the experience of two winters is essential if the test is to be a proper one. There might be something to be said for prolonging the experiment, but in our view nothing for shortening it. It should be self-evident that a reliable assessment could not be made from a single winter either of public reaction or of the effects on industry, commerce, education and other activities. The coming winter may be either unusually mild or unusually severe, and that will certainly influence people's reactions. In some industries—such as the constructional industries—there may be need for adjustments to be made to the new time system, and it may also be necessary in certain areas to rearrange school hours. If the test were to be for a single winter only, and it were known that British Standard Time might not survive for more than two winters, there would be less incentive for these adjustments to be undertaken; and if they were undertaken their consequences and effectiveness could not be expected fully to show themselves on the experience of a single season. At the end we should be left still uncertain whether the decision taken—be it for the continuance of British Standard Time or its abandonment—was the right one. Something might be learned, but not nearly enough.
It will be necessary, in the light of the experience obtained from this trial, to make a thorough survey of representative opinion. Such a survey could not be undertaken before the spring of 1970 and could not at best be completed in time for reversion to Greenwich Mean Time (supposing that was the conclusion) to be effected in the following winter. Adequate notice would have to be given of such a change to the public in general, and to special interests, such as those
256
concerned with the printing of timetables or with negotiation of hours of work where these had been changed on account of British Standard Time. Moreover, the electricity boards must have proper notice to adjust tariffs and meters dealing with off-peak electricity supplies. While, therefore, the inquiries could be completed towards the end of 1970, any change resulting from them would have to be deferred until the winter of 1971–72.
Amendment No. 2 is to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 4 as the Bill was passed by your Lordships' House. That subsection provides that the Bill should come into force on October 27, 1968. This provision is now in subsection (1) of the new clause, and the omission of subsection (2) of Clause 4 is consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: After the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had moved the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House almost eight months ago I said:
"My only regret about his speech was that he did not suggest at all that the Government were approaching this change in an experimental frame of mind. I should have thought that was necessary."
I went on to say:
"I personally think this Bill should be supported, but as an experiment and not as an unalterable change in our social arrangements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23/11/67, c. 1188.]
That suggestion of mine was widely supported in different quarters of the House: the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, I remember, backed me up on it. But we were unable to have any effect on the Government.
In winding up the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said:
"With regard to the very important point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, he will know that if we had any doubts about this legislation or any thoughts that in a year or two we should have to come back to the House and say 'Let us cancel it', we should not be bringing legislation forward now."—(Col. 1216.)
Why the noble Lord thought fit to ascribe to me the power to know or understand this Government's mental processes I have no idea. I realise, of course, that

257
he was faithfully carrying out on that occasion the Home Secretary's policy and that he had no authority to make any concession. For my part, I warmly welcome the fact that in another place the Government yielded to the arguments which had been initiated here and were repeated there, that this Bill must be experimental.
I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Stonham feels that this represented disrespect by the Government, but I fear that what he was instructed to say on that occasion has subsequently been thrown over by the Government. Now we have these Amendments, which I am sure are an improvement to the Bill. I am also sure that they will be widely welcomed in your Lordships' House, because I do not remember any noble Lord, in any part of the House, arguing, either on that occasion or during subsequent stages of the Bill, that this change must remain for all the time and that it must never be reconsidered.
In another place the Government have now yielded, and have agreed that after two years it should be reconsidered in the light of experience, and these Amendments will ensure that the new plan can be brought to an end, and indeed will be brought to an end, after three years unless Parliament resolves otherwise. I do not venture to prophesy what will happen, but I think it is thoroughly sensible and thoroughly acceptable that we can now go into this plan of dark winter mornings and light winter evenings knowing that we are not unalterably committed to it, and that the Government will no doubt pay attention to public reactions and to the doubts expressed by all kinds of people who are affected before a final decision is taken as to whether or not to bring forward an Order under subsection (3) of this new clause.
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for teasing him a little about this, but I could not resist it. I think that in fact what has been said in another place has carried out the unanimous views of your Lordships' House—unanimous bar one—on the earlier stages of the Bill.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, having been in a measure responsible for dividing the House on Second Reading, it would be uncharitable of me not to
258
accept that this is a very considerable advance on the Bill as it was first presented to us. I am certain it is right that the Government should have accepted Lord Brooke's suggestion that the change should be for a trial period, a id the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has clearly stated that the proposed period is the minimum required for a satisfactory trial. There will be various roughnesses in it concerning off-peak tariffs whit I will have to be straightened out, and the problem of school hours will have to be tackled. I do not think the development will be acceptable in Northern Scotland but, as I said earlier, it would be uncharitable not to accept that this is an advance, and I look forward with great interest—not without a feeling that I may be wrong—that this may be a permanent part of our lives in the North, though doubt it.
LORD STONHAM: My Lord, this demonstrates very clearly three things. First it shows that the words of the noble Lord, Lord. Brooke of Cumnor, have the power to reverberate long after the sound of them has died or the ink has dried on the paper. Secondly it demonstrates beyond peradventure the reasonableness of the Government and the fact that they are prepared to consider these views, and that they do not, as is sometimes alleged, ride roughshod over public opinion and fail to listen to it. Thirdly, if I may say so, it demonstrates also the fact that the views of noble Lords here are communicated. I may say that they are very carefully considered, and it may interest the noble Lord to know that I was in full agreement with this decision, and in fact decided it long before it was considered in another place. So he may take it that I, too, am well satisfied, and also that I have no doubt at all that before the expiry of three years—and I insisted on three years—we shall get even the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, saying:" I was wrong, brother. We should continue this."
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, as another of the original protesters against this Bill, I should like to express my appreciation of this Amendment. There is one feature which gives me special pleasure, and I think it may give pleasure to others as well. I notice that if it is decided to drop

259
British Standard Time, this will happen at 3 o'clock on the morning of October 31, 1971, by British Standard Time. I am rather charmed to notice that in the wording of the Bill, looking forward to that moment even at three years' range, it refers to 2 o'clock in the morning, Greenwich Mean Time.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 3]
After Clause 4. insert the following new schedule:
"PROVISIONS CONTINGENT ON EXPIRATION OF SECTIONS 1 TO 3
1. Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act 1889 (effect of repeals) shall apply, in the event of the expiration of sections 1 to 3 of this Act, as if those sections had ben repealed by another Act.
2. In the event of the expiration of the said sections 1 to 3, the enactments repealed by this Act shall, subject to paragraph 3 below, thereupon revive; but if other provision is made by law of the States of Jersey or of Guernsey or by an Act of Tynwald, the Summer Time Acts 1922 to 1947 as revived by this paragraph shall not apply to the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Bailiwick Guernsey or the Isle of Man, as the case may be.
3. Section 1(2) of the Summer Time Act 1925 (which altered the period of summer time) shall not revive by virtue of paragraph 2 above in any event; and if the other provisions of the Summer Time Acts 1922 to 1947 so revive, they shall have effect subject to the modification that in section 3(1) of the Summer Time Act 1922 (which defines the period of summer time)—

(a) for the word 'April', in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word 'March'; and

(b) for the words from 'following' (where that word last occurs) onwards there shall be substituted the words 'following the fourth Saturday in October'."

6.28 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. This is a new Schedule which provides for the contingency that Sections 1 to 3 will be allowed to expire in October, 1971, and that the repealed Statutes (in particular the Statutes (Definition of Time) Act 1880 and the Summer Time Acts 1922 and 1947) will thereupon revive.
The first two paragraphs are largely procedural, but the third introduces an important change because it provides for
260
the Summer Time Acts to revive not as they are now but with an extension of the basic period of summer time (that is, the period which will apply subject to any variations made by Order in Council) by four weeks in the spring and three in the autumn. I recollect that this was one of the suggestions made as an alternative to permanent British Standard Time.
Paragraph 1 of the Schedule, which applies Section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act 1889 to the expiry of Sections 1 to 3 of this measure as though they had been repealed by another enactment, is procedural only. The main effect of it will be to ensure that the change back to Greenwich Mean Time will not affect retrospectively anything done before the change when the time when this was done is material.
Paragraph 2 provides for the revival of the repealed Statutes and deals with the effect of this in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Both are interested parties. It provides that the revival shall not have effect in any of these territories which has meanwhile enacted its own legislation, a right recognised in Clause 3. Thus, if during the period that British Standard Time is in force any of the territories should itself choose to adopt it permanently the reversion to Greenwich Mean Time by Great Britain will not overrule that decision. This is an unlikely contingency, but needs formally to be provided for, since the subject is within the legislative competence of the territories.
The really significant provision of the new Schedule is in paragraph 3. At present the period of summer time laid down in the Act of 1922, as amended by that of 1925, runs from the day following the third Saturday in April until the day following the first Saturday in October—some five and a half months in all. The 1947 Act, however, allows this period to be varied in any year by Order in Council, and that power was used in respect of each of the three years 1965 to 1967 to extend the period so as to run from the end of March until the end of October—or some seven months in all. This paragraph of the Schedule provides for the revival of the Summer Time Acts 1922 and 1947 only (as the 1925 Act merely altered the end of summer time from the day following the third Saturday in September to that following the first Saturday in October and would therefore be superseded by

261
the new terminal date), and for the period of summer time stipulated in the 1922 Act to be modified so as to conform to the period introduced for 1965–67 by Orders in Council (that is, from the day following the third Saturday in March to that following the fourth Saturday in October). In other words, this extended period would be built into the Statutes themselves; and, while there would still be power to vary it in any year either by shortening or by lengthening it, there would be the less occasion to do so.
The reason for the change is this. The inquiries we conducted prior to the introduction of this Bill showed that the extension of the summer time period introduced by Order in Council had been widely welcomed among people in all occupations and in all parts of the country. Whatever divisions of opinion there were about the desirability of applying the equivalent of summer time throughout the year, there were scarcely any of the representative organisations we consulted which wanted to revert to the basic statutory period contained in the Acts of 1922 and 1925. Virtually all wished to see summer time applied at least from the end of March until the end of October.
If the Summer Time Acts are to revive it is obviously sensible, therefore, it should be in a form which gives effect to this general wish. There should be nothing controversial in the proposal to do this. Indeed, it we do not the only result is likely to be that Orders in Council will have to be made year after year to achieve the same object; so wasting the time of both Houses on drafts requiring Affirmative Resolutions which it seems that nobody wilt wish to dispute. There is no point in putting Parliament to this unnecessary trouble or leaving uncertainty in the minds of the public. Even if British Standard. Time should be abandoned as a result of trial this useful little reform will remain, to the general satisfaction. My Lords, in this Schedule we thought of all possible contingencies, and I hope that your Lordships will approve it.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that for my part I agree with all the paragraphs of this new Schedule. I cannot
262
help thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Strange, left our counsels too early, for had he remained I believe he would have wished to express approval for paragraph 2 so far as it concerns Tynwald. I am certain that the special provision made in paragraph 3 is a wise one and in accordance with present-clay thinking.
There is only one question that I want to raise. On the printed copy I have, the first part of this new Schedule is to be inserted after Clause 4 in the Bill, but the second part is to be inserted after Clause 37. Is this a new manifestation of the Government's tortuous thinking? Are there 33 clauses which neither House of Parliament has seen? I feel teat we should hesitate before putting this mysterious material on the Statute Book. Or is the explanation simply that it is a misprint?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this is not the Government's usual omniscience. The noble Lord is quite right. This is a misprint, for which I apologise.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, before this Amendment is accepted by the House, may I just refer to the corn-meats of my noble friend Lord Stonham and of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to the effect that Lord Strange, whom we all know as a great champion of the Isle of Man, has unfortunately left the Chamber? May I step in in his place, and say that I think that the Isle of Man will welcome this and will greatly appreciate this modified quota of autonomy which has been given to them. My only excuse for saying this is so that one page of the history of the Isle of Man may be completed. Back in the year 1602, when the family of the noble Lord, Lord Strange, were virtually the Kings of the Isle of Man, they were faced with an incipient rebellion in that pleasant island; and the Stanleys, as they then were, found it necessary to send a Lieutenant Governor to deal with this rebellion. The name of the Lieutenant Governor whom they chose for that task was Leatherland. That page of history is now complete.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would not discuss history with my noble friend, but I should like to put him right on one thing to save myself a lot of grief in the future. We are not in this Bill giving any

263
form of autonomy to the Isle of Man. This is merely an example of the autonomy that they have enjoyed for a long time.

B.B.C.: ADVERTISING AND FINANCE
6.38 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to encourage or facilitate consideration by the British Broadcasting Corporation of the introduction of an element of advertising in their programmes, so that, without raising the present licence fees, the Corporation may have enough money for all its developments and for the improvement of its programmes. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had the honour to be a Governor of the B.B.C. for two periods, immediately before and during and for a year after the second of the Great Wars. The first of those periods coincided with the time when the noble Lord, Lord Reith, to whom the B.B.C. and this nation, and perhaps the world, owe a great debt for his ethical and moral attitude towards this new invention, was Director-General. It might be thought that, sitting at his feet as I did as a young Governor, I would have absorbed the whole of his doctrine and would have maintained it for a long time, because he was a most powerful man.
I felt with him at that time that the introduction of advertisements into any B.B.C. programme would have been almost sacrilege, certainly inadvisable, and I took that view. But I have changed my mind. As early as 1949, when the Beveridge Committee met to consider the whole process of the B.B.C. and to recommend whether they should have a further licence, I gave evidence to the Beveridge Committee in which I said that I did not see how, over the next decades, the B.B.C. could provide Britain with an adequate television service on the money which would be forthcoming from licence fees.
I would remind noble Lords that in those days the licence fee was 10s.; it then became £1; and now it is £5 for a joint licence for television and sound.
264
The result of this is that with its present number of listeners the B.B.C., according to their own figures, have some £70 million. Nevertheless, it is my case that they have not enough money to do properly the things that we should like them to do. Indeed, at this very moment local stations are coming into existence in various towns and cities. Some towns are welcoming them and then finding they are very expensive; other towns are refusing them because they are too expensive, and I think it is common knowledge that the B.B.C. is at its wit's end where to find enough money to run its services at a very high standard, to maintain them, improve them and to help towards the running of these local stations which a great many people are urging should be increased.
Where can they get some more money? By asking the Government of the day to raise the licence fee from £5 to £6 or £7, a very unpopular tax falling upon 12½ to 15 million people. Or, as I suggest, by taking advertisements. Here I want to ask noble Lords to bear with me for a very few minutes while I examine the merits of advertisements. First of all, since I first changed my mind and advocated to the Committee of 1949 that advertisements should be admitted in a proper form, the I.T.V. has come into existence and the I.T.V., as is known, takes advertisements. The consequence is that Britain has an infinitely better service than it had before because it has the B.B.C. and the I.T.V.—double as much perhaps. Moreover, the competition of the I.T.V. inevitably improved the B.B.C. which must have seemed to be complacent when it had a complete monopoly.
There may be some who say that the standards of the B.B.C. have fallen as a result of I.T.V. and its advertising and all the rest of it. I do not take that view. The B.B.C. has approached more nearly towards realistic attitudes towards the life that we live in the 1960s. If the standard of life in Britain has fallen in the 1960s by comparison with, say, the 1940s, well perhaps there is a valid argument there. But I think we cannot blame the B.B.C. for having approached more realistically the attitude of mind of the public whom it serves. I do not say, or agree, that its standards have fallen as a result of I.T.V. I would say, on the contrary, and as may

265
be expected, the competition of I.T.V. has improved the service as a whole to the public in general, and in particular from the B.B.C. itself.
May I now deal very briefly with what I will call the "ethics and economics" of advertising. It is ethical, it seems to me, to hold out to someone reasons why he should buy something, provided you hold it out fairly and clearly and without over-claiming and without exaggeration. May I here comment that I have no interest in advertising, no interest in radio, no interest whatever in this matter, but the public interest which I have studied for forty years.
Advertising has two public interests, renders two public services; one is to tell the people what is being made, what is available for them to buy to ease their labour in their factories, in their homes, in their daily lives, to encourage and enrich their lives and to give them better things to enjoy, and if there is to be more leisure in this world, better things to have during their leisure, so that it renders this first service by informing people what is being invented and what is being made. Secondly, it enables manufacturers to manufacture in larger quantities than would otherwise be the case and therefore to charge lower prices than would otherwise be the case were it not for this increased manufacture.
I am not saying that all prices always go down the more you advertise, because inflation sees to it that a great many prices always rise, but advertising, in so far as it enables more things to be made, circulated, distributed and sold, does lead to lower prices than would be the case if fewer things were made. It therefore has an ethical background which ought to be acceptable to the nation, and an economic justification which must be acceptable to a nation that must be effective and efficient. Incidentally, the health of the home market, based upon advertising and multiple manufacture, has a very important effect upon the export market, for without large manufacture at home a great many things cannot be sold in the world market at competitive prices, but with a good home market sustained by advertising, good quality, and the right price, there is the basis and the background for an export market.
This leads to the first, but by no means most important, of the suggestions which I want to make. I only make it now because it fits in with my mention of the word "export". The B.B.C. as agent, not as principal, for the Government, and at the taxpayers' expense, runs the Overseas Service, and very well indeed it does as I am able to judge because I am a great traveller. I have listened to it in South Africa, and seaboard and elsewhere, and I know how extremely good and interesting it is. All praise to the B.B.C. and the trim and women who do it. It hardly ever mentions a British firm by name. It may talk of great shipbuilding contracts that have been obtained on the Clyde, Northern Ireland, or elsewhere; it may talk of great contracts for new inventions; it may laud and praise new inventions, but it does not mention the firm which has made them. The Japanese, the Germans, the Dutch, and the American overseas services all use them, not to the detriment of art and ethics, but use them wisely and sensibly to advertise their products.
It seems a pity that British endeavour, British invention, British skill a id art should go unheard and unsung because we do not allow advertisement in overseas service. This is the direct responsibility of Government, not of the Governors of the B.B.C., because it is the Government who order what goes into the Overseas Service the B.B.C. is only the manager. I ask that in the Overseas Service of the B.B.C. we should permit judicious advertising of our motor cars, our engineering accomplishments, our new inventions, our aircraft and all the products on which we rely in the export trade. Not only would it be of interest to those who listen in the making of comparisons, but it would be advantageous to this country.
May I now turn from the general arguments in favour of advertising, both ethical and economic, to its effect on the listener. It is said that the listener cannot tolerate the interruption of his programmes for advertising. Many people used to think this twenty or thirty years ago. Fewer must think it now in view of the success of I.T.V. I have never believed it. Northcliffe said that if you want to sell newspapers you must be sure

267
that in every edition you mention birth, deaths, marriages and food. I would say that if you want to attract listeners to the B.B.C. you must be sure to mention the things that will interest the man in the street or the woman in her home—the things which a woman will buy with her spare money or with her home-spending money. The programmes which she sees on television, or the broadcasts to which she listens on B.B.C. sound programmes bring daily into her home information as to the world outside. It is a regular and genuine service which is of great value to a woman, for example, to tell her what is in the shops. This is especially the case for the old and the lonely who cannot get out so easily to see what is in the shops. Therefore, it is a positive contribution to their happiness and is something which they like. It is part of the programmes which, in my opinion, is among the most valuable to the listener and viewer.
Long ago, in 1925, I was a member of the Crawford Committee which considered whether the B.B.C. should continue to be a private company or become a public corporation. We recommended to Parliament that it should be a public corporation, and that recommendation resulted in the B.B.C. as we know it. It is worthy of note that although the Crawford Committee suggested that advertisements should be avoided where possible, its Report contained among its recommendations a clause which, by implication, recognised that sponsored programmes might be necessary in order to find the money. I am not suggesting that there should be interruptions of Radio 4, which is the old Home Service, or Radio 3, which is the music service, or the cricket service during a Test Match. I am sure that noble Lords will know all this, unless they have all gone over to television and have forgotten the old sound service. Some few millions listen to those services, and I am not suggesting that they should be interrupted with advertisements. But in regard to the old Light Programme, which is now called Radio 2 and Radio 1, which is mostly "pop", I cannot really believe that "pop" is more acceptable than advertisements—but perhaps it is. I even think that five minutes of advertisements in half an hour of "pop" would be a splendid change.
The Crawford Committee, which founded the B.B.C., not only permitted of the possibility that advertisements might be used, but the B.B.C. itself, shy as it is of recognising advertisements for other people, does not hesitate to use them for itself. It tells us every week to buy the Radio Times or the Listener. It tells us that we have just been listening to Madam somebody or other "by permission of Covent Garden", or to somebody else by permission of an impressario or a theatre. It freely advertises when it suits itself, and yet in principle it is opposed to taking advertisements.
I ask my Question in the hope that some of your Lordships may feel, not that I have made out a case for a change, but that I have suggested that there is a case for an unprejudiced inquiry so that the Government, the nation and Parliament ought to make sure that we do not accept that the pattern of the last forty years is necessarily the right pattern for the next forty years. My own personal regard is so high for the B.B.C., its Board, its Chairman (who is a personal friend of mine), its managers and its traditions that I am quite sure that if they were to undertake the judicious use of advertisements, as I am suggesting, they would do it with great efficiency, and I know that they would do it with grace.
6.57 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords. I should like to offer qualified support for the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, though it may be that with my qualification he will regard my support as not worth having. He has referred to the Beveridge Committee of 1949 which had to consider the renewal of the B.B.C's. Charter and make recommendations as to the terms on which it should be renewed. Your Lordships will remember that with one dissension that Committee came down strongly in favour of public service broadcasting and television dependent on receipts from licence fees. There were three members of the Commission who at the time took the view which has just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser. They were Lord Beveridge, the chairman, Lady Megan Lloyd George, and I. The three of us put in a minority Report in

269
favour of allowing the B.B.C. to secure advertisement revenue for television.
I shall not try to delve into the motives of my two colleagues, who unfortunately are not here to tell the tale. My own motive for signing that minority Report was the hope that it might appease a very large section of the powerful anti-Beveridge lobby which was building up in the House of Commons and which was efficiently led by representatives of the advertising industries and the electrical industries. I felt that if the B.B.C. were allowed to admit the first of those great interests to its programmes their desire to break its monopoly might be diminished. So far as I remember, nobody thought very seriously about the question. It was rejected by the majority of the Committee and it was in fact never carried out. As your Lordships well know, we had a subsequent Act which introduced commercial television, financed by and entirely dependent upon advertising revenue. It was not quite on the American model, which allowed the sponsoring of programmes by the advertisers and it was under the statutory control of the Independent Television Authority, but it produced a system of television which was financially dependent on mass audiences attracted by advertisements.
The noble Lord has expressed an opinion about the results of that dichotomy of broadcasting policy. He has said that the B.B.C. television service has greatly benefited from it owing to the stimulus which results from competition. I think that in some respects the B.B.C. may have benefited. The independent programme companies, especially that run by Granada, have put out some extremely good programmes, though they generally came on late at night because they are less likely to attract mass listeners. Granada has also on some occasions taken the lead in being rather bolder in its discussions of prickly subjects such as birth control; but, on the other hand, it his produced an effect on the B.B.C. which I, personally, consider deleterious.
The B.B.C. is always looking over its shoulder at the results of the TAM ratings and opinion polls. It is always on the alert to make sure that its listening public, or its viewing public in this case, is not being sucked away into the
270
competing Independent Television companies. That, I think, has had a bad effect on the B.B.C., and has prevented it, in some respects, from expressing the kind of policy with which Lord Reith agreed and which he implanted in the B.B.C. He was perhaps over-austere in some ways, but he was never vulgar. It is this constant looking over its shoulder that I think, on balance, has been the drawback, and has not benefited the B.B.C. It is always bad for any responsible body to be looking over its shoulder at the immediate result of its actions. It is a very bad thing for politicians to be constantly considering the results of recent opinion polls on them. We know that it is very bad indeed for Prime Ministers, and it is also bad for the B.B.C.
As regards the financial question, the search for funds in order to improve B.B.C. programmes, the Corporation has to consider that the public is under the mistaken impression that it gets its commercial television programmes for nothing. Of course it does not. It pays for them through the prices of the advertised commodities. An immense amount of money goes into the advertising industries, an immense amount of talent, an immense amount of office accommodation—in fact, in my opinion, quite enough. There is another possible result in this so-called financial benefit to television by advertising, or for that matter radio; that is, that if the public grows accustomed to thinking it can finance its entertainment in this roundabout way it will be less ready to accept the necessity of paying a licence fee. After all, my Lords, when you come to think of it, £4, £5 or £6 provides an immense amount of extremely cheap entertainment for the public. It gets very, very good service for the licence fee.
Supposing advertisements were extended to the foreign service, I think it might have a most disastrous result. The great success of the B.B.C. Overseas Service is that it is recognised throughout the world as wholly impersonal aid disinterested. That is the great service which it renders to humanity, and I cannot but think that that service would be somewhat adulterated if the foreign listener were able to listen, for instance, to the praise of some British motor manufacturing firm, or even a small arms

271
firm, whatever it might be. It would at once lead to the feeling among listeners that "They are getting at us." That feeling, I think, is not shared by any listeners to the foreign service of the B.B.C.
Therefore, I wholly reject the suggestion that B.B.C. television should become dependent on advertising, and I wholly reject the suggestion that the foreign service should become dependent, or partially dependent, on advertising. I wholly reject the suggestion that competition on commercial television has been wholly beneficial to the B.B.C.
Now to the points on which I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. In recent years we have had to face the problem of the pirate radio stations, and the growth of the enormous rather youthful public which has become dependent on a perpetual diet of "pop" music. The pirate companies made good money out of advertising spots. They, of course, were in a more favourable financial position than the B.B.C. because many of them did not have to face the fact of paying copyright fees: they were pirates.
The B.B.C. on Radio 1 is now appeasing that audience which formerly relied on pirates by producing a programme as like the programmes of the pirate stations as possible. It cannot be quite like their programmes, owing to the rather restrictive practices of the Musicians' Union in regard to the allocation of "needle-time". If you listen to Radio 1 you will find that it is very much like the material that used to come from Radio Caroline; and the patrons of the pirate stations, as the noble Lord pointed out, were quite happy with their advertisement spots. I am sure the patrons of Radio 1 would be similarly happy with their advertising spots, so I see no reason why Radio 1 should not make a little money by advertising spots. But I should very much regret it if Radio 2, Radio 3 or Radio 4 were to do any such thing. I think it would be disturbing to one's enjoyment of, let us say, the St. Matthew Passion, or an interview by Malcolm Muggeridge, if it had to be interrupted, preceded or followed by an exhortation to "wash white" or make cakes in a certain way.
272
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, in suggesting that the B.B.C. may make a little money by allowing advertisements on Radio 1. Some time ago I wrote a letter to The Times to that effect—since I became a Member of the House of Lords my letters to The Times have been accepted. That suggestion was not, I think, followed up with any enthusiasm by anybody, and it positively shocked the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who read it before he departed overseas, and who was one of my colleagues on the Beveridge Committee. He thought it terrible to think that the pure milk of the B.B.C. public service broadcasting should be adulterated by this awful thing —advertising spots. I should not be in favour of adulterating pure milk, even by a non-deleterious ingredient, but I do not see why one should not allow a little harmless adulteration of substandard food, because that I think is what Radio 1 is.
7.8 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. I found myself, if I may say so, in very great agreement with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks. I agree very much that if an experiment in advertising on the B.B.C. is to be carried out it should be limited to Radio 1. There are two reasons—which have been mentioned —why people oppose advertising on radio. The first is the fear that there might be undue influence on the content of the programmes by those responsible for watching the popularity ratings; and the second is the fear that advertisements would interfere with the tone of the programmes.
So far as the first is concerned, I think that as Radio 1 is a "pop" programme, and is meant to produce the type of music that the greatest number of people want to hear most of the time, the more outside influence there is the more likely it is to be a true "pop" programme. I agree with the noble Baroness that advertisements would not interfere with the tone of Radio 1; in fact they fit in very well, as was found on the pirate radios, with the patter,of so-called "disc jockeys". Indeed they can be extremely amusing.
There would be the other advantages in having advertising on Radio 1. In

273
the first place, I think it would produce the biggest listening audience of the four programmes of the B.B.C., and therefore would bring in the biggest advertising revenue. It would enable the B.B.C. to run Radio 1 all the time. As your Lordships may know, Radio 1 and Radio 2 run very much in double harness for part of the day. For about two hours in the morning and about three hours in the evening Radio 1 and Radio 2 are together, and they diverge to their separate programmes at other times. The disadvantage of this is that those who like listening regularly to the old Light Programme, Radio 2, want to hear what the "pop" pirates used to call "sweet" music, whereas those who listen to Radio 1 want to hear "pop" music. I have heard very many complaints from people who, having turned on Radio 1 to get their evening's ration of "pop", have got light music instead. With advertising, these two programmes would be able to run separately throughout the day.
Another point is that advertising would give the B.B.C. more money, and with the advantage of extra money to pay for record-playing rights they might well be able to negotiate some better agreement with the Musicians' Union over needle time. This was done in America very successfully. The broadcasting companies there pay into some fund which is used for the betterment of the lot of musicians generally, and they can have virtually unlimited needle time. With advertising revenue the B.B.C. might well be able to come to some agreement with the Musicians' Union which would enable them to play records all the time on Radio 1—because Radio 1 achieves its purpose much better with records—and still have its quota of records on the other three programmes. Making Radio 1 self-supporting in this way would leave all the licence money to the other three programmes, which could therefore afford very much more; and the commercial profit on. Radio land I think there must be a commercial profit on it—might even enable the B.B.C. to reduce the cost of the sound licence, or at any rate to refrain from putting it up when, as inevitably they will, they feel they have to.
I suggest that advertising might be much more important still in connection
274
with local radio stations. As your Lordships know, there are some eight local radio stations as a pilot experiment—six working, two about to come—and from what one can gather they do not make money, or at the moment they do not manage to raise locally the money they need. Indeed, in answering a Question on June 13 in another place, the Postmaster General said:
"In some instances the revenue is forthcoming locally and, after we have had time to assess them fully, it may be that two or three of them will be able to raise sufficient finance and make local broadcasting a viable proposition for the future".—[OFFICIAL REPORT Commons, 13/6/68, col. 421.]
My Lords, two or three out of eight becoming viable propositions in the future does not seem to be a very optimistic thought. It is really not very surprising. At present, money for these local radio stations comes, I believe, partly from the local authority and partly from the B B.C. licence revenue. The local authority have been willing to pay money for the first year or two as an experiment, but will they be prepared to go on paying this money? Their ratepayers may well protest in due time, particularly if they do not care for the local programmes. In the long-term, I also feel that it would be wrong for the B.B.C. to go on paying money out of the general licence revenue for programmes which benefit only very small minority of listeners.
Surely here, in local radio, there is an ideal case for advertising revenue. Local stations can be made to pay. Radio Manx, I believe, has an audience of 50,000 people, and yet that has been made into a commercial proposition. If you can make a commercial proposition out of an audience of 50,000 in the Isle of Man, that means that there are many towns which could support two or three local radio stations. London could probably support about twelve. My noble friends and I would like to see a wide system of local commercial radio stations; and I cannot help feeling that it would be very much better to take local radio out of the hands of the B.B.C. Possibly the control of these stations could be put into the hands of the Independent Television Authority. They have had a great deal of experience in commercial broadcasting. It would mean slightly renaming them into the Independent Broadcasting

275
Authority. If that were done I can foresee that the freehold of the local station would be owned by the local authority; they would let this to a programme contractor whom they would select with the help of the new Independent Broadcasting Authority, and part of the terms of the lease could be that they would keep for the local authority perhaps 50 per cent. of the profits which could then be used for local amenities, such as swimming pools, concert halls and things of that kind.
My Lords, the advantages of local radio stations run in this way would be that they would be run at no cost to the ratepayers—the ratepayers would even get an advantage out of it in the form of their share of the profits—and at no cost to the B.B.C., and they would be able to produce a really alternative programme to those of the B.B.C. The difficulty about the present local broadcasting programmes, I believe, is that when items of local interest are not on they fill in with parts of programmes from B.B.C. 1 and B.B.C. 2. These programmes are only on V.H.F., and a large number of people do not have V.H.F. sets. There is not a very great incentive to buy V.H.F. sets so that they can hear local programmes if the only programme different from what they can hear on their other sets is the odd half-hour of local interest. But if this number of local radio stations under the auspices of the Independent Broadcasting Authority were to be working and taking advertisements, they could have very well prepared programmes on tape which would produce a really different programme from the B.B.C. In that way a local broadcasting station could produce all day long an alternative programme of local interest which would really pay. My Lords, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give very serious consideration to the possibilities of advertising.
7.19 p.m.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, clearly this question is one of degree. Those noble Lords who have spoken so far have agreed that there should be an element of advertising in the B.B.C.'s repertoire. The question is: what element? No one who has spoken wants uncontrolled advertising. No one wants
276
the situation which now exists in America, where programmes are interrupted every ten minutes by advertisements which are often infuriating and disruptive to the listener or the viewer. No one wants the B.B.C. to run on the same system as Independent Television. No one wants the situation where there is a danger that television will appeal only to the mass audiences—which, of course, may well happen if there is only commercial television and radio in this country.
It seems generally to be realised that, while the coming of I.T.V. has improved B.B.C. programmes, has made the B.B.C. more conscious that it has to take notice of the will of its viewers and listeners and cannot impose its own tastes, its own views on the public, it must also be realised that there can be no general tendency towards the independent system which runs a danger of appealing only to the mass audiences.
I wonder how many of us really appreciate what a valuable thing we have in the B.B.C. The B.B.C. is, to an extent, a prophet in its own country. It is only when one talks to foreigners that one really understands what a high regard people in the world have for the B.B.C. It is one of the very few broadcasting systems that is almost entirely independent either of the Government or of advertising. Surely, there can be no worse disaster than having the B.B.C. run the risk of losing this independence and of reaching the stage that is reached, say, in France, where the Government have quite a lot to say in the political views expressed on French radio and television, or in America.
Of course, it is all very well for the B.B.C. to have these high moral standards and high cultural standards, but it has to pay its way and the question is: Where is it going to get its money? This question has become more acute in recent years because several times it has had to ask the Government to put up its licence fee. In 1963, the B.B.C. received an extra £1, which was then an excise duty, and it was then on a £4 licence. From 1963 to 1965, it operated on a £4 licence. From 1965 to the present day it has operated on a £5 licence. Three times in the last five years the B.B.C. has had to ask for an extra £1. There have been two very unusual reasons for this. I do

277
not think that one should assume, as some noble Lords may, that the B.B.C. will now be asking for an extra £1 every two or three years. Clearly, some noble Lords are frightened by the regular increases there have been in the cost of the licence.
Until about five years ago, the B.B.C. was getting regular increases in its revenue—enough to cope with inflation—from the extra number of people who bought licences and from the increase in the viewing public. Also, in the last couple of years, the B.B.C. has had abnormal expenditure. It introduced B.B.C. 2; it brought about a colour service which many people think is the best in the world. Clearly B.B.C. 2 and the colour service cost the B.B.C. a fortune. These two services must be the main reasons why the B.B.C. has had to ask for extra money.
The question where the money is to come from can be answered in several ways. I go less of the way with the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, who moved this Motion, than with other noble Lords who have spoken. I think there may be a case for having a very small element of advertising in Radio 1 and, perhaps, in B.B.C. 1; but I should hate to see programmes interrupted by advertisements. If there are to be advertisements I should prefer a quarter of an hour of advertisements once or twice a day. This happens in Germany and in one or two other countries in Europe. It is partly an information service and partly a public service. To this extent it is in the tradition of the B.B.C. that it should inform the public of what there is on the market and of what people ought to buy. But the B.B.C., in accepting advertisements, should keep strict control over the way they are worded and presented. The only way it can do this is for there to be no material between advertisements. It also would have the beneficial effect, from the listeners' point of view, that those who do not like to listen to advertising, who are irritated by having their viewing or listening interrupted by advertisements, could turn off their sets while those who want to be informed would know when the advertisements were going to be presented and could switch on.
Another possibility, which exists, for example, in Canada, and one which I am
278
surprised has not been pressed by the B.B.C. more strongly, is that part of the purchase tax on radio and T.V. sets should be made available to the B.B.C. Clearly, if there were no programmes there would be very few sets sold; to this extent the Treasury reaps the benefit of the efforts of the B.B.C. since it gets the tax which is paid for receiving sets. The third way of raising money is by Government grant. This many people will think is the most dangerous of all for it means that the Government finance the B.B.C. out of general taxation. If the Government were displeased with the way the B.B.C. was running its affairs they could find an excuse to reduce its revenue or even to cut it off altogether and take the B.B.C. off the air.
The fourth, and, to my mind, the only real basis for financing the Corporation is by the present means of licence fees. The B.B.C. provides what is perhaps the best bargain in the world in entertainment. Even the proposed £6 licence—which the Government in the December 1966 White Paper gave a clear undertaking to bring into effect this year—represents only 4d. a day—the cost of a newspaper. And for this 4d. one gets three radio programmes and two television programmes. This is extraordinarily cheap.
There are two sources of increased revenue already under way. Evasion has been cut down and I am told that this has brought in to the B.B.C. much more extra revenue than they expected. There will also be an annual increase in the number of colour licence-holders, and this will to an extent bring the B.B.C. back to the situation which existed in the 1950s when there was an ever-increasing number of licence holders providing the B.B.C. with extra revenue every year without the price of the licence being increased. But I think that the Government whichever Party may be in Office should face the fact that if there was advertising it could provide only a small part of the B.B.C.'s revenue. The sort of advertising I have suggested, and which other noble Lords have suggested, is not ideal from the point of view of the advertiser who would prefer to advertise on commercial television rather than under conditions which Parliament would find permissible. Therefore, the advertisements will not provide the basis for the

279
B.B.C.'s finance. I suggest that this is quite as it should be.
My Lords, the cost of running the B.B.C. will increase with inflation and with the price of keeping pace with technical progress. The B.B.C. will always need more money. I think the only way in which this may be provided is by the licence fee being reviewed regularly and put up if necessary. Almost everyone can afford this licence fee. Those who cannot should not be deprived of the public service which broadcasting can give them, and they should be helped. But I ask your Lordships to agree that the licence fee shall in future be the basis for the B.B.C.'s finance. That is the only way that the standard of programmes will be improved, or even preserved.
7.32 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, because I agree with practically everything he said. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, has put up a reasonable and typically House of Lords argument on this matter which is, of course, the sublimation of reason. In fact what we are looking at is one of Britain's greatest national assets—of that there is no question. Anyone who travels the world as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said he did, will realise that the B.B.C. as it is to-day (even with our criticism, which they respect) is the envy of the entire world. No system has been created which gives to the public, and not just the buyers of entertainment, the quality and in many cases an experimental adventure (we do not always respect that, and sometimes suspect it) that the B.B.C. gives. It has been a great innovator of ideas, and it gives an example to the world to which others have tried to aspire but have lost on the way.
Judged by British viewing standards I cannot imagine anything worse than the kind of thing to which people are subjected by, for example, a completely commercialised system like the American system. I was in the United States when Gemini was meeting in space. They interrupted that meeting to put on a commercial. The public service programmes, which are the high quality programmes in the United States, are put on at times
280
and subjected to conditions which are not acceptable to the commercial advertisers, and therefore they get the worst show.
My Lords, we are struggling all the time between two things. First, I would declare my position. I was against Independent Television and believed that it would lower the standards. Indeed, for a long period of time it did, although it may be better now in many ways, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks. But in point of fact what happened was that the B.B.C. had a monopoly at that time, a monopoly which was training highly-qualified people to put on very responsible programmes from the cultural and technical point of view. Then we had Independent Television, and what we are seeing to-day is the "robbing of the hen-roost", the spreading of talent too thinly and the dropping of programmes, at least temporarily, because of a lack of technical skills. Independent Television derived what talent it has from the B.B.C.
My Lords, I would put up a very fervent argument that we do not corrupt in any way. I do not give a damn—I beg your Lordships' pardon—I have no concern or interest whatever about what is done with "pop". You can put any advertisements you like in those programmes. I find plausible the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, on the question of VHF and, indeed, of local radios, which could in local terms carry advertising and subsidise themselves to create for the local market the kind of local interest which might have to be provided by the ratepayers. But beyond that I would not go. If we had to pay up to £10 for a B.B.C. licence it would be cheap at the price. I am not advocating that it should go up to £10 but, by golly! the sooner we give the B.B.C. its £6 licence, the happier I shall be.
We must reinforce the quality of the B.B.C. programmes. It is true, as was said by my noble friend Lady Stocks, that the B.B.C. has been subject to the tremendous pressure of the TAM ratings—that awful, insidious business of comparing the listening figures of such-and-such a programme and then looking over your shoulder and degrading your own programme to try to approximate to what in fact is the lower standard that you would not accept unless challenged by the TAM ratings. I believe it is the duty of the B.B.C. to give the highest

281
quality programmes that this country can take, and some high quality programmes take a lot of "taking".
The point is that we in this country are in a position to give a cultural sustenance which it is not possible to give under the dictates of a system which is governed by sponsorship. In many cases, sponsors are very noble in the way they support the Metropolitan Opera House, and so on, but nevertheless they dictate the quality and, indeed, the content of programmes in the countries where they have been able to take over. I want to see the B.B.C. go on as it is, reinforced by talent for which it can afford to pay and to buttress itself against the competitive inroads of Independent Television by the buying-up of its best people and so on.
I want, in particular—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, would agree with me—to see it go more adventurously into what was at one time its great triumph, experimental sound radio. With our obsession with television we are in grave danger of forgetting sound radio which in many cases is far more provocative than vision, and which demands a great deal of imagination and presentation in order to make it as viable as the competing visual programmes. In the great days, this was the great experimental field in radio documentaries. Therefore, we have to reinforce and buttress sound radio.
We have to encourage what is the best quality colour television in the world. If your Lordships have seen the green eggs on American television, you would agree with me that the quality of our colour television is extremely high. We want everyone to have colour television. I was struck by what has happened in Canada, where it is recognised that the transmission companies, whether the C.B.C. or the B.B.C., are in fact providing the means for manufacturers to sell sets. Why should not the B.B.C. have a "rake-off" from the price of sets which are sold? I would remind your Lordships that we hear a great deal about Independent Television and how it is beating the need et cetera, but in point of fact the foundation of all viewing on television are the sets provided originally under the licensing system of the B.B.C. I am not underestimating what I.T.A. pay back. Nevertheless, they are beneficiaries of sets
282
which originally were provided because of the quality of and demand for the B.B.C. Let us be clear about this. Over my dead body shall we put advertising into foreign broadcasts.
The quality of the B.B.C. Overseas Services is respected because it is not "plugging" brand products. Many noble Lords are experts on advertising, and they know the difference between "plugging" a brand product and prestige advertising. The detachment and objectivity of the B.B.C. Overseas Services make them listened to everywhere. I have been abroad and listened to the presentations of British advertisers and prepared programmes describing what companies are doing. We are not "plugging" these products but creating an atmosphere on the B.B.C. which people abroad can accept with safety. We are building prestige for British industry. Therefore we must not pollute—I was going to say dilute—this by introducing advertising.
There are many ways in which we can raise money for the improvement of the B.B.C., but I ask your Lordships to rely basically and absolutely on the licensing system. For it is this which gives the B.B.C. its independence from Government grants and removes it from any sort of pressure to lower standards at the demand of people who do not appreciate the standards which the B.B.C. has set.
7.42 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am tempted to join in this debate because I have been extremely intrested by all the speeches that have gone before. Until the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, I thought that it was going to be the case that every noble Lord who has spoken up to now is in favour of some measure of advertising on the B.B.C., and that it would go out from your Lordships' House after a debate of this nature that the consensus of opinion among your Lordships was in favour of B.B.C. advertising in some form or shape.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: I would give my qualified consent, if it were put into the "pop" side.
EARL FERRERS: All I can say, my Lords, is that the noble Lord disappoints me. I, for one, should hate to see the B.B.C. indulge in any advertising whatsoever. My noble friend Lord Fraser of

283
Lonsdale made a fascinating plea, and made it even more fascinating at the end by saying that of course he was not advocating that the B.B.C. should carry advertising, but merely that the Government should institute an Inquiry. I know that the Government like instituting Inquiries, but my Lords, I believe that government by Inquiry is a bad thing. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, will give us an assurance that on this occasion the Government do not agree with the proposal that the B.B.C. should carry advertising and do not consider that an inquiry is worth while. I think it would be a very great pity if the B.B.C. entered into the sphere of advertising. My noble friend's speech was a remarkable advocacy for commercial radio, but that is a different thing from advertising on the B.B.C.
It has been said that I.T.V. has stimulated and improved general television programmes. I think that this may be so. If one watches I.T.V., one tolerates the advertisements. That does not mean that one necessarily enjoys looking at them—at any rate, not all of them. If one were to make a diagnosis of the advertisements, one would find a preponderance of advertisements about soap, washing machines, how to scrub the sink and other such mundane matters.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that if he is not interested in washing, women are?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am sure that if there were a little more moderation in advertisements, they would still get the point through quite well. If the B.B.C. were allowed to advertise, then the pundits would fix what is the best time for advertising—presumably when people are not watching television; namely, when they get up in the morning, or when they are in bed, and switch on the radio. Then the psychologists would go a step further and say that advertising should be done early in the morning when a chap first gets up and before he has got his wits to react against the message, which then would seep through.
I find it bad enough, when I switch on the Light Programme, which is the normal thing in the morning, to hear a
284
disc jockey yattering at me at a rate of knots. For some extraordinary reason they seem to think that one switches on the wireless to listen to them and not to the music. When I want to listen to music, I find it perfectly distasteful to listen to a disc jockey saying how a girl has brought him a cup of lemon tea and how nice it is. I find this unacceptable first thing in the morning. How awful it would be if we were told that it was lemon tea of such-and-such a brand! I believe that the B.B.C. made a great mistake when they tried to emulate the "pop" programmes. This was a huge pity. Certainly the "pop" programmes had a following, but if one tries to copy anything, on the whole one loses one's character and individuality, as well as a certain degree of respect. It is a great pity that the B.B.C. have gone the length they have in trying to copy "pop" radio.
I have always been an upholder of the B.B.C., if not often in public, then in private, because I think they have done a remarkable job. People complain because the programmes they listen to are not those they like; but since the B.B.C. have to cater for a wide variety of tastes, obviously at some juncture one is going to be irked by what one hears. Yet on the whole the B.B.C. have done extremely well.
I would underline what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has said. If the B.B.C. are short of money, the first thing to do is to economise on disc jockeys, and the second to put up the licence fee. The fee of £5 is not excessive. It works out at 4d. a day for the right to switch on your wireless and television, all three channels, for as long as you like. Any couple going out for the evening to a cinema are likely to spend £1 or more, yet the B.B.C. have a £5 fee for the whole year. If they really are pressed for money, that is the right answer. And for goodness' sake! let us keep the B.B.C. clear of advertising.
7.50 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, a great many hard things have been said about advertising this evening, and some of the speeches remind me of those that were made during the long debates when legislation on Independant Television was first introduced into your Lordships' House. I must say straight away that I

285
enjoy a great deal of advertising on television—far more than some of the programmes. I find the advertising more creative, more amusing and more stimulating. But perhaps I am biased, because for many years I have worked in advertising, and possibly I have a professional interest in watching them.
My only excuse for venturing to intervene in this debate for a short while is to mention one matter that has not yet been touched upon, and that is the important question of the fourth channel. We know that the Government are to decide within the next few years what will be the whole future of the B.B.C., when the Charter comes up for renewal, and also of the I.T.A.; and obviously the fourth channel is one of the matters which will receive their urgent consideration. It could be given to the B.B.C. for the University of the Air, or it could be given to Independent Television under a separate authority. But whatever happens, the question of advertising will have to be considered.
I do not know whether this is any comfort to my noble friend Lady Stocks, but there has been some recession in the advertising industry in the last year or two, and I am not at all certain whether there would be enough advertising forthcoming to support a fourth channel, or even to support the B.B.C. if the Corporation were run entirely on advertising. These are factors which must be taken into account. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and indeed with all other noble Lords who have spoken, except possibly the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that there is a case for advertising on sound radio, and particularly, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, on local sound radio.
I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Bowles whether the Government yet know the results of the local radio experiment which was outlined in the White Paper of 1966 and to which the noble Lord, Lord Denham, alluded. I spoke on this when the House had a debate a short time ago on this White Paper, and I then gave my view that the financial support would not be forthcoming. The idea was that these local radio stations should not receive proper commercial advertising, but should be
286
financed by what the White Paper calls subventions by local authorities, but with no charge on the rates. And local bodies were also expected to give some support. I never thought that this support could be forthcoming in sufficient volume to support these radio stations as a viable proposition, and from what one hears about them, although they have barely been started, they are already running into considerable difficulties. It was therefore an ill-fated and ill-starred galère, practically from the moment it was launched. The experiment having been conducted, it is already proving a failure, and. I hope that the Government will now consider some proper commercial support for radio.
I agree basically with my noble friend Lady Stocks that there is a case for running Radio 1 on advertising. I cannot, however, agree with her when she says that she thinks it is as good as Radio Caroline. I do not think it is nearly so good as Radio Caroline. However, if it were run on advertising, and one could also sort out the question of the "needle-time", I think one could probably bring it to the kind of popular appeal which Radio Caroline had. I agree with other noble Lords who have spoken that there is a case for laving advertising on Radio 1, and also for running local sound radio stations on this basis, in the way in which it is so successfully conducted by Radio Manx in the Isle of Man—and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Strange, in his place.
I am sure we are all grateful -do the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, for initiating this debate and for giving the House an opporutnity to ventilate the many sides of the subject, because it is one that will be much in the mind of the Government, and indeed of the public, during the next few years.
7.55 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I expect I shall be in the last of this rather unexpectedly long list of speakers, but before the debate ends I should like to say a few words. I think my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale was quite right in saying that the development and improvement of programmes is extremely important. There is no doubt that sound radio and television are taking an ever

287
increasing part in the life of the nation. But I wonder whether the introduction of advertising is the way to ensure a high standard of programme. While there can be no doubt that the B.B.C. are in constant need of money for expansion, the quality of programme comes more from good taste and high moral standards, which I must confess I have considered regrettably lacking in those who are responsible for B.B.C. policy.
I am not one of those who wants every programme to be deadly serious. I realise that good sound entertainment value is absolutely necessary, and that the other more serious programmes must always be in the minority. But what has rather shocked me is the gradually deteriorating sense of what I might call moral standards; the constant glamorising of violence and the rather ungoverned sexual feelings, the rather pooh-poohing of what one might call ethical standards.
No doubt many noble Lords will have seen the report in the Press that Sir Hugh Greene, the Director-General, is about to retire. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, ha said that during the time of Sir Hugh Greene the B.B.C. has improved enormously in scope, quantity and relationship to the public mood. I cannot agree with this. I think that the tone of the B.B.C. during the past few years has deteriorated very greatly. When one looks back to what it was under Lord Reith and compares it with what it is now, one cannot help feeling that it has sunk a very long way.
So far as advertising is concerned, I tend to agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers, although I feel that advertising on Radio 1 might be permissible, because the mentality of those who want to listen to "pop" music all day will not be harassed by a few advertisements. But it is not the fact of introducing advertising that is so important; it is the nature of the advertisements. They are so inexpressibly vulgar. I look at the I.T.V. quite often and really, my Lords, to have a serious play interrupted by some stupid song about a new brand of lipstick, or something like that, is really more than one can bear. I sincerely hope that the B.B.C. will not indulge in that type of advertising, at any rate during their serious programmes.
288
My noble friend spoke of advertising without exaggeration. Has anyone ever seen advertising without exaggeration? I certainly have not. To be told that some new form of breakfast food is the way to a higher life, to greater enjoyment and success, and everything that man could possibly desire, seems to me to be a little beyond the confines of "no exaggeration". I feel that advertising it would be a backward step. One is constantly being told that one must not blind one's eyes to the facts of life and that one must not try to live in an ivory tower. I agree, my Lords, but on the other hand there is all the difference between seeing facts as they are and seeing the facts and then glamorising the bad and denigrating the good. That is what I feel is the great evil in broadcasting to-day.
I do not think I shall find many people who will agree with me. Apparently, most noble Lords who have spoken have been firm supporters of the B.B.C., and I really do not think it is any good my wasting your Lordships' time in saying any more. But I sincerely hope that the Government will think very seriously before introducing advertising into the programmes transmitted by the B.B.C., other than in Radio 1 or during very light programmes.
8.2 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I apologise for rising in my place for the third time to-day, but Manx Radio has been mentioned by your Lordships and I should just like to make one comment on it. It is true that the Manx Radio is extremely well run and manages, for a population of 47,000 to make itself pay on torch-battery power. I cannot say any more because discussions are going on now about whether the power could be increased, but I think I may say that if the power was increased we could bring back to England the "pop" radio that children love. And I would tell the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, that if one asks any young person, it is the old "pop" radio that they want, with the joie de vivre of the free radio.
I apologise for speaking so much today, but I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, is in his place because there is one point which I should like to make for his guidance, or interest. I am not sure that there is

289
not a certain amount of "pirate" radio advertising going on. I will try to explain what I mean to your Lordships, and to give you one instance. There is a game of lawn tennis played at a place called Wimbledon. I believe that a great number of people look at that programme, and when they look at it they see shots of the players changing courts, and on the ladder there is painted, in titanium white paint, which is so clear that one can see it a mile off, the name of the people who can supply the racquets, the balls and the nets. To my mind, that is a form of unpaid, "pirate" advertising.
8.5 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, very briefly, I have listened to the speeches in this interesting debate on the future of the B.B.C., and having listened to all the speeches I am one of those who are not convinced that a case has been made out. We have the commercial medium, we have the public service, and they are, I suppose, to a certain extent in competition. The public has a wide range of choice and I hope very much that when my noble friend Lord Bowles comes to reply on behalf of the Government he will tell us that the Government intend to leave well alone.
BARONESS STOCKS: Hear, hear!
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: Nevertheless, I think we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord. Fraser of Lonsdale, for introducing this subject. In my view, he made out a persuasive case, and he has a long and wide experience of this subject. His Motion seems to place the main emphasis upon revenue, but when he was speaking I thought he placed the main emphasis upon asking the Government for an inquiry into this matter. I doubt very much whether at the present time the public are of the opinion that they want to see a change made. As I understand it, the public has been against a change being made in favour of the B.B.C.'s using advertising, on its local stations or nationally. In my view, it is the responsibility of any Government who propose to make this change to have a complete and thorough inquiry, or otherwise a much criticised referendum, before the change is made.
As I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, seems to place the
290
main emphasis upon revenue, and other noble Lords who have spoken have said much the same thing, suggesting; that we should try one radio channel for advertising. If the main emphasis is placed on radio, can my noble friend Lord Bowles tell us whether anyone has made any calculation of the amount of revenue we are likely to get, even on an experimental basis? I have no idea what the revenue is from commercial television, but from what one reads in the newspapers it would seem that large sums of money are being made at the present time by all kinds of people. It would be interesting if my noble friend Lord Bowles could give us some indication of the amount of revenue which would be likely to be derived, either on radio or on television, if any change of this kind were made.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder that, wherever one goes in the world, everyone speaks of the B.B.C. as a great institution. One of the problems of democracy in the world to-day is the problem of communication. Ever since the radio came into villages and hamlets all over the world it has been held in the highest regard as a public service, and I hope very much that the Government will think carefully before they make a change from a public service to what some people call the "detergent democracy".
Of course, we all have our criticisms of the programmes of the B.B.C., but that is not what the debate is about. We may not like Till Death Us Do Part, or the old films which are shown on Sunday evenings. But this change in the revenue set-up would not change the programmes, and therefore I hope very much that my noble friend Lord Bowles will tell us that we shall continue to have the two media, with the commercial and the public service, and that we shall leave well alone.
8.10 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I think we have had an excellent debate, ranging all over the subject, and perhaps I might start by dealing with one or two of the more recent speakers. In answer to my noble friend Lord Granville of Eye, we have no idea at all what the revenue could possibly be. I certainly think it would be silly to make any guess. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, was obviously

291
against the advertising, but he went on to criticise the programmes. I want to point out, in answer to any general criticism of the whole line of the B.B.C. programmes, that the responsibility for programmes rests on the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and his distinguished colleagues on the Board of Governors. It is not for the Government to criticise or to defend the programmes. It is fundamental to the whole concept of broadcasting in this country that the public authorities responsible for broadcasting should be independent of the Government. But I am sure that the Corporation will study the noble Lord's criticisms with great care.
As almost every other noble Lord has said, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, for raising the subject of this debate to-day. We have all listened, I have particularly, with great interest to the views that he and other noble Lords have expressed. His qualifications are of course exceptional. As he reminded your Lordships, he was interested in revenue in the broadcasting services, and in various committees. The whole question of whether broadcasting services should be paid for out of revenue and by advertising included in the services has been studied over and over again during the past 45 years. In the years before the Second World War it was looked at by successive Committees of Inquiry, by successive Governments—they were Conservative Governments—and no doubt by successive Boards of Governors of the B.B.C. In the result, there was no commercial radio or television in this country until after the war.
Since then there have been two independent Committees of Inquiry. The first of them, the Beveridge Committee, which was appointed in 1949, of which my noble friend Lady Stocks was a very honoured member, advised by a majority of seven to four against broadcasting by advertising interests. The Beveridge Report led to wide-ranging argument, and to that argument the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, as I think he said in his speech, had much to contribute. I cannot of course go over the whole ground again this evening. But your Lordships will perhaps permit me to recall that the Conservative Government
292
in their White Paper on the Report (Cmd. 8550, of May, 1952), stated unequivocably that:
"The Government would be most unwilling to see any change in the policy of the B.B.C. themselves towards sponsoring or accepting advertisements".
This policy was that the Corporation should not admit sponsored programmes or accept advertisements. Noble Lords will recall that from its inception Independent Television has been expressly forbidden to carry sponsored programmes. It is, I think, common ground that sponsoring should never be allowed in any broadcasting service in this country.
The next independent review was that of the Pilkington Committee, which reported in 1962. That Committee warmly reaffirmed the view that the B.B.C. should not be financed out of advertising revenue. The Committee noted that the method of paying for broadcasting affects the character of the service of broadcasting, and concluded that only the licence fee system implies no commitment to any objective other than the provision of the best possible service of broadcasting. The Committee also rejected the view that the B.B.C. might safely accept some advertising revenue, on the ground that in time the Corporation would be driven to a greater and greater dependence on advertising revenue.
This is where I want to say to all noble Lords—and, I think even to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder—that I personally feel that these Committees have advised against even the thinnest end of the wedge. If your Lordships work it out for a moment, suppose a great number of people agree that Radio 1 could be used for a certain amount of advertising. All right. Suppose it does raise a little money. The time comes when the B.B.C. might want an increase in the licence fee. The Government would then very likely say, "But you have already started advertising; you must extend it"; and those noble Lords who want to preserve Radio 4 will find their case has gone because they let the door open a little; and really there is no stopping advertising once it has started. The Committee also observed that if the B.B.C. were to sell advertising time a fundmental change would take place in the character of the

293
competition between the two broadcasting organisations. It would become competition for the most desirable advertising time and in consequence, broadcasting would suffer. The Conservative Government of the day accepted the Committee's recommendation that the B.B.C. should continue to be financed by the licence fee system. There was little, if any, dissent from that decision.
The debate focused rather on the Committee's recommendation that there should be a fundamental change in the structure of Independent Television. This recommendation was rejected by the Government of the day, and in rejecting it they had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who told your Lordships in this House on July 18, 1962, that the Report's main recommendation was not practicable. That was only six years ago. His experience of the B.B.C. had, he said, taught him the aversion of a public corporation to the selling of advertisements. The noble Lord is of course perfectly free to come to another view, but I am sure he will not mind my noting that he has done so.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I have held the view since 1949 that some advertisements should be taken. I have not changed my mind in the last five years particularly.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I have quoted what the noble Lord said, and I remember the noble Lord saying that he changed his mind in 1949 with the Beveridge Report. I will quote again what he said. The Government of the day rejected the recommendation—
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: What recommendation?
LORD BOWLES: That a fundamental change should be made in the structure of Independent Television. This recommendation was rejected by the Government of the day, and in rejecting it they had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who told your Lordships' House in July, 1962, that the Reports' main recommendation was not practicable. His experience of the B.B.C. had, he said, taught him the aversion of a public corporation to the selling of advertisements. That was only six years ago.
294
Your Lordships will be aware of the outcome of the Government's review of broadcasting contained in the White Paper (Cmnd. 3169), of December, 1966. It announced the Government's intention that there should be no change for the present in the arrangement whereby the B.B.C. are financed through the licence fee system, and that an increase in the fee would be required in due course, though not before 1968. There seems to be a certain amount of readiness on the part of noble Lords in this House this evening to accept an increase in the fee. I have no information about that, but I am sure the Government will take notice of some kind of consensus in this House. The B.B.C. are on public record as having applied to my right honourable friend the Postmaster General (then Mr. Short) for an increase. Mr. Short made it perfectly clear that he was considering their application. As he said in another place, the Government would give Parliament ample notice of any proposed increase in the licence fee.
So much, my Lords, for what one might call the historic and constitutional background against which to set the noble Lord's Question. Before turning to some of the considerations it raises, we should. I think, recall what remarkable value listeners get for their licence money—and this has been brought out, I am glad to say, over and over again in this debate. We know that the figure is £5 for a combined set to-day. On the Continent licence fees range from nearly £6 a year to nearly £14. So the amount of licence fee in this country compares most favourably with the cost in other countries. For this amount, the B.B.C. presents hundreds of hours of radio programmes and well over a hundred hours of television every week.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? He said that it is on record that the B.B.C. have made an application for an increase in the fee. Have they ever in fact asked the Government if they may go into advertising?
LORD BOWLES: Not that I know of. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is quite right. The initiative must come from the B.B.C. and not from the Government. Lord Fraser of Lonsdale's Question rather

295
suggested that perhaps they might have dropped a hint and the B.B.C. might have made an approach. It is rather difficult to understand exactly what was behind part of his Question, and therefore I put that in as a possible explanation of his thinking on this matter. However, the noble Lord asks, in effect, whether Her Majesty's Government should let it be quietly known to the B.B.C. that if they took it into their minds to seek permission to broadcast commercial advertisements their plea would not fall on deaf ears. The B.B.C.'s Licence and agreement, granted in 1963, provides that the B.B.C. shall not broadcast commercial advertisements without first getting the permission of the Postmaster General. This provision leaves the initiative with the B.B.C. It is for the Corporation, if they think fit, to seek permission to broadcast advertisements.
The facts are the same as they were in December, 1966: that neither before December, 1966, nor, I can reveal since, have the B.B.C. taken this initiative. I cannot speak for the B.B.C., though we have heard this evening from several noble Lords who are connected in one way or another with the Corporation, but I think we can assume that before deciding to seek permission they would take it as their duty to weigh carefully the effect on the quality of their services if they were to broadcast advertisements.
The noble Lord, Lord Fraser, has argued that the performance of the B.B.C. has improved as a result of competition. Here again, I would look back to the last independent inquiry into broadcasting and draw the noble Lord's attention especially to one of its observations. It is sometimes said that the standards maintained by Independent Television show that television financed by advertising can be a very acceptable public service; and that being so, the B.B.C. could, without detriment, be financed by advertising. This argument seems to me to overlook an important consideration. As the Pilkington Committee observed, the effect would be to alter the nature of the competition between the two broadcasting organisations. The competition would increasingly become competition for the sale of advertising time. In consequence—this is how the argu-
296
ment runs—competition would come to be conducted only in terms of audience ratings. Both broadcasting organisations would come to concentrate on those programmes which were known to command the biggest audience. I understand from my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder that in America they have seven different channels and the Westerns are always running at the same time. Westerns are all equally popular and so there is no competition at all. They all put on Westerns at the same time.
In the result, the choice available to viewers would become more restricted. Rather than diversity in programming there would be sameness. This is the argument. This is what I was saying about advertisements. As I say, it is laid out in the Pilkington Report. To those who see the argument as more theoretical than real, the Committee's reply is that this is precisely what has happened in countries where competing broadcasting organisations are financed from advertising. Altogether, the Committee's conclusion is that, whatever the effect of the present kind of competition between the B.B.C. and Independent Television, competition of the kind advocated by the noble Lord and supported by other noble Lords this evening, would operate against the public interest in broadcasting.
Of course, many B.B.C. programmes aim to reach the maximum audience and indeed succeed in their aim. For instance, Radio 1 and Radio 2 have been referred to many times—the popular music programme and the Light Programme attract huge audiences. I expect that is why the noble Lord and his noble friend Lord Denham have suggested that they could carry advertisements without detriment to the B.B.C.'s programme generally. The opposing argument is, of course, that this is not a door that one can open only a little and no more. The Pilkington Committee and the majority of the Beveridge Committee concluded that once the B.B.C. admitted some advertising they would gradually be driven to increasing dependence on it.
There are, of course, wider considerations which would have to be weighed in considering the implications of introducing advertising into the B.B.C.'s services. Would competition by the B.B.C.

297
for advertising revenue threaten the continued viability of national or local newspapers? Would it threaten the continued existence of at least some of the independent television companies? On the other hand, would it be right to continue in effect to bar advertising from part of the broadcasting medium—a bar which certainly many in the world of advertising think should be removed? Is it better that the public should pay indirectly for all broadcasting—that is, through the price of the advertised goods they buy, rather than directly through licence fees?
I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lady Stocks point out that people who patronise Independent Television pay the licence as well as anybody else, as well as paying perhaps millions of pounds in the added cost of the goods that are advertised on television. Would it be in the country's best economic interest to stimulate consumer demand by opening up at the present time a more effective vehicle for advertising mass consumer goods? Whatever assessment one might make of the implications for broadcasting of the introduction of advertising into B.B.C. programmes, should we even so take a step which must tend to channel productive effort away from production for export into creating or increasing, and then satisfying, demands for consumer goods at home? This is a point emphasised by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his weekend speech. He does not want improvement based on home consumption, but improvement based on increased exports.
My Lords, I do not claim to have the answers to these difficult questions. I observe only that they are posed by the noble Lord's suggestion. The noble Lord suggests an unprejudiced inquiry. He may have in mind an inquiry such as those conducted since the war by Lord Beveridge and Lord Pilkington. The franchises granted to the B.B.C. and to the I.T.A. run until 1976. However, if precedent were followed, there would be set up in good time another such Committee as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, has mentioned.
The noble Lord complained that the B.B.C.'s external services do not, when referring to our export achievements, mention the names of the firms who have secured them. The B.B.C. are responsible for their programme policy, but my
298
understanding is that their overseas programmes achieve a considerable success in promoting exports by British firms. The B.B.C. reported that of 780 letters recently sent out by them to firms whose products the Corporation had advertised abroad, 131 replies said that they had had direct evidence of sales resulting, while another 222 said they thought the broad-casts had helped. I want to make a distinction between "plugging" and broadcasts about whether there has been a big order, for example, for engines in the United States which would help Rolls-Royce a little further.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, has referred to local radio. We have all heard of the plans of the G.L.C. and the Manchester Corporation to set up their own commercial local radio stations. There are several difficulties in this suggestion, but I cannot go into them all in a debate on the B.B.C. I am bound to recall that it is the Government's view that the duty to the public of genuinely local radio would prove incompatible with the policy of commercial companies. For the rest, the Government's policy, pronounced in December, 1966, is that there should be a limited experiment conducted by the B.B.C., to be financed so far as is possible from local sources. We shall wait and see how the experiment goes. Meanwhile, let us give the experiment a fair chance.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, talked about the evasion of licence fees, and asked whether enough had been done to defeat television licence evasion. I think, the facts are interesting. They are these. Last year the Wireless Telegraphy Act was passed. It made it possible for my right honourable friend the Postmaster General to enlist the help of television dealers, and provided for a sharp increase in the fines which the courts may impose on convicted offenders. The fine for a first offence has gone up from £10 to £50. I think I can say that the measures were welcomed in your Lordships' House, as in the country generally. Also, the measures already in use by the Post Office were intensified. I am glad to be able to say that evasion has been considerably reduced over the last 18 months. One thing I should make quite clear is that this success will not lead the Post Office to relax its efforts. On the contrary, no one should be in any doubt about the

299
determination of my right honourable friend to see that offenders no longer get their television on the backs of the overwhelming majority of honest viewers and listeners.
My noble friend Lord Strabolgi raised two questions. He asked first about the local radio experiment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Denham, had the same idea. The answer is that of the eight stations two have only just started, too soon really to assess results. Support has been overall, positively and substantially forthcoming. My noble friend also asked a question about the fourth channel. The Government said in the December, 1966, White Paper that it will not be allocated for three years at least, first, in the light of the economic situation, and secondly, in view of possible claims of the open university. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, and other noble Lords who have contributed so valuably to our discussion this evening, have done a useful service in our debate to-day. It can do nothing but good to have free and open discussion of these things. Meanwhile, the facts remain as the White Paper of December, 1966, recorded them.
Perhaps by way of conclusion I may say two things. First—and here I am sure that there can be no dissent—neither the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, nor his colleagues on the Board of Governors of the B.B.C., need any prompting towards considering where their duty lies. My second observation will, I believe, also command general agreement. The noble Lords, Lord Hill and Lord Aylestone, may well reflect as they think over what has been said here this afternoon, that our broadcasting services, con-
300
sidered as a whole, are regarded by informed opinion abroad as unrivalled anywhere in the world. This has been brought out by many noble Lords here to-day. If I may speak from my own experience, visitors from abroad regularly tell me that they find the standard of radio and television services in this country higher, and often much higher, than that prevailing elsewhere. And they find it an enjoyable feature of our broadcasting that the B.B.C.'s services do not contain advertisements. I understand this to be a typical reaction, and it is something that I should like to place on record.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he be kind enough to clarify one point which he made? Did he say that if the B.B.C. wished to make an application to use advertisements it is up to the Postmaster General alone to decide whether or not such advertisements are made? Does Parliament have no say in this? Does the Postmaster General have sufficient powers to give the "green light"?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am not perfectly certain. First of all, the B.B.C. would make the application to the Postmaster General—in this respect that is the Government. I feel quite certain that, without having at my disposal the necessary legal knowledge, possibly some legislation would be necessary to change the Charter, and even to change the Agreement which comes up for renewal in 1976. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Earl.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before nine o'clock.