Lords Sitting of 11 May 1972

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE LORD SILKIN
3.5 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, it is with deep regret that I have to inform your Lordships that one of the best known Members of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, died earlier to-day. The name of Lord Silkin will always be associated with his tremendous work as Minister of Town and Country Planning in the post-war Labour Government. I find it difficult to think of any one Minister who has been more closely identified with a particular policy than was Lord Silkin. He was in essence, although there were forerunners here, the architect of our town and country planning policies, and he had been, prior to his Ministerial work in this field, Chairman of the L.C.C. Town Planning Committee. It is not going too far, I believe, to say that our New Towns, remarkable in themselves and very much remarked abroad, are particularly Lord Silkin's memorial.
Right up to his last few years, although almost visibly failing in health, Lord Silkin was still able to master the vast complexities of planning law, and your Lordships will remember that until very recently he used to take an active part in our debates on this subject; for example, we remember his contribution on the Land Commission Act. I personally well remember his speaking on this and a number of other subjects, but I think that perhaps town planning, housing and housing associations were the subjects dearest to his heart.
Many of your Lordships will best remember Lord Silkin for the part that he played as Deputy Leader of the Labour Opposition between 1955 and 1964, when he served under the late Lord Alexander
1126
of Hillsborough. Between them they led a very small but, as I think those of your Lordships who sit on these Benches will well remember, extremely effective Opposition for no less than nine years. And I think it right to pay tribute to the way in which that Opposition was sustained by a tiny handful of Members of your Lordships' House on the other side—the late Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for example, and indeed Lord Silkin himself—and this was very important for our Parliamentary processes. In 1964, when the Labour Government came into power, my noble friend Lord Carrington, said that neither Lord Alexander, as Leader of the Opposition for nine years, at the beginning with far fewer supporters than he had then, nor his colleagues under his leadership, ever let the Government of the day get away with anything. I think that that the same could be said about the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
May I just add this, my Lords? Like many of those who come to your Lordships' House from another place, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, acquired a great respect—indeed, I do not think is going too far to say love—for our House. He was intensely interested in its workings, and his last speech but one in this Chamber was in the debate on the Report on Procedure which was made to me as Leader of the House.
I should like, in conclusion—I am sure that that all noble Lords will join me in this—to express our deep sympathy to Lord Silkin's widow, and to his family. We do so in the knowledge, which I think is pleasing, that two of his sons are following in his Parliamentary footsteps.
3.10 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords all of us on this side of the House, and I believe throughout the House, are grateful to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, for the tribute, the very comprehensive and indeed moving tribute, which he has paid; and when I say that what he says goes for us all I really mean it, because there is no doubt that the late Lord Silkin was in his way a unique person. As the noble Earl has said, he made a contribution in the field of town planning which was that of a giant, and it took a Lewis Silkin to make it. Of course the work for which he was

1127
responsible at the L.C.C.—I hesitate to say the "apprenticeship he served at the L.C.C." because it was much more than an apprenticeship—was in fact part of the glory of the L.C.C.
The noble Earl referred to the part that the late Lord Silkin played in sustaining the Opposition when there were so few of us here. I remember arriving as one of the first of the new life Peers, and coming from that numerous other place I was amazed to find how few were here. It is true to say that whereas the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, gave vigorous leadership, Lord Silkin was very much the mainstay as Deputy Leader. He provided the intellect, the horse-sense, and indeed the Parliamentary sensitivity which made him so very good at understanding the House of Lords and all of us. I remember the advice that he gave to me as a new Peer. There is little doubt that he had a great grasp of the unwritten practice of your Lordships' House, and showed the sensitivity that was necessary to carry forward our duties in this place.
I think it is also fair to point out—as one who sometimes found that Lord Silkin was not always in the same Lobby as myself when I was Leader of the House, although he sat on the same side—that he showed a great independence of character as well, and was not afraid to use his great intellect, however old he was getting, in what he believed to be the best way. The fact that he is regarded as the father of the New Towns, and indeed of much of town and country planning, was reflected by the very exceptional award that he received of the Gold Medal of the Royal Town Planning Institution.
Perhaps in expressing our sympathy to Lady Silkin and to his three sons it is worth noting that not only was he greatly liked by many of us, but he was greatly loved by his own family. They are a very devoted family, and our sympathy goes out to them all the more for that reason.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches would certainly wish to be associated with the sentiments which have been so admirably expressed by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the official Opposition. I, like a number of noble Lords in this House, knew Lord Silkin in another place in that great Parliament of 1945 to 1950. He had there the arduous task, as has been said, of piloting through the massive Town and Country Planning Bill. It was a radical concept. It was not an easy task in those days to get people to appreciate the objective of all the efforts that were being made, but he did it with great distinction. I associate myself and my colleagues with everything that has been said by way of tribute to the noble Lord, and we wish to be associated in the condolences which have been expressed to his family.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, in the years immediately following the Second World War there was a very close association between my husband, as Minister of Health, and the then Lewis Silkin, working in the related field. Maybe it is good at this moment to remember always the gay things. The legislation that he brought before Parliament in the 1945–50 period was extremely complicated. There was not only hard labour for Lewis Silkin and his colleagues but there was also laughter and teasing of one another. We often said that the only two people who understood the legislation were Lewis and God—and God got a bit confused sometimes.
I knew Lewis Silkin, and loved him and respected him, and I know that I am talking in the presence not only of your Lordships but of at least one of his sons. There was this close, wonderful family relationship. There was idealism and there was hard labour. I think it is good that at this moment there should not just be sorrow but that we should remember the fulfilment of a wonderful life, and remember also the happiness and the teasing that made the hard labour possible.

ROYAL ASSENT
3.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,

Social Work (Scotland) Act,

Betting and Gaming Duties Act,

Sunday Theatre Act,

Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act,

Employment Medical Advisory Service Act,

Clyde River Purification Board Act,

Lloyds & Bolsa International Bank Act,

Neath Corporation Act,

United Kingdom Oil Pipelines Act 1972,

Saint Andrew's, Hove, Churchyard Act,

Wellington Estate Act.

EUROPEAN SECURITY: PROPROSED CONFERENCE
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will report on the progress of discussions for the convening of a Conference on European Security and Co-operation.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Lord on a previous occasion, Her Majesty's Government are in contact with the Finnish Government about their offer to provide facilities for the preparation of this Conference. We are also discussing with our Allies how the Conference might best improve security and strengthen cooperation in Europe. We look forward to beginning East/ West preparatory talks as soon as possible after the completion of the Berlin Agreement.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In
1130
view of the very critical world situation—Vietnam, the German Treaties, the Moscow Summit—described to-day by the Pope as a day of trepidation for the future of the world, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government can take a lead in a bold declaration of the necessity for this Conference on European Security and, perhaps more important, cooperation, which could be a breakthrough for peace not only in Europe but in the world?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are keen to see this Conference come about, but the noble Lord will be aware that we have always been of the view, as have our allies, that this should come about after the conclusion of the Berlin Agreement. The noble Lord will know that the second stage of this Agreement was concluded at the end of last year and we, together with our American and French allies, have been prepared to sign the final quadripartite protocol, but the Russians have not been prepared to do this until they have seen the ratification of Germany's two Eastern Treaties.

PROBATION SERVICE PAY
3.21 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: 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 Butterworth Inquiry will be making recommendations in respect of the Probation Service in time for the negotiations for a pay settlement operative from July 1, 1972.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I understand that it is unlikely that Mr. Butterworth's Report will be available before the latter part of August. But the Government accept that any settlement which is subsequently reached on the basis of the Report should have retrospective effect from July 1, this year.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. May I ask him whether he will be good enough to ask his right honourable friend whether, in the event of an award being

1131
made following any recommendation which the Butterworth Inquiry may make, it will be made with some speed and will not interfere with the date upon which a future award can be considered?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords. I certainly give the noble Lord the undertaking that we shall try to implement the award with speed. But there are interim provisions, anyway, because it will be open to the joint negotiating committee, who know about this situation, to see whether they would like to recommend to the Home Secretary that, if there is some need for an interim pay award to take place in conjunction with local authority staff, this could be done temporarily without prejudice to the outcome of the Butterworth Report. So I do not think we even have to wait for the Report itself before something can be done for the Service.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the assurance which the noble Viscount has given appears to be quite satisfactory. Can he also give an assurance that the delay in the presentation of this Report will not hold up any just settlement on the Inner London weighting allowance dispute?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I attempted to deal with the Inner London weighting allowance last week. We are still pressing hard on this. I can assure the noble Lord that nobody has gone to sleep, and we are very much awake and alive to the situation and to the urgency of it.

MAPLIN SANDS AIRPORT PROJECT
3.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 why no British airline operator has been invited to serve on the committees at present considering aspects of the proposed Maplin Sands Airport.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the British Airports Authority and the Department of Trade and
1132
Industry are represented on the Progress Review Committee, which considers all aspects of the Maplin project. My right honourable friend is considering, in consultation with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the appointment of a further member connected with civil aviation.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask whether he agrees that it is important for the British airlines to be involved in Maplin Sands at an early stage, if the Government are serious about this project? Secondly, may I ask my noble friend when the various committees which are studying at the moment will report, and whether those reports will be published?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend is well aware that it is important to have as many consultations as possible. As I have said, he is considering how best to achieve what is wanted. The reports of the Progress Committees will be for my right honourable friend's advice alone, and I do not think he will be publishing the detailed reports of each committee. However, he will be reporting what he is going to do.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that a further member will be appointed who will be connected with civil aviation. But we are here concerned with the airline operators. Can he give an assurance that this additional member will in fact be a representative of the airline operators?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON; Not necessarily, my Lords.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord on this point? Is it not absolutely inconceivable that decisions should be taken here without taking into proper account the views of those who will have to operate from the airport?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the members of the committees with whom my right honourable friend is consulting will do everything possible to design a first-class airport, and I think that on this the Civil Aviation Authority will be able to advise as well as other people.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is the noble Lord a little hesitant on this matter because the airline operators do not approve of this strange scheme?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords. I am hesitant only because my right honourable friend has not finally made up his mind.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, while we are very pleased to hear that the noble Lord's right honourable friend has not yet made up his mind and that the Foulness scheme may not, after all, go through, and while that will give great satisfaction to many people, will he give an assurance that the additional member will be someone who is well aware of the commercial and technical problems of operating an airline?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, has read into my words something that I never in the wildest realms of imagination said. My right honourable friend is still having consultations with his friends and advisers about what other members might be put on the committee. About Maplin Sands there is no possible doubt in our minds at all. When we have a well-designed airport, that will be amply evident to all the airlines which are operating.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that these questions and answers have given rise to a little confusion? Does he recall that the words of the noble Ear], Lord Kinnoull, were, "if the Government are serious about this project"? Can the noble Lord assure us that the Government have made up their minds that the airport shall be at Maplin, and that they are serious about this project?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Question was about a committee member.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question? Do the Government still stand by their decision to go ahead with this project?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think my right honourable friend has made it amply clear, and I can only endorse what he said.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we do not wish to press the noble Lord too much, and he is having a difficult time. But perhaps since he may have created some misunderstanding, he can just say whether there is any possibility of a change of policy, which is the question my noble friend Lord Leatherland was asking.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, so far as I am aware—and I think I would be aware—there is no change of policy at all.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that one of the committees which is sitting at present is examining the siting of the runways? If that is so, will he agree that it is very important to have a member from the airlines, who could offer a lot to this committee?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. As the noble Earl knows, my right honourable friend has circulated the documents to all interested parties. He has asked for information and advice to be sent back to him quickly, because he would like, if possible, to come to on opinion by next month.

EDUCATION OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: 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 are going to set up a Committee of Inquiry into special education for handicapped children.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, the Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children has a general responsibility to advise my right honourable friend on special educational treatment. In addition, committees of inquiry are set up to keep educational provision for handicapped children under continuing review.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his right honourable friend the Prime Minister, on July 22, 1968, pledged a future Conservative Government to set up a special inquiry into this field of education? Does he regard the routine Committee which is sitting at the moment as a special inquiry, and is he aware that a number of bodies, including a leader in The Times Educational Supplement, are asking for a complete review of the whole of this field?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am aware of the letter of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, written in 1968. I think many noble Lords will agree that the field of special education is a diverse one and needs diverse approaches. There is also the question of duplicating existing research. For those reasons, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State believes that the Prime Minister's pledge is best redeemed by the work of the Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children, whose Chairman is Professor Tizard, and by other work of inquiry carried out by the Department of Education and Science, including a joint Working Party, which has now been set up by the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Employment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us when this committee under Professor Tizard was in fact set up?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the committee was set up in 1945.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the light of the Prime Minister's pledge to set up a special inquiry—and at the time of that pledge he must surely have known of the existence of this particular cornmittee—is it not very strange that the Prime Minister cannot honour this particular pledge?
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords, it is not strange. The pledge is being honoured in the way I have described to the House.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that the Advisory Committee is sufficiently conscious of the great gap in the
1136
knowledge of the public about the problems confronting not only the educationists but the handicapped children themselves in the matter of education? Is he aware of the fact, for instance, that voluntary effort towards assisting educators or advisers in the matter of mental illness has made a great deal of progress but that there is no such equivalent progress in the matter of mentally handicapped children?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the way in which he has put his question. I think it might be helpful to the noble Lord if I were allowed to write to him, but perhaps he would like to know now that, in addition to the general current activity of the Advisory Committee, this year has seen the finishing of the work of the Vernon Committee on the Blind and the Partially Sighted and of the Quirk Committee on Speech Therapists; that there is a small sub-committee of the Advisory Committee which has reported on dyslexia, and that the Advisory Committee is considering the matter of categories—and so the work goes on. But if I may put that in full in a letter to the noble Lord, I should be grateful.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that kind offer, which I gratefully accept. My own feeling in the matter of mentally handicapped children and their problems is that the public as a whole tend to sweep the matter under the carpet.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would the noble Lord not think that a continuous inquiry is desirable, in view of the constant progress which is being made in this field?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I take anything that the noble Lord says seriously. If the noble Lord would like to draw my right honourable friend's attention to particular aspects of special education in this way, I assure the noble Lord that it will be considered with the greatest seriousness. But, meanwhile, I think I must stand by my original reply. There seems to me to be one particular difficulty: a diverse field requires diverse and different approaches, and it is perhaps this reason most of all which makes us feel that the present arrangements are the most effective.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the extended answers which he has given, may I ask him whether he is aware that the time has come when the Government themselves, whatever their nature may be, would probably benefit if they were prepared to put out a Consultative Document on handicapped children, specifically because much knowledge has now been accumulated which I am sure all noble Lords and Members of the other place would like to know about and which would afford knowledge for the Government?
LORD BELSTEAD: Yes, my Lords. At the moment we have in mind a circular, for instance on children in hospitals; advice which, after consideration, we should like to give on children who are handicapped but are or would wish to be in ordinary schools. None the less, I shall draw my right honourable friend's attention to the general point made by the noble Lord.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that, just as an Advisory Committee set up 25 years ago is no substitute for a special inquiry, so a circular is no substitute for the kind of Consultative Document, or indeed full Report, which would really inform the public in this country of the situation in this matter?
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords. I appreciate the noble Lord's concern in this matter, but I do not agree with what the noble Lord is saying.

BUSINESS: SHORT WEDNESDAY DEBATES
3.35 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Colville will be making a Statement on Northern Ireland at a convenient moment after 3.30. This will be followed by a Statement by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn on the rail dispute.
My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for me to say a word about the short Wednesday debates. As your Lordships will know, the last of these debates in the present experimental period were to have taken place on Wednesday, May 24, a date which now falls in the Whitsun
1138
Recess. I am glad to be able to inform the House, however, that, owing to the generosity of noble Lords opposite, Wednesday, June 7, will be available for two such debates if this is the wish of the House. As your Lordships know, the Procedure Committee recommended that the experiment on short debates should expire at Whitsun, and of course this date, June 7, will fall outside that period. But if this proposal is agreeable to your Lordships, next week I shall propose a Resolution extending the period of the experiment to cover June 7.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his references to our generosity. Will he bear in mind that no doubt we shall have this to bring to his attention if on any future occasion we have to ask for a variation of the timetable?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I always pay the greatest attention to anything the noble Lord says.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
3.36 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that Lord Simon of Glaisdale be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in place of Lord Colville of Culross. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I express on your Lordships' behalf, and certainly on my own, my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Colville for his services, both as a member and more recently as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, which have been of the greatest assistance to the House and to myself. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Lord Simon of Glaisdale be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in the place of the Viscount Colville of Culross.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CARRIAGE BY RAILWAY BILL
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Popplewell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Actions, judgments and decrees relating to carriage in accordance with Conventions]:
LORD POPPLEWELL: This Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("against").—(Lord Popplewell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendment.

SOUND BROADCASTING BILL
3.38 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 8 [Special provisions as to newspaper shareholdings in relation to local sound broadcasts]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 11, line 36, at end insert—
("() Provided that subsection (5) above shall not apply where a contract would permit or require the sound broadcasting of material which is composed mainly or solely of news and news comment for a particular locality and for distribution through other contractors.")
The noble Lord said: I think that the noble Viscount and those who took part in the Committee stage last Tuesday will agree that we had a constructive debate on the earlier aspects of this controversial Bill. We now come to Clause 8, and I would ask the Committee to consider this particular clause, not in relation to the controversy as to whether there should be commercial sound radio, but as to
1140
whether newspapers as such should participate in the provision of these services.
There is no doubt that there is considerable anxiety about the economic position of many of our newspapers. Certainly a good number are faced with grave difficulties as a consequence of rising costs and a sort of stagnation in advertising revenue. And for some, I think, there is serious doubt whether they will survive. There were some noble Lords in a previous debate who thought that we had already too many newspapers. I personally would not accept that. I believe that although commercially there should be fewer, in the national interest we should seek to retain as many newspapers, national, evening and local, as is possible, in order that contrasting views can be made available to the public and to give opportunities for ordinary people, through the writing of letters, to put their minority views forward.
Local newspapers are perhaps in greater difficulties than the national newspapers. They have of course a smaller circulation; their costs are relatively higher; and the field from which they can draw advertising revenue is a good deal smaller. But their role is of considerable importance and, I suggest, will have greater importance as a consequence of local government reform when we move to larger local authorities with greater responsibilities. It is clearly to the local newspapers that the public will look for informataion about what is being done in the local field.
In a debate—I think it was last year—we considered the position of newspapers and examined various ways in which they could be assisted. If my memory is right, the House was united in the view that it would be wrong to give a kind of Government subsidy to keep newspapers in being, for fear that such a subsidy could well lead to an infringement of the liberty of the Press. I myself accept that view. Her Majesty's Government, in their White Paper, felt that commercial radio would have only a marginally adverse effect on local newspapers, but it seems to me from the Bill that they have now greater fears than they had earlier. The impact of commercial radio on local newspapers is hard to quantify. If these radio stations

1141
should have more of a regional aspect than the Government at the moment have in mind, clearly they will take what one might call "national advertising", in which case the national Press will be the sufferers; but clearly, if we do move to genuine local radio then local advertisements could well move to this new media.
The Government solution to this problem lies in Clause 8. It is that where a local newspaper can show to the Authority that it has a substantial proportion of its circulation in the locality of a local broadcasting station, and where there are clear adverse effects, then the Authority can use subsection (5), which provides that no contract shall be entered into by the Authority with a contractor unless that newspaper has become a shareholder through its own negotiations or the Authority has required the contractor to find room for that local newspaper as a shareholder in it. I must say that this principle to me is not a very happy one. It certainly leaves quite big areas where pressures may be made for similar treatment. But it seems to me, as in the case of television, that the Authority should judge the character of the contractor on the standing of those who are prepared to subscribe to that contractor, on the capability of that contractor, and on what proposals that contractor makes to the Authority for the provision of local sound radio.
If a newspaper was part of a consortium, then clearly that newspaper would be judged alongside the other applicants on its merits both in character and in the proposals it had in mind for local sound radio. I even wonder what will be the situation if a newspaper has been part of an unsuccessful application, where the Authority may have felt that the proposals of such a consortium were not good enough. It seems to me that where it has failed in its earlier application, under this Bill it will have a prescribed right to enter into the shareholding of the new and more successful contractor. I would ask the noble Viscount—because I appreciate that under Clause 9, on the question of public interest, the Authority can take into account whether or not a newspaper should be a shareholder—whether he could spell out the sort of criteria that the Authority should have in mind when considering public interest. If the House
1142
accepts that shareholding in a contractor is the least of the unpalatable solutions for dealing with newspapers who may be placed in an adverse position as a consequence of local radio, I think we are confronted with a serious position as a possible consequence of the Bill as now drafted.
Is it right that a newspaper should have a prescribed right to enter into a contractor that has been set up solely and specifically for the provision of news and news comment? Much was said in the other place about the Yorkshire Television Service to which the Yorkshire Post had been admitted, but I think one must recognise here that the substantial part of news and news comment on television is provided by an independent news service, I.T.N., to which tribute was passed on Second Reading. I spoke earlier of the great need for a multiplicity of views and comment. Therefore I need to pose this question: is it right that the Evening News and the Evening Standard—leaving aside any political overtones of either of these papers—should he in a position to influence, let alone provide news and comment to, a station that is broadcasting to the very area in Which those newspapers are at present circulating? So far as the evening papers are concerned, they are the main contributors to news and comment in the London area except for the morning daily papers. But both those papers are—and I recognise their economic difficulties—in fact subsidiaries of national newspapers. Is it right, therefore, that these two newspapers, through this Bill, should have a right of entry into a contractor where the contractor is not only providing news and news comment for London but is also the main purveyor and supplier of news and news comment for broadcasting through sound radio throughout the country?
May I pose this question? If to-day we were setting up national commercial radio, would this House or would another place ever dream of passing a Bill which permits a newspaper an automatic and prescribed right of entry which could allow it to affect the policy and the general slant of news and news comment? I do not believe that either House or any Government would ever suggest this. But, in practice, if a newspaper should become a shareholder and could influence the policy of the news contractor in London,

1143
it would in fact be in very much the same position as it would be in the case of national broadcasting, except that the sound radio stations would have a right not to take the programmes.
I say this not because I believe there is anything sinister in the operations of newspapers but because we all know that newspapers have a policy and that the editor and management of newspapers seek to find a niche for their newspaper within a particular readership. We have seen in the last two years the remarkable recovery of the Sun newspaper which directed itself towards a particular community who wanted something perhaps more lively than previously had been provided by the Daily Mirror. The journalists of these newspapers need to produce "copy" within the general policy of the editor and of the newspaper. So, as it was suggested in another place, if newspapers have a position of influence—I will not say "control"—within the broadcasting service that provides news and news comment, I think it will naturally follow that we may see the use of the same journalists who operate our newspapers during the morning providing the same sort of service to evening broadcasting. Journalists are normal, human—
LORD LEATHERLAND: Hear, hear!
LORD SHEPHERD: I have always accepted my noble friend Lord Leather-land as a normal person; but he will be the first to agree with me that if a journalist is required to write with a certain slant, with a certain degree of concentration for a particular point of view because it is the policy of the newspaper, it is conceivable that the same journalist, however normal he may he, will not be able to switch to producing—shall we say?—impartial copy for the radio broadcasting service. I do not believe that journalists can be as adept as that.
Therefore I am suggesting that, whether we like it or not, whether it be the intention or not, there is a real risk that if newspapers are providing the news and news comment for a contracting company and if those newspapers have an influence within a contractor who provides news and news comment we shall get a slant of news and news comment
1144
similar to that of the newspapers. In the use of our media, particularly in the case of radio news and news comment, I think that where it is meant to be news reporting it should seek to be clearly impartial; and where there is comment, one should be able to attribute that comment to some person with a recognised interest. I have no doubt at all that the I.T.N. and its subsidiary programmes provide this sort of service.
The Bill says that a newspaper must not have control of a contractor. Later the Bill says that the newspaper should have a shareholding which the Authority thinks right, commensurate with the "adverse" conditions. In my business life I have never known what size shareholding one requires in order to have control. Most people think one needs to have 51 per cent. to have control, to influence policy. I personally believe that the figure is a great deal less than that; that a great deal depends on how the other shareholding of the company is broken up. Therefore I should like to know from the noble Viscount what sort of figure the Government have in mind as an appropriate shareholding by a newspaper in a contracting company. I cannot help but feel that if a newspaper has a prescribed right of entry into a programme contractor which provides news and news comment not only for London but also for all the stations that are willing and able to take it, we are going to run counter to what I think Parliament has in mind: the idea of a multiplicity and divergence of views expressed through various media. The case of the Government for commercial radio is that it would provide an alternative service to the B.B.C. If it is accepted that the Evening News and the Evening Standard should have control of or a position of influence on the policy of a contractor which provides news and news comment within London and nationally, I think this would be running counter to the views that have been expressed by the noble Viscount and others in support of this Bill.
What does my Amendment do? It first says that if a newspaper is to have a prescribed right of shareholding in a contractor, that right should be limited to those contractors who provide general entertainment. Secondly, the Amendment says that newspapers as part of a

1145
consortium wishing to enter a contracting company which provided news and news comment should be judged on their own merits along with the other applicants of that consortia; that there should be no prescribed right and (speaking, if I may, to Amendment No. 10) that newspapers, where they are shareholders in a contractor, should not be the body that provides the news and news comment for broadcasting by that contractor. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: There are, as your Lordships know, two Statements to be made. It would be convenient now for me to make the one on Northern Ireland. I do not know what the Committee thinks about that; but I suspect that this Amendment could take a little while. Therefore with the agreement of the Committee I suggest that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

NORTHERN IRELAND: PROPOSED NEW ORDERS
4.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I will give the Statement in his own words:
"I wish to tell the House of two urgent measures which I have felt it necessary to set in hand to-day. Since planning this Statement, however, I have heard of the bestial crime committed against a 15-year-old girl in the Falls Road area of Belfast last night. I am sure the whole House, and indeed the vast majority of the community in Northern Ireland, utterly condemns this action. I would like to express my sympathy to the girl and her parents. I can assure the House that the most strenuous action will be taken to bring those responsible to justice.
"Turning now to the two urgent measures, two important Orders in Council have been made to-day. The first Order extends the Northern Ireland explosives legislation so as to enable control to be exercised over substances which, although not in themselves explosives, are capable of being used for explosive purposes in combination
1146
with other substances. As many honourable Members may be aware, ammonium nitrate and sodium chlorate, both of which are readily available for agricultural use, have been used by the I.R.A. with deadly effect, of which we may have seen another example at the Belfast Cooperative building yesterday. This Order and the Regulations which it empoyers me to make"—
that is, my right honourable friend—
"and which I intend to make as soon as possible, will enable these substances to be put under control: measures which I hope will help to save lives which might otherwise have been lost. The Order will be laid before the House and the necessary Resolutions moved within the 40-day period stipulated. I could have taken this action under the Special Powers Act but I thought that the House would prefer me to do it in this way.
"A second Order has been made under the same procedure to set up a Finance Corporation for Northern Ireland so as to help to reduce the very serious levels of unemployment in Northern Ireland, which are themselves conductive to social unrest. This is an extremely urgent need, and a Bill to establish a Finance Corporation to give financial support to undertakings in the Province had passed all but the very last stages at Stormont. But for the Prorogation it would almost certainly be in operation now.
"I am anxious, and I feel sure all sides of the House will agree, that there should be no delay in setting up the Corporation and enabling it to begin its vital work. This Order also will therefore be laid as soon as possible and the necessary Resolution will likewise be moved in due course."
That is the end of my right honourable friend's Statement.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. I am sure, too, that we should all wish to agree with what he said in the first part of that Statement about the crime committed in the Falls Road. The noble Viscount called it a bestial crime. My Lords, it was degrading not only to those who

1147
committed it but also to those who stood by and watched them committing it. It was degrading, too, to our society of which that part of Ireland came to be a part, and there are many who will wonder why we strive so hard to retain them as part of our society.
My Lords, with regard to the first Order, we appreciate both the urgency and also the importance of it and Her Majesty's Government can count on our co-operation in seeing that the Order is approved. With regard to the second Order, I would ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware that the degree of urgency there is not of the same high order. May I ask, for example, why the unemployed in Northern Ireland are so much more deserving than the unemployed elsewhere; and why, if the Finance Corporation is considered an urgent institution there, Her Majesty's Government have gone out of their way to pull down similar machinery for the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he accept that we shall need to look at this Order with the utmost care before it is approved?
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. I think that he very rightly referred to this crime against a girl as "bestial" and I hope that those responsible will be brought to justice. Arising out of that part of the Statement, I wonder whether it would be proper to ask if the noble Viscount can confirm that there appears to be a considerable desire for peace, particularly among the womenfolk, in the various communities in Northern Ireland; and whether he is able to say to what extent they are being deterred from expressing their views publicly?
As to the Orders, it is the wish of my colleagues on the Liberal Benches to approve both of them. They appear to be ones which ought to be supported. Perhaps, on a procedural matter, I may ask this question. As I understand it, in the existing situation all Regulations and Orders will require Affirmative Resolutions, and that none will rely on a Negative Prayer.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if I may attempt to deal with
1148
those points, I have no doubt that the words of the noble Lords, Lord Beswick and Lord Wade, about this crime will be noted. It must indeed be a very small number of people in Northern Ireland who approve of that sort of behaviour. I certainly do not think that we could possibly associate ourselves with the idea that this is in any way representative and that our disgust at this sort of thing should be levelled at the large body of the population in Northern Ireland. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, meant any such thing; certainly we do not think that that is the case.
My Lords, as to the urgency for these Orders, I am grateful for what both noble Lords said about the co-operation that they will give, even though on the Finance Order the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was a little less enthusiastic. There will be a further occasion to discuss this. The way this is being done is that the Order is being laid now and comes into operation straight away, but it lapses if it does not receive the Affirmative Resolution within 40 days. So that both these Orders will have to come back to the House and there can be a discussion on them.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked why the Finance Order was so urgent and why we were doing, or appeared to be doing, something different in Northern Ireland from what we were doing elsewhere. My Lords, the Industry Bill was laid in another place yesterday and when that is in print I think that the noble Lord may find some comfort in it. But I think the particular reason here is that this Finance Corporation was practically in existence as a result of Stormont legislation when that Parliament was prorogued. Obviously, it has an extremely useful purpose and we think it urgent. I hope that if the House wishes to express any doubts upon it, it will wait until the (debate on the Affirmative Resolution which, incidentally, I hope that my noble friend Lord Windlesham will deal with, because he knows more about it than I do. I hope that the House will wait until then to consider the matter more fully.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, asked about the desire for peace, particularly among the womenfolk. I am afraid that

1149
I simply do not know the answer regarding the extent to which they are being deterred, but I should think that it is both men and women in large numbers in Northern Ireland who are longing for peace. Certainly part of the operation which I am sure that my right honourable friend has in mind is to see that those who wish for peace should be deterred as little as possible. I think those are the points about which noble Lords asked me and I hope that I have answered the questions adequately.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I, from the Back Benches, associate many of us—indeed, I think all of us—with what has been said by the Minister and the representatives of the two Parties on the Opposition Benches about the appalling crime on a girl of 15. May I ask the Minister this question? When he speaks of financial aid to deal with unemployment in Northern Ireland—and first may I welcome that which in the towns amounts to 10 per cent. and in some of the provincial towns 20 per cent. and 30 per cent., will attention be given to the provincial towns as well as to the urban centres? Secondly, may I ask whether, before the Order is introduced, there will be consultations with the employers' associations and with the trade union organisations in order to get their co-operation in any measures that are taken to deal with unemployment?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not know that I can give detailed answers to the noble Lord about the actual way in which the Finance Corporation will work. What I think to be the case—if I am wrong I will write to the noble Lord to see that he is not misled; I hope that I am not misleading the House—is that this is a Corporation to deal only with the finance. How it will actually use these powers is something that I should have expected to be the subject of close consultation not only with those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, but over the widest possible field in Northern Ireland. I think that this machinery and the way that it is used will be the subject of further consultation and discussion in the Province.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount—and perhaps
1150
even the noble Earl the Leader of the House—whether in handling the second Order we are likely to follow this procedure in future? There is, I think, an important Parliamentary point here. The noble Viscount more or less says: "Wait for it. Do not be too nervous or doubtful at this stage; wait until we debate it." But, of course, it comes into force now. We shall be legislating in retrospect, involving the expenditure of money, and Parliament is going to be in great difficulty. I know that the noble Earl is well aware of the problems—and goodness knows! how we are going to sort this out. It seems to me we are having to take the second Order (as opposed to the first Order, as to which I fully see the emergency) even though it appears to have passed most of its stages at Stormont—though we still do not know whether it has been completetd—on trust. Of course I trust the noble Earl and the noble Viscount, but none the less, from a Parliamentary point of view, it is rather unsatisfactory. I am not trying to make a Party point. I think there is a valid point in this matter. Quite clearly Parliament will have to have a sight of future Orders before they actually become law. We have no say in this. It might have been defeated on Third Reading in Stormont; I do not know.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if I may, I will try to answer that point. I appreciate that this is an unusual, and perhaps in itself an emergency way of proceeding. The procedure is that the Order dies unless affirmative approval is given to it within 40 days. So this is not legislating permanently without giving Parliament a chance to consider the matter. However, I well understand Lord Shackleton's anxiety about the way in which this is being done. I have to take it on trust from my right honourable friend that this is a matter of urgency. If he tells me so then I must pass that message on and make the Statement to this House. That is the point of my repeating the Statement. I suggest that we should examine the question of the urgency of these matters; that we should consider this to be perhaps an exceptional occasion; that through the usual channels we should go into the merits of this sort of thing, and have consultations with a view to

1151
being able to reach some sort of accommodation in that way.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for what he has said about future consideration. Can he say what, if any, financial commitment has been undertaken by setting up this Finance Corporation in this way?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords; I cannot give the House the answer to that question.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may we be told when the Order will be available? We know that it has been made, but it is not yet available. I am not blaming noble Lords opposite in this unfamiliar situation, but it is extremely unsatisfactory from a Parliamentary point of view. I know that noble Lords must understand this point. I wonder whether the noble Earl the Leader of the House will respond on this matter, because I cannot believe that there is any noble Lord in the House who does not regard this as a most unsatisfactory way of proceeding, not with regard to the first Order, but as to the second Order. The noble Viscount says that the Order lapses after 40 days. But we cannot seriously contemplate setting something up without giving the people who are going to work in it some contract or expectation: we cannot just say that it depends on whether Parliament approves or not.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount, in the particular circumstances, when there must be, as I understand it, a discussion in both Houses to approve this Order, whether that should not take place as early as possible so that there is as small a lapse of time as possible between the laying of the Order and the discussion of the Order in this House?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has asked me to respond. In fact my spontaneous response was conveyed through my noble friend Lord Colville just now. We are on unfamiliar ground here, and I should not wish to venture on to it too far without some further thought, because I am not certain where
1152
it will take me. What I should like to do is to bear in mind what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said, and indeed what my noble friend Lord Alport has said—I think that his suggestion has merit—and see how best in the future we should tackle this type of Order. Frankly, I think this subject requires some further study and consideration, perhaps through the usual channels, and we can then come back mad report to your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, perhaps I might add a word to what my noble friend has said, because I want to apologise for the non-availability of this document. It is an extremely awkward situation. It is perhaps even more awkward for me than for other noble Lords when I am asked questions like the one the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked me just now.

RAIL DISPUTE
4.15 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. He said:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement.
"Last night I brought both the British Railways Board and the three railway unions together under my chairmanship to discuss yet again the remaining issues which divided them, to clarify any uncertainties in their position and to explore whether there was any acceptable way in which a settlement might still be reached.
"The unions made it very clear to me that they were insisting on their joint claim for a £20 minimum basic rate with consequential increases for all other grades and salaried staff from May 1. They were not prepared to accept the Board's offer to pay these rates from June 5 or from any intermediate date. Nor were they able to accept any alternative restructuring of the Board's offer amounting to about 12½ per cent. of the wages and salaries

1153
bill. The unions' claim would cost close to 14 per cent.
"In the course of these discussions I made a number of suggestions. One possibility I put forward was to introduce the agreed minimum earnings guarantee of £20·50 a week from May 1 and to implement the new rates as proposed by the Board and accepted by the unions from June 5. Another suggestion I made was that, in addition to the minimum earnings' guarantee, all basic rates at present below £20 a week should be increased to that figure from May 1 until the full rates came into payment on June 5. The unions' position remained that the full amounts must be paid throughout the whole grade structure and to salaried staff from May 1.
"I have discussed the position further with the Board to-day. As a result they have written to the unions expressing their willingness to implement the minimum earnings guarantee as from May 1 as I suggested and formally setting out the resulting offer.
"I hope that the unions will accept it."
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sure it is your Lordships' wish that I should on your behalf thank the noble Lord for being good enough to repeat that Statement. The first question I want to ask is whether he observed the deafening silence that fell upon your Lordships' House when he read the Statement and made no reference whatever to the ballot position. Will he tell us therefore what the Government's latest thinking is with regard to a ballot? May I ask him also, as there is no reference to it in the Statement, what the Government claim has been the benefit of the cooling-off period which has been obtained, and which has now expired, and what contribution the Government have made throughout that period to a settlement of this dispute?
May I also ask him what contribution the Government think the present offer makes to bridging the gap? Can he tell us, in terms of cash, how much is being offered towards bridging the gap? The unions estimate the gap at £2¾ million: the Government insist that it is greater. Should I be right in thinking that the suggestion which has been put into the mouth of the Chairman of British Rail
1154
by the Government amounts to about £50,000? Is that the right figure; and, if so, what sort of contribution towards bridging the gap of 2¾ million—or, alternatively, £4 million—does he consider this to be?
May I also ask how much the statement made yesterday by his right honourable friend, before taking the chair at a meeting of both sides—that the remarks made by trade union leaders are, to quote from yesterday's Hansard of the other place, "characteristic of bullies in all places"— will contribute towards bridging the gap? How much does the noble Lord think that statement will help the situation? Does the Minister consider it helpful, or that it will create a feeling that he is to be relied upon as a thoroughly independent and impartial chairman? Does he really think the unions will accept this offer, as he said at the end of his statement? Does he really think that the unions, having regard to the attitude displayed by the Government and to the Government's lack of contribution to a settlement during the cooling-off period, will accept an offer of £50,000 towards their calculated gap of £2¾ million?
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. What the general public want to know is whether the go-slow is going to start at midnight to-night. I notice that the Minister of State has discussed the position further with the Board today, and as a result the Board have written to the unions expressing their willingness to implement the proposal discussed earlier. But I should like to ask whether the Government have reached any decision as to what steps will be taken if this proposal is not accepted, and when they will be in a position to inform Parliament of what decision has been reached.
4.23 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked me first of all about the ballot. The position at the moment is that a formal offer has been made by the Board to the unions. This offer was made to-day and my right honourable friend has expressed the hope that it will be accepted, and I think it right to say why he thinks it is reasonable to hope that. The Board has advanced nearly seven-eighths of the way

1155
towards meeting the difference in the timing of part of the award that existed during the cooling off period. All that is necessary now is for the unions, on their side, to move just a little more than one-eighth, to show what they really mean by "negotiation". If this is done and if this offer is accepted to-day then we shall have agreement to-day, in which case we shall no longer be under the threat of industrial action.
On the question of a ballot, I think it is reasonable—although this is a matter on which the Government has not yet formally decided—that the railwaymen should be given a full opportunity of considering what has been offered and whether, with such increases in wages in prospect, they are content to disrupt the system for which they have hitherto worked so loyally. But we hope that this position will not be reached.
The noble Lord asking what had been the benefit of the cooling-off period. The benefit most certainly is that during that period the stress—the duress, if you like—was removed and a breathing space was given for the public and the economy, during which their interests were safeguarded. This gave the opportunity for both parties to consider their positions. The upshot was that one of the parties moved towards, and a very long way towards, agreement; the other party has not yet done so but we still hope that it will.
Thirdly, the noble Lord asked about the contribution made to bridging the gap. The contribution is simply this: one of the main points for which the unions had pressed was the £20 minimum wage. The contribution that has been made is to concede that as from May 1. The noble Lord asked me, fourthly, to quantify this. I am sorry that I cannot do that, but the point is that one of the main claims would be conceded. Lastly, he asked whether I think the unions will accept. We must all very much hope that they will.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, said that everyone was anxious to know whether the go-slow was going to start tonight. If the unions accept the offer then it is reasonable to expect that it will not start to-night. He asked why the Chairman
1156
of the Board has written to make this offer. The reason is that the offer was never made formally, as I thought I had made clear in my Statement. These were suggestions made in the course of conciliation by my right honourable friend to the unions—suggestions which the Board are willing to implement. They have now formally expressed their willingness to implement this in the form of an offer to the unions.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I put a supplementary question? Is the noble Lord aware that, according to an announcement which has been made, a large number of trains for Saturday have already been cancelled—and I believe for to-night also?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the cancellation of trains will depend entirely on the decision taken and on the response that is received to the offer.
4.29 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that whilst we appreciate the efforts that have been made, it is doubtful whether this offer is not too little and too late? May I ask him why the Government have left it until this last hour before making this offer, which is distinctly aimed at separating the three unions involved? Up to now, those three unions have worked in unison and this proposal places them in a very great difficulty, bearing in mind that the unions have been accused of blackmail, of being villains and of holding the nation to ransom because they have been seeking to defend the rights and standards of life of their members. Does the Minister realise how disappointed we are that he is not able to give a more detailed estimate in reply to my noble friend's question? Is the Minister aware that part of the difficulties that have arisen with regard to the costing between £2·4 million and £3·7 million is that so far no account has been given of the redundancies that will take place over the next twelve months? There will be less employment for something like 4,500 to 5,000 railwaymen and that will have an important bearing. Is it not a fact that the Government ought to be more forthright and not take a partisan position in the way that they have been doing, particularly in recent months?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think, with respect, that the Government can be described as having taken a partisan position. The duty of the Government is to defend the interests of the public and the economy. My right honourable friend has played his part in trying to seek agreement through conciliation. Where the noble Lord seems to misunderstand the situation is when he refers to the Government having left it to the last moment to make an offer. It is not the Government who have made an offer; the Board have made the offer. In this case it is an offer corresponding to suggestions that were made by my right honourable friend. It is not right to talk about an offer designed to separate three unions. That is not the point at all. The noble Lord himself has pointed out to me on a previous occasion that among the train drivers there are both members of ASLEF and the N.U.R. As to the costing estimate, these are matters for the Board and the unions. There seems to be a difference of opinion in regard to the redundancies, but the Chairman of the Board has said emphatically that in making his calculations he has taken into account the redundancies.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sorry to delay your Lordships but I must press the Government a good deal further on two points. First, there was the statement that one side had moved seven-eighths of the way and the other side had not moved at all. That is a statement to encourage your Lordships to believe that reason lies on one side only. According to the Statement that the noble Lord has read out, an offer has been made of 12½ per cent. That is what the Government would like the unions to accept, plus a little additional amount. The 12½ per cent. is the figure to which the noble Lord says the employers have moved. That 12½ per cent. is the figure fixed by an independent arbitrator. A judgment as to whether somebody is being reasonable or not does not depend on the extent to which he moves; it depends on the position that he took up at the start. The railway unions believe that the position that they took up at the start was reasonable and that the position that the employers took up at the start was
1158
wholly unreasonable, as has been demonstrated by the arbitrator's award.
Secondly, I must ask the noble Lord whether he knows what the figure is which has been the subject of this last offer and which is the total substance of this Statement. Does he know and refuse to tell your Lordships or does he simply not know? If he does not know, why does he come here to make the Statement without being able to inform your Lordships of the most elementary and important piece of information in the whole matter? Does it not almost amount to deceiving public opinion to put forward a claim by the Government that what the employees want most is being offered, when in fact all that is being offered, according to my information and my arithmetic, is a paltry, negligible, almost insulting sum in relation to the difference at issue?
4.35 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at the Record to-morrow I am sure that he will see that I specifically said that the movement of seven-eighths was a movement since the cooling-off period. My reason for saying that is that Mr. Jarratt proposed that the increase giving a minimum of £20 a week, with the differentials calculated throughout the range, should come into effect for the vast proportion on January 1 next. That is about eight months away. The difference from May 1 and January 1 is eight months. The Board has come as far as June 5 for its implementation. Against that the unions are still sticking by May 1. That is just about seven-eighths and one-eighth. This is what I mean and I think the meaning is quite clear. With a difference of this minimum size it would be an extraordinary situation if the nation were to be plunged into a go-slow and all the consequences that follow from it.
The noble Lord asks me whether I know the financial position and whether I can give it. In the particular of exactly what the difference between May 1 and June 5 is, I regret to tell him that I cannot quantify it; I do not know. It does not seem to me that the amount here is the matter at stake. What is at stake is whether after a long period of so-called negotiation one side should have made concessions seven times and the

1159
other a concession, as I understand it, from a minimum of £20·05 to a minimum of £20.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, are the Government aware that the travelling public are getting increasingly fed-up with this situation, as is industry, in view of the pigheaded attitudes that have been adopted in these negotiations? If matters go on like this, traffic will increasingly take to the roads, both in passengers and goods, and that can only be deleterious to the railways and railwaymen.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making the point that a go-slow is almost bound to damage the interests of the railwaymen themselves.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, most of us who know the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and who have listened during our period in the House to his fair, courteous and objective replies to questions sympathise with him very much in the dilemma in which he finds himself today. Is it not true that, almost from the beginning of the presentation of the claim, the Railways Board have stated that they cannot meet the claim because they have not got the money? Yet we are told that they have advanced seven-eighths of that claim during the course of the negotiations. We also know that the railways have been in deficit for some considerable time. How then, and from what source, are the Board to pay the seven-eighths of the claim which in the beginning they said they could not meet?
Anybody with any sense knows it will come in the form of a loan of some kind from the Government. Where else can it come from? From passenger traffic? We have been told that passenger traffic would be extremely difficult to attract. And as for goods traffic, the state of trade generally in the country is such that there is not very much hope from that source. In other words, what I am trying to say is this. Let us face the facts. Do not let us dodge about with suggestions that the Minister in the course of meeting with the parties suggests a solution to this problem and then the following day the Railways Board, who up to that point had been adamant, accept the solution. We are not children. Some of us have
1160
long experience in industrial negotiations. We know quite well what the point is. The Government are fighting this claim. I know from my membership of the nationalised Electricity Council the power of Ministers to bring influence on chairmen of nationalised industries.
Furthermore, is it not true that the Government stated months and months ago that, so far as economic stability went, they would use their influence with the nationalised industries? Have they not held up those industries from making advances in their prices? Is that not true? Therefore, when we are discussing here relations between trade unions and the Railways Board, everybody knows the negotiations in substance are between the railway unions and the Government. There is too much of a political flavour in this matter to suit me and, I am sure, many trade unionists, irrespective of what the Government may do through the National Industrial Relations Court, and they will take good care that they are not going to be bullied. If there are bullies, they can be on both sides.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying, although I do not think it quite agrees with what his noble friend on the Front Bench was saying. Everybody knows that the nationalised industries have agreed to conform with the C.B.I. initiative on increases in prices. Everybody knows that there must be a commercial limit to the extent that the railways can increase their prices without losing substantial revenue. This is a matter of commercial judgment for the railways, and it is in this way that the negotiations have been conducted.

SOUND BROADCASTING BILL
4.44 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I wondered whether any other noble Lord wanted to take part in the debate on the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, before I say something from these Benches.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I should like to do so, with the permission of your Lordships' Committee. I must straight

1161
away declare a double interest. I am a director of the Daily Mail and General Trust, one of whose interests is the Evening News and it is eligible for a share in the equity of the London news station. Moreover, I write for the Evening News. It is my bread and butter and, far more important, the bread and butter of some 4,000 other co-workers. I stand before your Lordships naked and utterly unashamed. Your Lordships must judge my impartiality from what I am going to say. I am nobody's "stooge", and, incidentally, I am opposing my own Party's line. That is the joy, of course, of being a Liberal; you do not get whipped and you also do not get de-whipped.
I did not speak on the Second Reading of this Bill and I do not propose to make a Second Reading speech now. I will keep strictly to the point. The Amendment before us is about news stations, and that is what I am concerned with. In the news field the B.B.C. has a monopoly of radio news, national and regional, and to me a wholly odious monopoly. A correspondent writes to me suggesting that the B.B.C. should be called the "A.B.B.C."—the Anti-British Broadcasting Corporation—and after listening to and watching its programmes I tend to agree. The recent British Empire series, which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, called intellectually contemptible, was perhaps the most disgraceful piece of anti-British propaganda since the broadcasts of Lord Haw-Haw. The B.B.C. news reports on Ulster have sickened our troops, or those I have spoken to, to the extent that on their return to barracks after some peacekeeping operation they listen to the B.B.C. and ask in amazement—
LORD SHEPHERD: May I ask the noble Earl whether he is referring to B.B.C. television or to B.B.C. sound news?
THE EARL OF ARRAN: In the world sense I was referring to B.B.C. television, but as regards Ulster I was referring to radio news and television. I was speaking about the situation in general. I was saying that soldiers, after perhaps having had some horrible experience, come back and listen—I repeat, listen—to the B.B.C., and ask in amazement: "Whose side are they on?" Admittedly,
1162
two swallows do not make a summer, but they are indicative.
I repeat that I hate monopolies of all kinds, but I am also a realist. Can we face this issue fairly and squarely. There are two London "Evenings": the Standard and the News—or should I say the News and the Standard? I assume, and do so from what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, that broadly speaking your Lordships would like the London evening papers to survive, if only because the loss of yet another newspaper would be a further disaster to Fleet Street. And please never forget that what we are engaged on here is a defensive, and not an offensive, operation. These Evenings "have to protect themselves. There is no money, or very little, to be made—I think that was made clear on Second Reading. No one is here for the beer. I ask your Lordships not to forget that we used to have three evening newspapers; and I weep no crocodile tears when I say that we have sadly and badly missed the Star. In addition to its traditional Liberal outlook it had the best racing tips. The suggestion in a subsequent Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the Minister should compensate the papers for loss of revenue—
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: In a subsequent Amendment. That is to me, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, himself, an unpleasant thought.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Earl say in which Amendment it is that I suggest that?
THE EARL OF ARRAN: An Amendment to Clause 9.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY): This Amendment is No. 8: page 11, line 36.
TIIE EARL OF ARRAN: I stand corrected. But the noble Lord has said already that he would not agree with the suggestion that the State should subsidise newspapers in any form because that would be, as he said, the end of the freedom of the Press.
More positively, on what basis do the London "Evenings" base their claim to a participation in the equity?—on

1163
the plain fact that they are best qualified to do the job, and to do it well. Admittedly very few people in this country know much so far about commercial radio; the Americans do, but we do not. Admittedly, too, the B.B.C. are doing their best, but in this as in other fields they need competition to keep them on their toes. It would also deter them from partiality. I know that the Evening News has been working on plans for this eventuality for the past five years. According to their conception, if they are given a share in the equity the new news station should be an entirely separate supplier of news, using the official news agencies, and it would also appoint a number of reporters who were specially trained to obtain news for the radio medium. I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is aware of it, but it would be in fact an entirely new set-up under its own management and absolutely independent of the newspaper itself, although of course it might have some expert know-how. I am not sure whether your Lordships are aware of this most important fact. I should like to stress it and to say that the radio station would be in direct competition with the Evening News itself, just as one newspaper is in competition with another; just as, in fact, the Daily Sketch was in competition with the Daily Mail.
I am in a predicament. I am wholeheartedly opposed to the B.B.C. news monopoly, national or local, and I have made my reasons abundantly clear. I am in favour of what might be termed a "counter-irritant" in the shape of a rival news station. I am not convinced that any station can be entirely impartial, and on this point 1 agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I defy anyone to be completely impartial. One of the reasons why I write for the Evening News is because I believe it to be one of the more impartial newspapers. I could prepare a news programme for your Lordships which was seemingly objective but was in fact violently prejudiced, like the favourite programme of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—" The World at One "—which glories in consciously undermining every British achievement and success and emphasises our difficulties in every available field. I once edited
1164
this programme for six months, albeit with complete impartiality, and perhaps that is why my contract was not renewed. It is a question of headlines and emphasis and interpretations. I could introduce a news programme which was seemingly objective but in fact was heavily biased. Some of your Lordships might not notice the purpose behind my programme but the noble Lords, Lord Ardwick and Lord Ritchie-Calder, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, would notice it, because they work for newspapers. Perhaps we could draft such a programme together, but I doubt very much whether the slants would be in the same direction.
Admitting the impossibility of total impartiality I should be very disappointed—and I mean this sincerely—if the proposed news station were not at least as impartial as some of the B.B.C. programmes, and I hope a great deal more so. My conclusions are that a rival news service is desirable because of the B.B.C. monopoly, but if it is going to succeed it must be properly equipped to make it a success and it should be run by professional people. If you are going to take risks—and on Tuesday the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made it clear that we are taking risks, as one always is in every new venture—let the professional newsmen "have a go". If they fail then give the responsibility to someone else.
I have had my say; I have tried to be reasonably impartial. I doubt whether I have been successful, but if there is a Division on this Amendment I shall naturally abstain.
LORD SAINSBURY: I rise to support my noble friend's Amendment. In the discussion on Second Reading we heard a good deal about regional broadcasting and local broadcasting.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: We have heard a good deal about it in Committee, too.
LORD SAINSBURY: If the intention of the Government in this Bill is really local commercial broadcasting, and if at the same time they want to help really local newspapers, then I believe that the London Evening News and the Evening Standard have no claim as local newspapers. They are regional newspapers, as we can all verify when we go East, North, South and West outside the Greater

1165
London area. I made a Second Reading speech and I am not going to make another now, but I strongly support this Amendment.
LORD AVEBURY: I was not going to say anything on this Amendment, but having listened to my noble friend I feel I must say one word in regard to the position in London, because it is important that we should get this right. However, before I come to that, may I say that with great regret I have to disagree with my noble friend in his strictures on the B.B.C. I personally think that their reporting is admirable, and it has not upset me in the slightest that they have had a monopoly for all these years. In my opinion the news broadcasts which one hears in the mornings are well prepared and, so far as they possibly can be, are impartial. I also think that in general the B.B.C. do a good job on local news. Some of the information that we get from them is useful. For example, we have been talking about the railway dispute. One can turn on the B.B.C. radio in the morning and get information about the trains, as to which ones have been cancelled. It might be said that the B.B.C. is already providing the sort of local news service that many people need in their programme immediately prior to the eight o'clock news in the mornings.
However, we are going to have these stations. In particular we are to have one in London. The question arises as to which, if any, of the newspapers operating in London should be entitled to participate in it under Clause 8. As my noble friend sat down I remarked to him that he had been speaking only in terms of the Evening News, but he told me that he was only able to speak for the Evening News and he did not in any way intend to imply that other newspapers were excluded.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has just pre-empted a point that I was going to make. The London Evening News and the Evening Standard are not the only local newspapers circulating in the area. As the noble Lord has said, they might more accurately be called regional newspapers because people who travel on the trains as far afield as Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Ashford normally carry a copy of one or other of these papers. What I would call a local newspaper is
1166
something like the Orpington and Kentish Times, which is an admirable newspaper circulating in my own area and is a member of a group which includes the Bromley and Kentish Times, the Chislehurst Times, and so on. I declare an interest in that I am a consultant to the company which owns these newspapers, and I occasionally write for them, although not for the newspaper circulating in my own area. Then there is the South London Press, which is a very popular newspaper circulating in the centre of London. As one goes northwards one also finds that each borough has its own local newspaper. I would have thought that if the major regional newspapers are to be allowed to come in, certainly these ought not to be excluded, but I am afraid they probably will be because they could not contend for stations covering the whole of London that their circulation represented a substantial proportion of the population of that area. I do not know what the word "substantial" means, but presumably it would be interpreted as including both the London Evening News and the Evening Standard.
I urge that if this machinery is to be effective and we are to have independence, with no influence brought to bear by the newspaper proprietors on the contents of the news broadcasts from local stations, you should not have one, or even two, coming in where they would be able to exert, even indirectly, a powerful influence on programme content. They would perhaps be called on to provide expert assistance from journalists with special knowledge of preparing news programmes for the radio. In my view if you had as many newspapers as possible within the area, all having a stake in the new enterprise, there is much less opportunity for any one of them to influence programme content.
I am not saying that the Amendment the noble Lord has put down is necessarily the ideal solution. It seems to me too drastic to say that where one has material which is news or news comment the Authority is automatically bound to exclude local newspapers from having an interest in it. My solution would be to bring in as many as possible, and if one looks at the situation in London I think that certainly would be a much

1167
better way of ensuring impartiality than excluding them altogether.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I have a certain sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in having to resume this debate after spending three-quarters of an hour on two Statements he has my fellow feeling if he forgot for the moment what we were talking about. I hope I may succeed in combining the much earlier speech of Lord Shepherd with what has been said since.
LORD SHEPHERD: I hope the noble Viscount does not want me to repeat it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If the noble Lord is like me he would find it impossible to remember what he said. I think in fact that this Amendment will apply only to the London news station. I take the point the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury made, that just as we may be dealing with an exceptional case in this Amendment, the London local radio may have rather more of a regional character than would apply elsewhere. I think that is inevitable because of the size of London, and it is no use blinking this fact. But you cannot then extrapolate from that situation and say, as noble Lords have tended to try to do in these debates, that the whole thing concerns regional radio.
Let us look aft the situation in London as it is. I very fully understand the anxiety that lies behind this Amendment, the idea that perhaps the Evening News and Evening Standard might have a right to buy into a specialist London news station. That, of course, is the essence of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd's, speech. I think I agreed with him on his general introductory background remarks about Clause 8; I think they were very helpful for the understanding of this Bill, and particularly this clause. I think that the heart of the noble Lord's objection relates to this question of control and influence: the editorial control that might arise over the content of the news. I should like to come back at the end of my speech to look at the safeguards in that connection. We have got to consider whether the safeguards in this Bill are sufficient to empower the I.B.A. to counter the risks that we have on news if we do not include this Amendment.
1168
I indicated that this whole matter of Clause 8, not excluding the news station, had been carefully considered by the Government again since Report stage in another place, and we still think that on balance we have got the safeguards right. In the first place, there is the whole concept of awarding rights to newspapers to take part in programme contracting. Incidentally this is optional, they are not forced to. I think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, implied in his speech that they had to take part. That is not so; they only do it if they wish. But this option is that they should be able to do so, subject to Clause 9, where a station coincides with their circulation area and they would be adversely affected.
For all I know, when the I.B.A. comes to consider the applicants for the London news station they may come to the conclusion that that station's operations would adversely affect the two London evening newspapers. I have no idea whether they would or not, and I have no intention of trying to indicate what their judgment might be. That is nothing to do with the Government; it is for the Authority to say. But let us assume that it would consider those newspapers to be affected. Prima facie it would have to offer to let those two newspapers in. There is obviously a good deal of force in the view that an excessive concentration of newspaper ownership or control or influence in a station would carry the risk of too one-sided presentation of affairs and news and so on; indeed, perhaps a failure to present some of them at all. But I do not think that this means that the risk is so likely to materialise that we have got to keep those newspapers out altogether. That is really what this Amendment does; it keeps them right out. If we were to proceed on that basis we should really get to the stage, should we not, where we are beginning to deny the Press the opportunity to take part in this news station at all. If you specifically deny them the right when they are adversely affected, you are by implication suggesting to the I.B.A. that there might be something wrong in allowing a consortium which voluntarily included one of these newspapers.
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am glad the noble Lord does not go as far as that, because obviously, quite apart from Clause 8, a consortium could come forward which would include one or both of those newspapers. Apparently that is a situation that the noble Lord contemplates, and he is not afraid of it.
LORD SHEPHERD: I said that to my mind it would be perfectly reasonable for those newspapers to come forward with other applicants, and then their applications are considered on merit. It seems to me that provided these newspapers are in a position to prove adverse effects, then unless this falls within Clause 9 the Authority must permit those newspapers to have a shareholding. That is the point.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: So they must, but it does not say how large a shareholding or what sort of shareholding. It does not say anything about voting rights or control, except that Clause 8(6) says there must not be control. Then we have Clause 9. I covered quite a lot of this ground on Second Reading. There is the overriding power under Clause 9 to deny them their right. We are to come to Clause 9.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me what were to be the criteria. I think it would be a disaster if I were to attempt to itemise the criteria that might come under Clause 9. There are similar powers under the existing Act for the Authority to operate, and they are in Section 12(1). To try to spell out what those criteria might be would be an exceedingly dangerous thing to do and might hamper very much the work of the Authority in the exercise of its judgment. I would much rather leave that kind of thing to the Authority when it has to deal with a specific point in a specific set of circumstances. Anyway, we have that control under Clause 9(1) and the general control in Section 12(1) of the Act. We have the on-going control if there is a change of character in Section 11(4) of the Act. All those operate, and there are the provisions under Clause 8 itself which enable the I.B.A., even if it does have compulsorily to offer shares to one of the newspapers in this station, to say how much and what sort, as I have just said. In those circumstances, is that all that the Act said? No, it is not, when we are dealing with things like control
1170
and influence—and that is the essence of what the noble Lord was talking about. First of all, may I deal with the question of control? Control is actually defined in Section 28(1) of the 1964 Television Act, but it is defined in a way which is not, I think, the only criterion on which the I.B.A. would work. It is probably much too rigid for the purposes of delineating the part that the newspapers would have to play.
Let us see what else they have in terms of what they could do to prevent undue editorialisation, undue influence, undue control even with a much smaller shareholding. I take the point that a smaller shareholding could involve a disproportionate amount of control. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will be interested in this. In Section 3 of the parent Act, the principal Act, we have two powers. First of all, in relation to news Section 3(1)(b) says:
"… all news given in the programmes (in whatever form) is presented with due accuracy and impartiality … "
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has gone for the moment, because he is well acquainted with the art of journalism, and I should have thought that he probably also knew a good deal about the art of what the editor can do. I should have thought that it was not beyond the wit of a journalist and an editor to produce news which fell within the criteria required under Section 3(1)(b). If they do not, it is part of the power of the I.B.A. to control the station to see that they fall into line.
LORD SHEPHERD: I fully accept that. I think the Minister in another place strongly suggested that he would welcome that editors and news writers of a newspaper should also be providing that same material for sound broadcasting. The point I was making is that an editor of a newspaper and a writer carry out a policy, and, let us face it, newspapers have definite slants. Therefore, is it practical to expect the same people, in the same day, to move away from producing an article with a slant directed to a policy to producing a programmes of impartiality? Let us leave out accuracy.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I tried to make it clear in the case that I was

1171
making that what is being thought of is a completely different organisation.
LORD SHEPHERD: The trouble is that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, speaks—and I accept this—at least with the knowledge of his newspaper organisation, but the speeches made in another place were clearly welcoming the fact that the Evening News and Evening Standard editors and writers would be fully involved in the production of news in a broadcasting service to London and to the nation as a whole.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I can only tell your Lordships the situation as I understand it and honourably believe it to be.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Of course there is sitting in your Lordships' House the arbiter of all this.
LORD SHEPHERD: Why?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord sitting behind.
LORD SHEPHERD: But he is silent.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is one of the great misfortunes of the Addison Rules which I deplore so much in these circumstances. But there it is. The noble Lord will keep his own counsel and in due course I hope that he will be making some decisions. I have forgotten the passage in my right honourable friend's speech to which the noble Lord referred, but I should be extraordinarily surprised if the editor of the London news station was the same man as the editor of one of the evening newspapers. I would be astonished. You could knock me down with a feather if the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, appointed one of those gentleman in that dual capacity. Incidentally, I wonder whether he would have time to do it.
It may be that some of the sources of news, some of the journalists, provide material for both media. But is that not what editors are for? And is that not exactly what the station contract is going to ensure, that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, and his Authority are going to make perfectly certain, on pain of death for the station, that they stick to the rules that I began to read out, starting with Section 3(1)(b) and moving on to 3(1)(e), that,
1172
"due impartiality is preserved on the part of the persons providing the programmes as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy".
That is as "anti-slant" as anything in legislation can be described as anti-slant, and that is written into the contract. It is certainly written into the existing television contracts, and I should have thought that it was almost certain to be written into those of sound broadcasting.
What about Section 3(2), which, as I read it, is an absolute total prohibition on editorial expression of the people who own or control or have influence in the station? Again, I have seen this in practice in television. It is a perfectly well understood taboo that those who provide the news and current affairs programmes on television—that not only involves the other programmes; news is very important in this context—are not allowed in any circumstances to impose their own editorial views upon the programme. It is all in the Act, and that is the situation that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, and his Authority will be controlling. I would strongly suggest to the Committee that even in the case of large, important evening newspapers such as those that we are discussing, and granted that it is a large area that is going to be covered, the Authority can be trusted to use the powers that it has in the Bill, and in the Act as it stands, to make sure that none of those dangers, which I accept as real fears, will materialise in the end.
It is for those reasons that I suggest to your Lordships that, first of all, it would be contrary to the whole policy of the Bill that these two newspapers should be picked out to be excluded statutorily, in effect, from participation in the London news station. The reason why they should be allowed to stay in is because their staying in will be under such rules and control and authority and supervision that the dangers that have been voiced in this House will never materialise at all.
LORD SHEPHERD: I thank the noble Viscount for the way in which he has sought to deal with my Amendment. May I just pose one question to him? If it had been the proposal of the Government that we should have an alternative sound radio broadcasting system; that there should be a prescribed right for two newspapers to have a shareholding in it, and

1173
that the shareholding should be on a basis to be judged by the Authority but taking into account the adverse effects of that particular service on that newspaper's revenue, would the noble Viscount have got up and defended a situation that two newspapers, despite all their difficulties and all the things that they may in fact offer to the community of London, should have a prescribed right to enter into a national broadcasting service? I doubt whether he would. I suspect that this local service, from what the noble Lord, Lord Denham, said, is perhaps slightly beyond but basically the G.L.C. area, which is the basic coverage of these two newspapers. They will be providing a service of influence both through sound, and through their own Press. These programmes will be offered throughout the whole commercial network of this country, and I therefore suggest that we are largely providing, in terms of news and news comment, the material of a national service. Therefore, in principle, one could not defend two newspapers—because that is what this is—having a prescribed right of shareholding.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned other newspapers in London. I agree with him, and in a later Amendment I suggest a way of dealing with the problem. The fact is that many genuine local newspapers which provide a real service to the local community may be put in greater jeopardy than the Evening News and the Evening Standard, but, looking at the Bill, I do not see how they will ever have a right to be considered for even the minutest shareholding in these contracting companies. This clause has been drafted specifically to cover the position of two major London evening newspapers which are part of a national newspaper network. I cannot believe that that is right in principle. Whatever may be the protections which the noble Viscount has put forward, I cannot believe it is right to put this prescribed right into a Bill. I feel so strongly on the principle that I would certainly seek to test the opinion of your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Does the noble Lord wish me to answer the question or not?
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly, if the noble Viscount wishes to do so.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I should like to say a word about it, because it is an important point. I think we are dealing—and I do not seek to escape from this—with a special case. Where I would differ from the noble Lord is on the matter of principle. I suggest that it is a matter of degree. Let me complete my argument. On the television side, which has now been going for some time, there are newspaper interests in some of the big five stations. I grant that they are not there as of right, but they got in—to take the case of Yorkshire—because I think the Yorkshire Post was considered to be a worthy partner in one of the consortia. They got in because they are a Yorkshire newspaper, but their programmes are networked throughout the British Isles—and very properly, too, because they are very good programmes. We have a very similar situation here, the only difference being that instead of getting in as part of a successful bid, the Evening Standard and the Evening News may get in to some extent as of right.
What I suggest to the Committee is that, having listened to this debate, as he has done, the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, will go away and, if the question of a London news station is brought up before him and applicants come in, he will bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said about this being a network news service. I should not be surprised if this affected his thinking on the extent of the shareholding which he thought it right for these newspapers to have, among many other things which I am sure he will consider with his colleagues at the same time. That is the type of consideration, the type of detailed point, which I suggest to your Lordships is so much better left to the Authority, than written into the Statute. That is my answer to the point of principle of the noble Lord.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not think the noble Viscount quite understands the point I was seeking to make. I am sorry to delay the Committee, but this is one of the cardinal parts of the Bill. May I say, so far as my noble friend Lord Aylestone is concerned, that I have no doubt that he will listen not only to what is said in this House but to what is said in the other place. Equally, he may forget or take less account of some

1175
of the speeches that have been made from the Government side and from the Opposition side, and will take a balanced view upon the matter. I have no doubt about that at all, and that is why I said that if there was to be an Authority I was pleased that it was to be the old I.T.A. The issue is surely this. So far as the Yorkshire Television and the Yorkshire Post are concerned, this is a service which provides some news, some comment of local interest, but, basically, what it networks is entertainment.
I have not in any way challenged the prescriptive right of newspapers to be part of a contractor who is providing entertainment. I have merely challenged the prescriptive right of entry into a contractor who provides news and news comment. I said in my first speech that I
would not object to either the Evening News or the Evening Standard being in a contractor who provided news and news comment, not as a prescriptive right but solely judged by the Authority with the other applicants when the matter goes before the Authority. In other words, a judgment is made of those newspapers in line with a judgment made of any other form of applicant. What I challenge is the prescriptive right that is being given to two newspapers to be able to enter a contracting company who provides what is, in the end, national news and news comment.
5.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 72.

CONTENTS

Avebury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Balogh, L.

Granville-West, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Barrington, V.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henderson, L.

Seear, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Henley, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton. L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Kahn, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Summerskill, Bs.

Diamond, L.

McLeavy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Moyle, L.

White, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

George-Brown, L.

Platt, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Leathers, V.

Abinger, L.

Eccles, V.

Long, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Lothian, M.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mancroft, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Falkland. V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Fortescue. E.

Milverton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gainford, L.

Monsell, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Goschen, V

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gowrie, E

Caccia, L.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rhyl, L.

Colyton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandford, L.

Conesford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Courtown, E.

Hanworth, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Cowley, E.

Hood, V.

Somers, L.

Craigavon, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sudeley, L.

Daventry, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Teviot, L.

Davidson, V.

Ilford, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

de Clifford, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lansdowne, M.

Wynford, L.

Derwent, L.

Latymer, L.

Young, Bs.

Dudley, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Provisions supplementary to section 8]:
5.35 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 12, line 26, at end insert—
("But the Minister may require the contractor to pay the proprietor such sums as he may think appropriate as compensation for the adverse effects to the newspaper.")
The noble Lord said: In our last debate we considered, under Clause 8, the position of a newspaper which met the conditions and could prove that it had been adversely affected as a consequence of, or because of the possibility of, commercial radio; and in this clause, as the noble Viscount has drawn to our attention, the Authority can decline to make use of subsection (5), which gives the prescriptive right,
"if it is their opinion that it would be contrary to the public interest for the proprietor of that newspaper to acquire a shareholding … "
I think your Lordships will have noticed that the noble Viscount felt it unwise to give us any definition of what the public interest is likely to be.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No. I think we know what the public interest is likely to be: what I did not want to define is what is contrary to it.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Viscount is more accurate in his phraseology: that comes from his professional training. I think, however, it will be accepted that in the case of the newspapers we have been discussing it would be very difficult for the Authority to feel that, in the public interest, these newspapers have in any way committed, or are likely to commit, any act in which public interest as we understand it may be involved. The Authority may, however, take the view, as I said in the earlier debate, that on the balance of advantage and disadvantage it would be better if these newspapers were not involved in the contracting company. However, when making what may be a difficult decision, a very finely balanced one, they will have to recognise that if they decline to let the newspaper become a shareholder that newspaper may be gravely affected adversely. My Amend-
1178
ment seeks to assist towards a solution of this matter.
The intention of my Amendment is that where the Authority feels that it would be contrary to the public interest, and where it may be finely balanced, as I have said, but where it is recognised that the economic consequences of a decision to debar particular newspapers, on perhaps a narrow ground, may affect them adversely, then
"the Minister may require the contractor to pay the proprietor such sums as he may think appropriate as compensation for the adverse effects to the newspaper."
What I am seeking to ensure here is that where, on perhaps very marginal grounds, the Authority feels that the newspaper should not be part of a contract as a consequence of subsection (5), it should know that, if it decides that way, the Minister has power to see that compensation is paid to the newspaper concerned for any adverse effect as a consequence of commercial sound radio.
I put this Amendment forward, basically, on the basis of trying to ease the difficulty with which the Authority may be confronted where there is a delicate, finely balanced decision to be taken, for perhaps it would then be possible for the Authority to err on the cautious side by not letting the paper enter well knowing that if it maintained that decision the newspaper would at least have some form of compensation and that it would be paid for by the contractor. I beg to move.
5.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I want to do justice to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd's argument because I appreciate the spirit in which he moved his Amendment; but if he wishes to discuss something with his noble friend I will wait for a moment.
LORD SHEPHERD: It was a question of forthcoming business, but the noble Viscount can proceed.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord was good enough to give me some notice of why he was moving this Amendment and I accept the spirit of helpfulness in which lie puts it forward. I think that there are some practical difficulties which perhaps in my terminology are of degree, but it may

1179
be that in some people's view they are difficulties of principle. I would start with the point that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, made a little while ago, which was probably more apposite to this particular Amendment than in fact to the one he was speaking to at the time, that some newspapers would not like to have any sort of compensation or subsidy even if it came from the contractor rather than from Government. We might run into difficulty here.
The other practical difficulty here, as it seems to us, is the method of trying to assess the compensation. In entirely different fields I have had to deal with the assessment of compensation, a capitalised sum for loss of notional future profits. It is a simple enough task in some cases, where you have fairly solid sets of accounts covering two, three, four or five years, which show a comparatively unchanging position and you are attempting to capitalise the effect of closing down that business altogether. There you take the five years, or the three years, or whatever period it is, and you apply to it for the purposes of compensation the number of years' purchase which the cunning surveyors tell you it is right to take. That is a situation with which most specialists in the sort of field in which I operate are fairly familiar. It is a fairly common practice in surveying and the courts are quite used to dealing with it.
The difficulty here is that the I.B.A. or the Minister, or somebody, would have to assess a sum to be paid by way of capital compensation or notional future adverse effect on the revenue of the newspaper which might come about by virtue of the deprivation of some of the advertisements that it would carry, or loss of circulation, or something of that sort. As this Amendment stands, I should have thought that the exercise was virtually impossible because I do not know how you would begin to calculate it.
The noble Lord in the process of argument—because we have dealt with Clause 8—has accepted the concept that there should be a right to buy into the programme contractor if there is adverse consequence. From that it follows that we must assume that the situation in which this Amendment would arise is
1180
one where it is judged that an adverse consequence would occur. Then one has to think of what sort of adverse consequence—how big an adverse consequence? How much do we need to compensate the newspaper for it? How do we assess it? One is also faced with this problem: that whereas the point of Clause 8 is to allow the newspaper to offset on an income basis from its profits—from its shareholding—any loss of revenue that occurs as a result of the adverse effect of the local radio station, here we have a once and for all capital sum which does not seem to me to be quite the same thing as what is being considered and dealt with in Clause 8. So I think there are conceptual and practical difficulties which are not at all easy of solution, and of course the noble Lord has not attempted to try and draft the way in which it is assessed.
Furthermore, I think one has here squarely to face a situation where there will be the possibility that a newspaper, although adversely affected, for some reason of public policy is not considered suitable as a candidate for shares in the programme contractor. One does not know what those circumstances would be, but it may be that one has just to accept that, as in the case of a newspaper in a consortium that does not get a station and is not entitled to shares as of right, or, in the case of the television world, a newspaper in a consortium that does not get a television contract, there would be some loss. This has happened before. I think we must face up to the possibility that it will happen again, and I fear that I see arising out of the noble Lord's solution more difficulties and problems than there would be advantages—which I accept would be substantial. But on the whole I think that the balance is against even this most helpful suggestion. I could not be more sympathetic with what the noble Lord is trying to suggest. I think it is a good idea and helpful to put forward. But perhaps on further consideration he may think that these difficulties are overwhelming and will not want to press his Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Viscount's sympathy does not get me very far. May I pose this question? Supposing the Evening Standard was part of a consortium that was successful with the Authority in getting a contract for

1181
London entertainment. Suppose the Evening News has been excluded from entertainment and applies to the Authority. Suppose the Authority, recognising the adverse effect that will have on the paper, then says: "Well, on balance we do not think it right that a newspaper of your size, importance and influence in the London locality—and the fact that you are part of a national combine and that your newspapers although they are basically London are also widely circulated—should be a participant in the contractor". It seems to be inconceivable that the Authority would then say: "Well, we will use Section 5"—I think it is (b)—"in order that you can now become a shareholder alongside the Evening Standard in the entertainment contractor". It may be that. I have sought to assist the Authority—and the noble Viscount recognised this—in that if it is confronted with this dilemma it will have the knowledge that if it makes a judgment of this sort it will not be spelling the death of a major London evening newspaper. The noble Lord said that this would be compensation. But what is Clause 8 but a system of compensation to certain local newspapers as a consequence of commercial television and the adverse effect upon them? Clause 8 stinks of compensation. That is why it is there. Therefore, the noble Lord's case for compensation as an issue in resisting my Amendment I do not think really stands up.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord has not followed me. The distinction I was trying to draw was between income compensation and capital compensation.
LORD SHEPHERD: I was coming to that. I must admit that when the noble Viscount was dealing with that, I realised the imperfection of my drafting. I certainly had not in mind one all-out capital payment, because I recognise that you may not do justice to the paper concerned. I accept to a certain extent—I think to the full extent—that it would be impossible to judge rightly between the paper or the contractor on a capital sum. When I drafted the Amendment I had an annual payment in mind. Then the noble Lord made what I thought appeared to be a good case about the difficulties of assessment. But what does Clause 8(6)(b) say? Subsection (6) reads:
1182
"The number and description of shares to be approved for the purposes of any such arrangements …
(b) in any other case, or (in a case falling within the preceding paragraph) to such extent as is consistent with that paragraph, shall be such as the Authority consider appropriate, having regard to the adverse effect which the broadcasting of the programmes to be provided under the contract in question is likely to have on the financial position of the newspapers."
The Authority is required to make an assessment of the extent of the adverse effect on the newspaper. True, in the first year the newspapers may have difficulty in producing evidence of this, but in later years no doubt they will be able to do so. But the point is that the Authority is required to make an assessment: so that part of the noble Viscount's argument against my Amendment falls to the ground by virtue of the Bill itself.
I do not intend to press this Amendment, because I recognise the spirit of the noble Viscount's attitude throughout this Committee. I merely ask him to consider this point. In the light of what may be a difficult decision by the Authority—and the matter of the public interest may have nothing sinister or ulterior in it; the Authority may simply feel that it would not be right—I personally feel that the Authority ought to make that decision knowing that they are not spelling the death of the particular newspaper. Therefore I would ask the Government to look at this matter in the spirit in which I have put it forward. There is a further Amendment which deals with other newspapers. I appreciate the difficulty, but the assessment case is already dealt with. The Authority is required to make an assessment and Clause 8 is really a compensation clause. It is dressed up, but it is compensation. There is really no issue of principle between us on this point; it is a question of practicability. I am certain that if the noble Viscount and the Government accept the principle, the draftsmen can find a way in which it can be implemented. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.52 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 12, line 26, at end insert—
("() Notwithstanding anything in section 8 of this Act, where it appears that the appropriate conditions are fulfilled by more than one

1183
newspaper in the locality and where it would be inequitable to approve acquisition for one newspaper and not others, the Authority shall not require arrangements to be made as mentioned in subsection (5) of section 8 of this Act provided the Minister concurs and the Minister may require the contractor to pay to trustees appointed by the Authority such sums as the Minister considers appropriate to compensate for the adverse effects to the said newspapers.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in a similar vein to the previous one. As the debate has proceeded it would appear that we are speaking solely of two local evening newspapers, the Evening News and the Evening Standard. In London there are many newspapers of great social and local importance and on the outskirts of the Greater London area there are a number of new papers that instead of selling their newspapers outwards are seeking to move their sales inwards. They, too, have a great contribution to make. This Amendment deals with the case where the Authority is satisfied that there is more than one newspaper that can clearly show that it is adversely affected as a consequence of local sound commercial radio. They may be affected to the point that they may well collapse. The Authority may say that it would be wrong to let in just one newspaper and to leave out all the others, to let one newspaper live and to let half a dozen or so die.
The practical problem here is that we cannot have too many newspapers as shareholders in a contracting company because the amount of "gravy" that would be then available to any newspaper clearly would not be sufficient to meet the adverse effects on its advertising revenue. But I think that there is a germ of an idea—and I put it forward merely on that basis—that where the Authority is satisfied (and where the Minister concurs) that more than one newspaper can show that they are adversely affected by a contracting company broadcasting in their locality—and here we have the problem of what is the definition of "locality"—then, instead of allowing only one newspaper to have a prescriptive right of shareholding in the company, the Minister should devise ways and means of raising money from that contractor as though all these newspapers were shareholding and so that such sums of money can be paid to a trustee (and so we get away from the problem of
1184
Ministerial distribution) for distribution to the various newspapers involved.
I recognise that this sum may not meet entirely the adverse consequences to all the newspapers, because I do not believe that these contractors are going to make very large profits. But, in equity, I should have thought it would be wrong to look at just one newspaper without at least providing a means for the Authority to help the other newspapers who have been adversely affected and who have as much contribution to make as the one major newspaper—and in some cases, because of the locality, even more. There should be some way in which a form of assistance from the contractor should be made available to all the papers concerned if the Minister and the Authority feel it right. I do not believe that my Amendment is perfectly drafted. It was an effort to meet the point that in equity we should not look solely at one newspaper likely to be adversely affected but look at all who can prove they have adverse effects; and that we should devise ways of assisting all the newspapers who are adversely affected as a consequence of this Bill. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Again the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as is his habit, has put a good deal of thought into this matter and has tried to work out a tenable solution—I am not going into the drafting—and has put forward the germ of a solution, as he called it, for what is certainly a possibility. Taken in conjunction with what he said on the previous Amendment, and now that the point he made has been explained a little more fully, probably it would be right for me to think about this matter a little further. But I must tell the noble Lord this: I do not at all know—in fact, I rather suspect that there may be some problem about this—whether the newspapers themselves would wish to have this subsidy. I heard what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Arran. He may be speaking from his own personal point of view or he may be voicing something which is fairly common in Fleet Street as well as in the various places where the more truly local newspapers are produced. If the local newspapers do not want this sort of cash subsidy, then I think we are faced with an impossible situation. The first thing I must do is try to find out whether they do want it.

1185
I do not think the noble Lord has asked them. If that is not a starter, then I am afraid that these Amendments are doomed. We cannot offer money to people who would say that it took away their independence, and that sort of thing.
The other possible way of doing this is that the Authority may find—the noble Lord talked about "gravy"—that they can distribute "gravy" in the form of fairly small shareholdings. I think that this situation is most likely to be acute in London; this is probably a London problem more than anywhere else. But The Authority must have in mind the difficulties that the noble Lord is talking about when it is looking at the way they will work Clause 8. This has nothing to do with public interest; it is just the overwhelming number of newspapers. I hope that the Authority will prove ingenious enough—it has in the past proved to be ingenious in some fairly difficult circumstances—to see that there are no newspapers left out in the cold without proper compensation.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd wants to take this Amendment further than the exploratory stage. Perhaps I could make a few inquiries about it, and perhaps the noble Lord would do so himself. I foresee difficulties. It seems to me that there is a distinct possibility that the Authority can overcome the practical problem by allocating shares; inviting newspapers to come in even though they were not in the original consortium. It may want quite a deal of flexibility in putting together the consortium for what inevitably may be a most important station and I suspect that in practice the Authority will be able to ensure that equity prevails, which is what the noble Lord wants and what I want.
6.2 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his conciliatory approach on this matter. May I make absolutely clear that I would not in any way suggest that one should force a subsidy, or any assistance, on any newspaper? Clause 8 leaves it to the newspaper to come to the Authority and establish that it wishes to be considered in this matter, and to submit the degree in which it has been, or will be, adversely affected. In other words, the entire initiative lies
1186
with the newspaper. I have no newspaper interests, nor have I been involved in any of these media; and apart from answering difficult questions at London Airport during the Nigerian campaign on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I have never appeared on television. Therefore I have no interest there. I have not approached anybody to see what are their views but have looked only at the Bill as a whole. It seems to me—and this is the burden of my case—that newspapers can be adversely affected and some could have a prescriptive right.
The difficulty does not apply entirely to London. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Denham, about the Birmingham station and whether it would cover Wolverhampton and Coventry. If it does, there are notable local papers in Wolverhampton and Coventry that would be as adversely affected as a local paper in Birmingham. This is the point I was trying to meet by my Amendment. The newspaper would have to show that it was fully in accord with Clause 8 and that the appropriate conditions existed. I hope that the noble Lord will look at this matter not just in terms of the London Evening News or Evening Standard, and all the local London papers, but from the point of view of some of the provincial newspapers which could be just as gravely affected as a central paper, perhaps in Birmingham.
On the grounds of equality we should see, if we can devise a way, that one newspaper does not get away with a little bit of the "gravy" and others, because of drafting and other problems, are denied it. If we can do this we shall have done something very important for the cause of local newspapers.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I did not hear my noble friend say that he was asking leave to withdraw the Amendment—
LORD SHEPHERD: Not yet.
LORD LEATHERLAND:—so I will take the opportunity to utter three or four sentences to emphasise one aspect of the gravity of this matter. First, I should say that I have no interest to declare. I have no television or broadcasting interests, so far as I know. I am wondering whether the Committee are fully seized of the very grave severity

1187
with which some newspapers may be smitten. Let us take the case, not of the London Evening News or Evening Standard, but of a relatively small locality in which there are two or three local weekly newspapers. It is 50 years since I worked on a local newspaper, but I read them fairly assiduously and I find that at least half of the advertising space is taken up by motor car advertisements, sometimes in the form of a 4-, 6- or 8-page supplement. I find also that perhaps one-third or more of the advertising space is taken up by advertisements for houses for sale.
Visualise the situation in which those newspapers will find themselves if the local broadcasting station decides to have an advertising feature on Monday night in which it offers for sale cars from £100 to £400, and on Tuesday night cars from £400 to £800; on Wednesday, cars from £800 to £1,000 each, and so on. They might have an advertising feature grading houses for sale in the same way. Those advertisements would be far more topical and attractive than the advertisements which appeared in two or three days' time in the weekend edition of the local paper. I fear that the motor advertising might be completely killed for some of the local newspapers, and "house for sale" advertisements might be similarly killed. If that were done, on the basis of the present advertising space allotted to those types of advertisements many local newspapers would find it absolutely impossible, from a financial point of view, to continue publication. So the only message I would leave with your Lordships is this. We have perhaps been thinking in terms of some of the cream being skimmed off the milk, if we introduced broadcasting advertising. I am suggesting that in some cases not only the cream but also most of the milk will go.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I first say a word about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland? He must bear in mind of course that the advertisements he suggested would be inserted in the sound programmes of the radio station not by the programme contractor but by the advertisers. So it would be a policy decision on their part to switch to sound radio from the Press. There is no connection
1188
—there cannot be—between the programme contractor himself and the people who put in the advertisements; there is a statutory debarment of that.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I do not like to interrupt the noble Viscount, but if the programme contractor made it public knowledge in the locality that on Monday night there would be advertisements for cheap cars, on Tuesday night for medium-priced cars, and so on, all the people with cheap cars to sell would send in their advertisements on Monday night and all the people with slightly more expensive cars on Tuesday night and so on; and you would get what is called an advertising feature for five minutes during one hour and five minutes during another. I feel that the motor advertising and the housing advertising in local papers could be killed stone dead by that.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think that a programme contractor who operated in that way would have to watch his step. I am not certain—I have not had time to look this up—to what extent it would be legitimate under the legislation for a programme contractor, of his own volition, to give advance knowledge of what the advertisements are going to be on a subsequent date. I should think he would get into trouble. But the noble Lord is on a much more substantial point than that: that is a technicality. The noble Lord has, I think, succeeded in producing a perfect example where Clause 8 would have come into effect, where a local newspaper would have good arguments to put up to the I.B.A. that it was likely to be adversely affected on its bread and butter advertisements by the arrival of the local broadcasting station. It is precisely that situation that Clause 8 is intended to meet, and precisely arguments of that sort that the I.B.A. are intended to have presented to them, will listen to and, one would hope if the situation is as serious as the noble Lord suggests, will put into effect by giving a proper allocation of the shares in the programme contractor to the newspapers so hard hit. That is the whole point of Clause 8. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has given us a good illustration, first of all of what might happen, and secondly, of the need for something like

1189
Clause 8 in the Bill. I am grateful to him.
To return to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, I do not think I can take this matter much further this afternoon. I know what the noble Lord is after. He knows that I am listening to him with sympathy and that if in the light of all that has been said we think that the system is likely to be unjust, and if there is anything that can be done within the bounds of possibility to remedy it, we will see whether we can do it. However, that is not intended to be a promise that I will be able to produce Amendments. I wish to respond to the noble Lord's constructive attitude on this matter. I am grateful to him, and hope that in the circumstances he will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Information as to programme contracts and applications for such contracts]:
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHEPHERD: On Tuesday, in the course of the discussion on an earlier Amendment, I asked the noble Viscount whether he could give us an explanation of the words in Clause 10(1)(c) which read as follows:
"subject to the next following subsection, a copy of so much of that contractor's application for such a contract as related to the character of the local sound broadcasts which he proposed to provide … "
I wonder whether the noble Viscount can give some assistance to the Committee in regard to the words, "related to the character of the local sound broadcasts".
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of this point. I have done my homework on it. May I say that perhaps I made rather heavy weather of the Amendment about criteria. I see that as a result I got pilloried by Peter Simple this morning, and broadly it serves me right. The difficulty was that at that stage I did not know whose criteria it was that the noble Lord's Amendment
1190
had in mind. But here we are on Clause 10, and I promised to look into this matter. I can tell the Committee the degree to which we have succeeded in clarifying our thoughts so far. It is not, of course, a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the I.B.A., and therefore we have approached them to see how they are working on it at the moment. The likely approach would be that the Authority would specify in its invitation for applications for a programme contract the kind of information about programmes that it wanted to see that station produce. In addition to the information which was disclosed in the application as a result of that requirement, the Authority would examine the applicants when they went in for their interview, or perhaps on paper, to find out the further information the Authority needed to gauge whether the applicant was a suitable group or whether it was the best out of a number that were applying for the contract. In the end they would choose a programme contractor. I think that at that stage they would agree with the programme contractor in question what information out of the material that had been collected, presented and discussed was to be, as it were, on deposit under Clause 10(1)(c).
It would therefore be a joint exercise. I think it would be likely to consist of all the information about programmes, and it would leave out the matters that were concerning me very much when we were discussing this subject on Tuesday; namely, the finance, the type of confidential matter that the Authority must have in order to judge the merits of the programme contractors, which has nothing to do with local character. Therefore we should probably have the basis of programme material, or promises of programme material, on which the Authority had awarded the contract. I believe that that is precisely what the noble Lord was asking for on Tuesday.
I would say only one other word on this point. The clause says, the noble Lord will remember, that any person can go and get the information on payment—and I think "any person" includes a newspaper. The only problem that would then arise would be the question of copyright if they tried to publish it in full. They could take legal advice on that, and

1191
I think there are devices whereby the essence of the information could be produced in the Press and then be criticised by the public, if they were interested, without infringing copyright. It may well be that we have gone about as far as the noble Lord wants to go in practice in the wording of the Bill in this regard.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am sorry to say that the noble Viscount has not gone anywhere near as far as that. I accept that the noble Viscount made a great deal of heavy weather on the Amendment, and I also suspect that, because of other pressures of work, he may not have done as much homework as he ought to have done on this Bill before we started it on Tuesday. I have of course been in the same position. The best thing I can tell the noble Viscount is to hire a good carrier pigeon to operate between the Box and the Bench, so that he can get the information carried to him fairly rapidly.
The character of local sound broadcasting which is part of the contract it seems to me is now going to be made available to a person who makes an application, and meets the points we sought in an earlier Amendment to have issued in the form of a statement; that is, the question of a reasonable portion of time on local matters; the number of minutes within the hour for advertisements—broad sections of programmes of that sort. There was nothing in our Amendment that required the issuing of information of what might be called a confidential nature. The noble Viscount has said that this information is available, or will be available, to any person who goes to the Authority.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No.
LORD SHEPHERD: That is my understanding of it. It says:
"The Authority shall"—
not "may"—
"on request made by any person or on payment by him of such sum as the Authority may reasonably require furnish to that person such one or more of the following as may be specified in the request …"
In other words, a person has a right, and the Authority "shall". The noble
1192
Viscount then said that newspapers could acquire it. The newspaper may wish to publish it. A local newspaper provides a service to its readers and to the community, and may well feel that this is the sort of material that should be made available. Then the noble Viscount said that there may be difficulties about copyright: in other words, the newspaper may acquire the particular information but may not feel in a position to publish it. But the question that I put to the noble Viscount, and which we put on Tuesday, is: have not the people in the locality a right to know the criteria under which these contracts have been awarded and the basis on which commercial sound radio is being provided? The only issue between us is whether it should be left to a person who wishes to go in and find out, taking the initiative, or whether this is a public service and it should be known widely as a consequence of a statement by the Authority. In my view, that should avoid the problem of copyright. So this is the only area of difference between us. I hope that between now and the Report stage. having overcome the difficulties as to what the public should or should not know, ways and means should be devised so that they can and will be informed as to the basis on which the contracts have been awarded.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Again, it is very easy to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It is not my carrier pigeons that were at fault but the fact that as the noble Lord had that Amendment down on Tuesday, I knew perfectly well that he would have read the Bill and have seen Clause 10. Therefore I suspected that his Amendment went a great deal wider. I think we have now cleared that up. If we are really down to a matter of copyright, I do not know of my own knowledge what the situation is, but I believe that so long as it is not the actual document which is printed but only the essence of it, it may be that the newspaper can do as the noble Lord wishes—publish the essence of it, according to the type, character and "localness" of the programmes which it is hoped to circulate round the locality. It may very easily be possible to do that. I will inquire about copyright, and if we need to do something about it then we shall. But

1193
I do not think that I can take this matter further at this stage of the Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I say to the noble Viscount—and I do not want to pursue this point because time is getting on—that I would not myself like to leave it to the local newspaper to decide to go in, to get it and then publish it. I think it is for the Authority to issue a statement. You will thereby avoid a lot of difficulty. True, it may mean an Amendment to the Bill and it may mean a little difficulty in finding time at the other end. All I would say to the noble Viscount is that if it is accepted that the Authority shall inform the public as to the basic criteria under which these licences have been granted, then I am sure that the Government will encounter no difficulty in seeing the Bill expedited through the other place, because I believe that, certainly from my side in the other place, it will be welcomed.
Clause 10 agreed to.
6.24 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 10 insert the following new clause:
Applications from sound broadcasting contractors
".—(1) The Authority shall during 1976 invite applications from contractors for the supply of sound broadcasting and any contract entered into prior to the 31st December 1975 shall terminate by the 31st December 1976.
(2) The Authority shall publish the criteria for sound broadcasting within each locality at least three months before inviting such applications."
The noble Lord said: In the Government White Paper An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting, paragraph 14 says:
"The Government believes that this system of 'rolling' three year contract periods is best suited to the needs of radio. It will afford the I.B.A. the opportunity to make a continuous assessment of the worth of the contractors in this new and untried field. The I.B.A.'s power to offer or withhold extension of the contracts will provide a warning system for the contractors. It will help them to keep their own performance under continual surveillance: it will also assure them of a year's grace after a first occasion of non-renewal in which to bring their standards up to the requirements of the Authority."
I think I said on Second Reading that this particular aspect gives me concern.
1194
I believe I am right in saying, so far as commercial television is concerned, that contracts are issued for a fixed period. This means that the contractors know the terminal date. Alternative or potential contractors know that the Authority will be considering, and no doubt inviting, new proposals for service and for television broadcasts. In other words, there is a possibility of new contractors coming in and providing service.
I am bound to say that paragraph 14, as I read it, could well lead to a nearly permanent occupancy by one contractor of one frequency in one locality. It seems to me that under this system there is no definite break period in which the Authority will consider new contractors, and that if you have performed all right you get a renewal, and that if you continue to do well the following year you get another renewal. In other words, if you perform satisfactorily it looks to me as though you can have the permanent occupancy of that frequency, but that if you fail one year you get a warning. If you get back into good favour with the Authority, then it starts to roll forward again. I do not believe that that is right. I do not believe that any one contractor, having been successful in the initial stages, should have any feeling of permanency on that frequency within that locality. Therefore, I am unhappy because I think this will be a consequence of what is called the "rolling" three-year contract period.
My Amendment again may be imperfectly drafted, but at least the noble Lord, Lord Denham, cannot say that he does not understand it. It means that the Authority shall, in the year 1976—that is the year in which the I.B.A. Charter will come to an end and when there will need to be new contracts as a consequence of new legislation—invite applications from contractors for the supply of sound broadcasting, and that any contract entered into prior to December 31, 1975, shall terminate by December 31, 1976. What I am seeking here is that any contract which is issued as a consequence of this will come to an end in 1976 but that the Authority shall then issue new invitations in order that new companies, new consortia, can submit proposals to the Authority. In that way we may get better commercial sound radio. That is the purpose of my Amendment.
The object of subsection (2) of the Amendment is that the Authority shall let it be known what criteria it would expect to lay down for the new contracts in the light of any changes there may have been since the original ones. I hope that I have made myself clear to the noble Lord, Lord Denham. He may be able to set my fears at rest. We shall hear what he has to say, but I hope that he can settle my fears that this "rolling" system will not mean in any way a permanence of any contractor on one frequency in one locality. I beg to move.
6.29 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: I will certainly do my best to set at rest the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I understand the noble Lord's Amendment and also the intention behind it. Of course, as I think he will appreciate, the difficulty is that his Amendment will not work at all, because the I.B.A. Licence comes to an end on July 31, 1976, and therefore any agreement with the I.B.A. must lapse before that date, whether or not it is made before December 31, 1975—and equally, of course, it would be impossible for the I.B.A. to invite new tenders in 1976, because nobody would ever have time to put them into effect and therefore nobody would ever apply. But I quite see the point here. This is a probing Amendment by the noble Lord, and on a hypothetical basis I will see whether I can set his mind at rest.
Of course the rolling three-year contracts will not operate until after 1976 because they will not have time to roll. It is very unlikely that the first squeak will come on the air until the latter part of next year—possibly even the year after. The Bill has to go through Parliament, the equipment has to be built and the companies set up. It is very unlikely that any company can start broadcasting three years before July 31, 1976 and so a company will not have even one extra day to roll on.
On a hypothetical basis the idea behind this is that obviously it is Her Majesty's Government's aim to get the best possible service. In getting the best possible service, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, appreciates, it is important to decide what length of contract you are going to have. If your length of contract is too short you are not going to give the contractor
1196
enough time to plan a programme. You are not going to enable him to give enough security to his potential employees to get the best people working for him. On the other hand, if the contract is too long the I.B.A. have lost their control because the time for renewing the contract is so far ahead that they cannot keep in close touch.
It is very difficult to reconcile these things with a fixed contract. This new and rather ingenious plan will get the best of both worlds. Some of your Lordships may not understand the rolling three-year contract. The position is that, not this time, but should the I.B.A. go ahead in a similar form each programme contractor shall have three years given to him from the start. At the end of the first year consideration is given to whether the contractor should have a fourth year tacked on to the end. If the I.B.A. consider the programme contractor satisfactory the fourth year is added on to the end. If the programme contractor is not satisfactory the contract is not extended; so the programme contractor only has two years left. If that happens at the end of the second year, there are three choices for the I.B.A. They can either refuse to extend, in which case the contractor will have one more year to run, and that will be the finish, no matter what happens; whereas the I.B.A. will have one year in which to get together a new company which will go on the air at the end of that year. If the I.B.A. are still not quite sure whether or not to keep the contractor on, they can give him one more year and that will turn it, in effect, into a rolling two-year contract. On the other hand, if the I.B.A. are satisfied that the programme contractor is doing very well indeed they can give him two years and that will revert to the rolling three-year contract. The following year when the contract comes up for renewal the contractor may or may not get his fourth year, as the case may be. I hope that makes the situation clear. To our mind the great advantage in this is, first, that the I.B.A. can keep contractors up to the mark the whole time because their contracts are coming up for renewal every year; secondly, in a fixed contract you have only two choices: do you renew it or not? This system gives a third choice—you can give a warning. The warning lasts for one year.

1197
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd is worried that this rolling three-year contract, which will no doubt serve very well to get rid of what is definitely a bad company, will not, possibly, get rid of a mediocre company.
LORD SHEPHERD: Let us assume you are a good company, are you entitled to say that you shall have a permanent position on that frequency in that locality?
LORD DENHAM: No.
LORD SHEPHERD: This is the point I was seeking to make, and I thought that the noble Lord was going on to suggest that this was so.
LORD DENHAM: If you are going to make this invitation to attract programme contractors, and you are going to say to them that they have a contract of a certain length and at the end of that time however well they have done or however badly they have done they will be out and new people will be in, you are not going to attract very many people. The programme contractor is not going to have an easy time in getting good people to work for him because they will know that the programme contractor cannot give any security of tenure. I do not know quite what the noble Lord has just said—I think it was a noise of disapproval: but this is so, if you are going to demand that the I.B.A. invites new applications every time there is a possibility of renewal (I am not quite clear from the noble Lord whether he approves of the three-year rolling contract). If you did that tied to the three-year rolling contract, you would have to invite renewals at the end of the first year and ask people to make application two years ahead in order to give the choice that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, wants the I.B.A. to have.
LORD SHEPHERD: Could the noble Lord help me? You have the rolling period three to four years. Is there a terminal date to that contract?
LORD DENHAM: There is in this Bill; but the idea is that if the company is good—and the company may be an extremely good one—the I.B.A. would see no reason to shut it down just because the contract had gone on for a certain length of
1198
time. Does that answer the noble Lord's point? Perhaps it does not satisfy him. The object in this Bill is to get the best possible service available. My point is that if you are going to say that one company has been going on for a certain amount of time and, whether it is good or bad, you are going to get rid of it and get somebody else, who may be worse or better, that is not the way to get the best service available.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord never ceases to astonish me; but I thank him very much for the careful explanation which he gave about the rolling contract—something which one sees in business on regular occasions. The reason for my astonishment is this. The noble Lord had one of the loudest voices, when he was on this side of the House, in favour of commercial sound radio. Why? First of all he thought it was wrong that there should be a monopoly—a State monopoly. He believes in competition. What he is now saying to your Lordships is that because you are a contractor, because you are subject to the profit motive, and providing you give a good service, you shall have the monopoly for that frequency and within that locality; that it would be wrong to take away that monopoly because you are providing a very good service. Do not let the noble Lord, Lord Denham, at Question Time or in debate, ever talk about the virtues of competition or the evils of monopoly,
because if he does he will get "clobbered".
I must not get too furious—I have kept my temper very well through this Committee stage. The noble Lord says—and this is the matter which gives me the greatest confidence because I have looked at the Bill and it seems that the noble Lord is right—that it is impossible for these contracts to go beyond 1976. I am going to make certain that the noble Lord has his aspiration: that if we are to have an Act after 1976 for commercial local sound radio there will not be any monopoly for some privileged individual or individuals to make profit. And if there is to be competition, I hope that we on this side of the Committee shall ensure that it is genuine.
LORD DENHAM: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, as I am sure he will, I would make just one point.

1199
I certainly believe in competition, but if you are going to say that the one man or the one company you are going to exclude from doing the job is the one man or the one company who you know has been doing the job well for the last three years, then that to my mind is not competition.
LORD SHEPHERD: But is it not a monopoly? Does the noble Lord really say that a group of individuals should be able to have the undoubted, indefinite right, merely because they produce a good programme, to a scarce national asset; that they have an undoubted right to make profit and to deny others, who could produce equally good programmes, of the same opportunities of making profit? To my mind, that is a monopoly and not competition. I hope we shall seek to deal with this point when we have a new Act. But I think it will not be noble Lords opposite who will produce such an Act. We shall have a better Act than they could produce. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Short title, citation, interpretation, extent and commencement]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 14:
Page 15, line 8, leave out from ("operation") to end of line 10 and insert ("on 30th July 1976.")
The noble Lord said: At this very late hour of twenty minutes to seven, and as it is Thursday evening when many noble Lords have departed to their estates and their crofts, this would not be the time to make a decision on what is an Amendment of great importance in principle. Therefore, I do not intend to move Amendment No. 14 this evening. But I give the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, notice that we shall move it on Report, and we shall seek, with the co-operation of the usual channels, which I am certain the noble Viscount will help us to obtain, to see whether we can have a debate on this important issue, and have a vote at a reasonable time, so that noble Lords may have an opportunity to vote having listened to the debate.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that on Report he would move Amendments. Of course, technically no Amendments have been made to this Bill, but we are conceding a separate Report stage.
LORD SHEPHERD: We certainly should have opposed this otherwise.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I just wanted to make quite sure that the noble Lord was aware of it.
Remaining clause and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, without amendment.