Sitting of 25 November 1953

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROADS

    Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he can yet state the result of the traffic check to assess the current needs for the completion of the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel carried out by Metropolitan Police officers and representatives of the London, Kent and Essex County Councils.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I understand that the anaylsis of the results of this survey has not yet been completed.
    Mr. Dodds:In view of the great importance of this scheme and the great interest in it, can the Minister state when it is likely that it will be completed?
    Mr. Molson:The figures from the Kent County Council have been received and those from Essex are expected shortly. It will then take about a week for the Divisional Road Engineer to check the results and, after that, it is hoped that the survey will be completed.

    Pedestrian Crossings (Flashing Beacons)
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the fact that the intermittent flashing amber beacons on zebra crossings are tending to confuse motorists who drive up to them and thereby increase the possibilities of road accidents; and whether he will change the system of lighting up zebra crossings.
    Mr. Molson: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon.
    328
    Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) and the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) on 18th November.
    Mr. Davies: Whilst thanking the Minister for that reply and informing him that I have looked through those answers, may I ask whether he or the Ministry have consulted the Road Research Laboratory on the effect of these flashing beacons? They say that there has been a 14 per cent. decrease in the number of deaths of pedestrians as a result of the installation of zebra crossings. Would the Minister be prepared to finance a little research into the use of these flashing beacons? Does he not agree that that research could be conducted by the Road Research Laboratory and that funds from motor taxation could be raided for the purpose?
    Mr. Molson:These flashing beacons were introduced at the suggestion of the Road Research Laboratory.

    Eton High Street (Accidents)
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in view of the danger of accidents in Eton High Street, where an elderly man and a college boy have recently been knocked down, he will take steps to reduce the speed limit to 15 miles per hour and to have a notice displayed between the Playing Fields and the Burning Bush reminding motorists that there is a speed limit.
    Mr. Molson: I am doubtful whether either of these measures would reduce accidents on this road, but I am having a special investigation made and will communicate again with the hon. Member.
    Mr. Brockway:Will the Minister speed up this investigation? Is he aware that this little country road, passing between antique shops, has become a major traffic road between north and south? Is he aware that the chairman of the transport committee of the urban district council and a master at Eton College says:
    "…the dangers of Eton High Street and of the College area are perfectly frightful and I am very anxious lest some extremely serious accident should take place. For example, some 20 boys"—
    Hon. Members: Speech.
    Mr. Speaker:These supplementary questions are really getting too long.
    Mr. Brockway: I accept that at once, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware that there is danger, not only to the College boys, but to the boys of the elementary school and the old folk from the alms houses? Will he do something speedily in this matter to prevent accidents?
    Mr. Molson: I have made myself familiar with the traffic problems that exist on this road.

    Safety Exhibition
    Mr. P. Robertsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will authorise expenditure to assist the travelling road safety display, at present operated by Mr. A. H. Pollitt, 12, Browning Road, Wadsley Bridge, Sheffield, 6, in order that his display may be made available throughout the country, thereby helping to reduce the rising toll of road accidents.
    Mr. Molson:Local authorities who wish to hire travelling road safety displays can obtain a grant of 50 per cent. towards the cost from the Ministry. Should any local authority think it worth while to hire Mr. Pollitt's exhibition, these arrangements would apply.

    Improvements, Scotland
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what major road improvements, costing over £500,000 each, have been commenced, completed, or contemplated in Scotland in the current financial year; and on what similar projects can a start next year be undertaken.
    Mr. Molson:In the current year, none, Sir. I cannot say what schemes can be started next year until we know what funds will be available.
    Mr. Hamilton:Is not this a sorry state of affairs? Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary not aware that he said last week that priorities were indicated in each year's Estimates, and are we to take it that the Government do not think that a single scheme in Scotland is worth priority to the extent of £500,000? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that each of the first four years of the Forth Road
    330
    Bridge project would involve less than £500,000, and does he not think it desirable that at least a start should be made on this very desirable project?
    Mr. Molson:The hon. Member will have to await the publication of the Estimates, and, without making any commitment, I hope that it may be possible to incorporate some substantial schemes for the benefit of Scotland next year.
    Mr. Woodburn:Would the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to look very carefully at some of the very dangerous roads which urgently need improvement, such as the main road between Glasgow and Stirling, which is a really disastrous road so far as traffic is concerned? There should be some arrangement of an urgent nature to get it put right.
    Mr. Molson:I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and we have that road very much in mind.
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how the priorities concerning major transport projects in Scotland in the financial year 1954–55 will differ from those of the cur rent year; and what are the reasons for such differences.
    Mr. Molson: I cannot say what priorities will be next year until we know what funds will be available.
    Mr. Hamilton:Can the Minister give us a specific undertaking that a definite list of priorities will be indicated in the forthcoming Estimates, and can he indicate whether there is any prospect at all of the Forth Road Bridge featuring in it?
    Mr. Molson:I think the hon. Gentleman is quite capable of understanding the Estimates when they are produced.

    Loch Ainort-Sconsor Road
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when it is intended to commence work on the Loch Ainort-Seonsor diversion road; and when it is expected that this will be completed.
    Mr. Molson: As I have already informed my hon. Friend, it will not be possible to include this scheme in the £1 million Highland programme which is to be carried out during the next three

    331
    years. It will, however, be reconsidered in the light of whatever funds may be available for Highland roads after the expiration of the present programme.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Do I understand that answer to mean that it will not be started for another three years? May I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the Kyleakin-Portree road, by which most people come on to and leave Skye? This road is not only very important to the tourist industry—and most of the services are at present in a shocking state—but in its present state it is a considerable incubus to the present population of Skye.
    Mr. Molson:We are aware of the importance of this road. I did not mean to convey that in no circumstances will work upon it begin during the next three years. I meant to say that it is not one of the works which can be undertaken out of the present £1 million grant. When the Estimates are presented that will be considered with other Scottish projects which are also of considerable importance.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Trooping Contracts
    Mr. Lindgrenasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when trooping was first reserved for the independent charter operators.
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when the nationalised civil aviation corporations were asked not to tender for trooping so that the independent charter operators could tender without fear of competition from the nationalised corporations.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): The reservation of trooping to independent charter operators, so far as it exists, derives from the principle, established for many years, that charter work is only incidental to the main business of the Corporations. The intention which my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 27th May, 1952, that the Corporations would not maintain aircraft specifically for charter work naturally precludes them from tendering for regular trooping flights but
    332
    they are not thereby debarred from tendering for ad hoc troop movements.
    Mr. Lindgren: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he would agree that the statement by his right hon. Friend on 27th October, reported in column 2748 of the Official Report, was therefore inaccurate?
    Mr. Profumo:As the hon. Member will admit, my right hon. Friend has already written to him fully on this subject. What my right hon. Friend had in mind when he made that statement was that under the late Government trooping contracts were always then placed by competitive tender, a practice which, for various reasons, naturally gave independent operators certain competitive advantages.
    Mr. Callaghan: Would it not be better for the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw the statement made by the Minister that trooping was reserved first of all by the Socialist Government, as that was inaccurate?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not know whether the hon. Member has seen the letter my right hon. Friend wrote. I think that it would be wrong for me to withdraw something which my right hon. Friend said, because I have indicated clearly to the House that my right hon. Friend was trying to impart an intention, and if the statement was misunderstood the letter to the hon. Member for Welling borough (Mr. Lindgren) was intended to try to clear up the matter.
    Mr. Callaghan: I accept that, but will not the Parliamentary Secretary say quite simply that the statement that the reservation of trooping for independent operators was decided by the Socialist Party was wrong?
    Mr. Profumo: It did amount to the reservation of trooping contracts to independent operators, but, in so far as my right hon. Friend may have misled the House, I know that he would wish me to withdraw and correct the impression which was given.

    Maintenance Staff, Renfrew Airport
    Mr. John Taylorasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps are being taken to avoid the gradual

    333
    reduction of activity and skilled staff at Renfrew Airport as a result of the present policy of concentrating all overhaul and maintenance work on Elizabethans and Viscounts in London Airport and all similar work on Pionairs and Vikings in Renfrew Airport with consequent lessening activity in the latter as the older types of aircraft are sold.
    Mr. Profumo:I understand that the management of British European Airways and representatives of the trade unions concerned are in consultation on this matter through the machinery of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport. No decisions on the future activity of the Renfrew maintenance base will be reached before further meetings have been held.
    Mr. Taylor: Would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary be willing to pass on to this Joint Committee the following considerations: the importance of maintaining an aircraft industry in Scotland, the threat that exists to that industry and the need for some alternative work at Renfrew Airport to take the place of the work that is departing because of the sale of the older types of aircraft?
    Mr. Profumo:In so far as those problems concern the consultations which are now taking place, I am quite sure that they are well aware of them.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that this seems to indicate a change of policy on the part of B.E.A.C. and that there is genuine apprehension in Scotland that this industry may be lost to Scotland?
    Mr. W. Elliot:Before my hon. Friend answers, might I ask him whether he is in consultation with the Service Departments as to the great importance of the dispersal of aircraft work and the strong inadvisability of concentrating it especially within easy bombing range of the Continent?
    Mr. Profumo: These matters are all well known and are under consideration.

    Aircraft Crash, Sicily (Report)
    Mr. Bennasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why he has accepted the findings of the Italian authorities on the Hermes air crash off Sicily.
    Mr. Profumo:My right hon. Friend is in general agreement with the findings of the report. The fact that Italian accident investigation procedure does not include a similar provision to that made in Regulation 7 (5) of the United Kingdom Regulations is only relevant in this case to publication.
    Mr. Benn:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the operating company were not allowed to have a representative at the inquiry into one of their own aircraft, nor were the survivors consulted by the Italian Commission in arriving at their conclusion and producing a report which the Minister himself says is a violation of elementary British justice? Is he aware that this cannot be regarded as the end of the matter?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary proposing to deal with this matter?
    Mr. Profumo:I have nothing to add to what I have just said, and I made a very full statement on the subject the other day during the adjournment debate.
    Mr. Callaghan: With respect, could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why he refuses to hold an inquiry himself?
    Mr. Profumo:I thought I made it very clear the other day in the statement I made to the House. If, on reading it, the hon. Gentleman finds that there is any misunderstanding or anything about which he is not clear, perhaps he will put down a Question.
    Mr. Callaghan:With great respect, it is precisely because the Parliamentary Secretary did not make this clear that we are now asking him about it. Why can he accept the report of the Italian Government of an inquiry on an aircraft operated by a company in this country?
    Mr. Profumo:As I have already said, my right hon. Friend is satisfied with the findings of the report.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that this matter was thoroughly discussed on an Adjournment debate. It is unfair to other hon. Members to try to repeat that discussion now.
    Mr. Benn:In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Mr. Bennasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what representations were made to the Italian authorities investigating the Hermes air crash off Sicily by Her Majesty's Government, either for themselves, or on behalf of the survivors, the crew or the operating company.
    Mr. Profumo:During the investigation a list of representations compiled by a committee representing the surviving passengers was forwarded to the Italian Commission by Her Majesty's Government, but no other representations were made.
    Mr. Benn:Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that the British Government have some responsibility to the operating company regarding this crash, because they were unable to have a representative at the investigation, and that the Government should press the matter? Secondly, may I ask why the Government did not forward to the Italian commission of inquiry the replies to the questionnaire sent to the survivors, until at a late stage they were, in fact, asked for by the Italians?
    Mr. Profumo:This matter was entirely in the hands of the Italian Government under International Regulations. Her Majesty's Government feel that everything was done correctly and that nothing has been ignored which our Department should have dealt with during the course of the investigation.
    Mr. Benn:In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Bennasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why he has circulated the Italian report on the Hermes air crash off Sicily to certain survivors of the accident.
    Mr. Profumo:It is the normal procedure to circulate copies of unpublished accident reports to those interested parties who ask for them.
    Mr. K. Thompson:On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to address a Question to a Minister when he has previously given notice that he intends to raise the subject of the Question on the Adjournment?
    Mr. Speaker:That had occurred to me, but this is a new point, though it should not be followed up by supplementary questions.
    Mr. Benn:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 13 survivors of this aircraft tell me that they regard the position as unsatisfactory and that a further 10, including the inspector of Civil Aviation in the Sudan, have asked me to take the matter a step further? Does he realise that the handling of this matter by his Department is totally unsatisfactory in every way?
    Mr. Speaker:Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will pursue that in the debate on the Adjournment.

  TRANSPORT

    Road Services Licensing (Report)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now state the expected date of publication of the Report of the Thesiger Committee established to inquire into certain aspects of the statutes in relation to road passenger transport matters.
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he can now announce the date of publication of the Thesiger Report.
    Mr. Molson:My right hon. Friend hopes that the Report will be published at the beginning of December.

    Railway Safety Devices
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has now considered all the implications of the Report upon the Harrow train disaster; and whether he will make a statement as to the measures he proposes to adopt to improve railway safety in every sphere, including standardisation and general application of systems of multi-light colour signalling and automatic train control devices.
    Mr. Molson:My right hon. Friend has now considered all the implications of the Report upon the Harrow train disaster. As he informed the House on 6th July, the Transport Commission, who are responsible for safety of railway operation, has decided to extend automatic train control. As my hon. Friend is aware, trials with new equipment designed for this purpose are being conducted on the Barnet—Huntingdon line. In addition, multi-aspect colour light signalling is being extended where justified by the traffic. The standards for new signalling works are laid down in the official publication entitled "Requirements for Passenger Lines and recommendations for Goods Lines."
    Mr. Nabarro: A very good answer.

    Headlights (Dazzle)
    Mr. Keenanasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is considering the dangers arising out of the unrestricted use of motor headlights on roads; and what steps he is taking to avoid the dangers which arise from the misuse of headlights.
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the action he proposes to take on the question of the universal system of headlamp dipping on mechanically propelled road vehicles.
    Mr. Molson:We are acutely aware of the problem of headlamp dazzle. Many suggestions have been made on this subject, but we are not satisfied that any of the methods so far proposed offers a satisfactory solution. A series of international tests, in which our technical advisers are taking part, is to be held in America next year, and my right hon. Friend proposes to await the outcome of these before considering further action in this country. As regards dipping, we do not think it desirable at present to go beyond the provisions of the Highway Code, which advises motorists to dip their headlamps when meeting other vehicles unless there are exceptional circumstances which make it unsafe to do so.
    Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware that the absence of regulations means that only by observing the courtesy of the
    338
    road does an individual dip his headlights? Is the Minister aware that because this is not done very serious accidents are caused, particularly on country roads. Is it not true that in France there are regulations which do something to enforce the dipping of lights to prevent this type of accident?
    Mr. Molson: The question of whether it is desirable to make the dipping of headlights compulsory was considered. It was decided not to do so for two reasons. The first was the difficulty of prescribing precisely the occasions and the time when lights were to be dipped and, secondly, the difficulty of enforcing any such law.
    Mr. Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since May, 1952, representations were made to his Department by a trade union catering for a large number of omnibus drivers expressing grave apprehension at the variety of instructions relating to headlight dipping? Is he further aware that in February, 1953, his right hon. Friend informed the trade union concerned that he was considering a report he had received from the Road Research Laboratory? How much longer will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter before coming to a decision?
    Mr. Molson: The Road Research Laboratory is constantly at work on this subject. We have discovered that a large proportion of the headlamps in use on the roads are not correctly focussed, which undoubtedly greatly increases the danger. This matter is under constant consideration and discussion, and experiments are constantly being undertaken by the Road Research Laboratory on the subject, but, as I mentioned in my reply, no final decision will be come to until after the experiments have taken place in the United States.
    Mr. R. Bell:Does my hon. Friend realise that this matter is rather urgent and has been under consideration for a very long time? Is it possible to introduce some such system as there is in France of having yellow headlamps, without prejudice to a later and better solution? Will the Department confer with the Home Office to ensure that the existing lighting Regulations requiring that lamps are properly focussed and that the dipping device is in working order are better enforced?
    Mr. Molson: In the first place, it is important that we should not constantly alter the Regulations. Therefore, it is very much better for us to wait until we are quite convinced that we can improve the present Regulations. Research is taking place upon this matter the whole time as I have said, and we are fully alive to its importance and urgency.

    Licensing (Prohibition Notices)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many of the 21,200 prohibition notices issued by officials of the licensing authorities in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 (3) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, during the years ended 30th September, 1952, and 1953, respectively, related to British Road Service vehicles.
    Mr. Molson: Of the 21,189 notices issued during the year ended 30th September, 1952, 1,175 related to vehicles operated by the British Transport Commission; separate figures for vehicles employed by British Road Services are not available. Figures for the year ended 30th September, 1953, are not yet complete.
    Mr. Davies:Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that these figures indicate that the British Road Services vehicles have been kept in a comparatively better serviceable condition, inasmuch as the number of notices has not been so large, than those of private operators? Does that not show that the break-up of the organisation and its return to a large number of small units will lead to a deterioration in the condition of the road haulage vehicles on the roads?
    Mr. Molson: No, Sir. The figures actually point to a diametrically opposite conclusion. This prohibition was applied to 1 in 47 of the vehicles in the hands of private owners and to 1 in 46 of those owned by the British Transport Commission.

    Crash Helmets
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what information he has demonstrating the protective value of crash helmets to
    340
    motor-cyclists involved in accidents; and whether there is a supply of these helmets sufficient for all motor-cyclists.
    Mr. Molson: Medical research shows that the wearing of the best type of helmet greatly reduces the likelihood of fracture of the skull in accidents and makes head injuries generally less severe; and sample figures taken before crash helmets were common in civilian use indicated that the incidence of head injuries in motor-cycle accidents was over 50 per cent. among civilian riders but only about 27 per cent. among Army riders wearing crash helmets. I understand from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that supplies of crash helmets appear to be keeping pace with the present demand.
    Mr. Sorensen:What percentage of motor-cyclists is it estimated wear these crash helmets, and can something be done to secure a large production of these helmets at a reasonable price to encourage their purchase by motor-cyclists?
    Mr. Molson: I am afraid that I have no figures to show how many motorcyclists wear them, but steps have been taken by the President of the Board of Trade to make these helmets readily available; since 13th November they have been on open general licence for importation as there are certain good French and German designs

  SHIPPING

    Secondhand Shipping(Sale)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that a large amount of secondhand shipping is being sold to nations that refuse to recognise international regulations and the Convention on Safety of Life at Sea laid down by the International Labour Organisation; that these vessels will be competing with our own Merchant Navy, which conforms to stringent regulations; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this matter.
    Mr. Molson: I am aware that a substantial tonnage of United Kingdom secondhand shipping has been sold to countries that have not yet accepted the International Convention for the Safety

    341
    of Life at Sea, 1948, which I take it the hon. Member has in mind. We believe that of these, the countries which have the largest fleets will accept the Convention before long. To prevent the sale of secondhand tonnage to those countries which have not so far accepted the Convention would merely deprive the British shipping industry of much needed funds for replacement, without, in my opinion, expediting their acceptance of the Convention.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that since 1939 Panama has jumped from ninth to fourth on the list of maritime nations, having increased her tonnage by 500 per cent., while this country has increased her tonnage by only 15 per cent.? Is he also aware that Panama is refusing to carry out the recommendations of the I.L.O.? Cannot the hon. Gentleman do something to boycott the sale of shipping to Panama until the Regulations are adopted by that country?
    Mr. Molson: The hon. Member asked me in his Question about Conventions on the Safety of Life at Sea. The only such Convention to which Panama has not conformed is that of 1948. This year, by executive decree, the President of Panama required Panamanian ships to put that Convention into operation. As to the Conventions of the International Labour Office, we are not guided in our decisions about giving permission for the sale of ships by the question of whether or not a country applies or has ratified those agreements.
    Mr. Awbery rose—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has had a long supplementary reply.

    Transferred Tonnage (Panama)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many vessels were transferred from the British to the Panama flag in 1951 and 1952; what was the tonnage involved; how many were of new construction; and how many secondhand.
    Mr. Molson: In 1951 and 1952 75 ships of 426,000 gross tons were transferred from the United Kingdom and colonial registers to Panama. Five ships of 62,000 gross tons were also completed in British yards for first registry in Panama.
    Mr. Awbery:Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a large part of the shipping sold to Panama is slum shipping, some of it 30 years old? Is he not aware that a large amount of the shipping owned by Panama companies is under the control of nationals of other countries, who sail under the Panama flag because they can evade the obligations of the I.L.O., and is he doing anything about that?
    Mr. Molson:In considering whether or not to allow the transfer of tonnage from the British register to other registers, my Department is influenced by considerations of national security and not by considerations relating to I.L.O. Conventions.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the figure of the tonnage of shipping which he indicated as having been transferred to Panama—426,000 tons—represents only 2 per cent. of the total British Mercantile Marine tonnage and is, therefore, practically nugatory?

    Oil Pollution
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what evidence his Department has from local authorities concerned of the cost incurred by them in clearing beaches of oil residues.
    Mr. Molson: I am aware that expenditure has been incurred by local authorities in clearing oil residues from beaches, but I do not know how much.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Gentleman's Department collect such evidence, because all the arrangements now being made to deal with this nuisance are of a long-term nature, whereas the pollution of the beaches is a vital matter here and now, and many local authorities are saddled with very heavy expenditure?
    Mr. Molson:I should not be willing to ask the local authorities about their expenditure upon this matter. It would only lead them to ask us to make a contribution towards it, and the Ministry of Transport has no funds available for that purpose. As I indicated last week, my right hon. Friend has called an international conference for early next year with a view to putting into effect the recommendations of the Committee on the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by

    343
    Oil. If we are able to get agreement upon that, this very serious problem will then be solved.
    Mr. G. Wilson: Can my hon. Friend devise any means whereby his Department might assist local authorities to deal with this very difficult menace?
    Mr. Molson:We should naturally be willing to consider any suggestions which my hon. Friend cares to put forward, provided that it does not involve State expenditure.
    Mr. Hayman: As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's answer was so unsatisfactory, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    VISITING FORCES (STATUS)
    Mr. Woodasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when Her Majesty's Government will ratify the agreement regarding the status of forces of parties to the North Atlantic Treaty.
    Mr. Collickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he anticipates an agreement being reached with the Government of the United States of America, whereby members of the United States armed forces committing offences in Britain will be subject to the criminal and civil law of this country.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): Before Her Majesty's Government can ratify the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Status of Forces Agreement, the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, must be brought into force by Orders in Council made under the Act. Her Majesty's Government intend to present these Orders to Parliament at an early date. The provisions of the Visiting Forces Act will then apply. American and certain other N.A.T.O. forces in this country will then be subject to the jurisdiction of British criminal courts except in respect of offences committed on duty or against the persons or property of other members of the American forces or against the property of the American authorities. Members of the United States forces are already subject to the jurisdiction of our civil courts.
    Mr. Wood:When the Visiting Forces Act comes into operation and this Agreement also comes into operation, am I right in thinking that any offence committed by a member of a visiting force when off duty can be dealt with in a court in this country?
    Mr. Nutting:When the Visiting Forces Act comes into force, any member of any armed forces specified in the Order in Council bringing the Act into force will be subject to British criminal jurisdiction, except in the cases I have mentioned in my original answer.
    Mr. Collick:Is the Minister aware that where a British court makes an affiliation order against an American soldier it is not enforceable, and will the reply he has given cover that position? It does not appear to.
    Mr. Nutting:I should like notice of that Question. As I understand it, the position is quite clear with regard to criminal jurisdiction, but in regard to a matter of that kind I should like to see a Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Collick: If I understand his reply aright, the hon. Gentleman said that the present position covers civil cases. My information is that affiliation court orders by British courts are not enforceable against United States personnel, and that is the point I am raising.
    Mr. Nutting:If I may say so, that is all the more reason why I should like to see a Question on the Order Paper, when the hon. Gentleman may receive a perfectly clear and straightforward answer.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke:Is my hon. Friend aware that in the case of committal orders for civil debt many county court judges refuse to enforce them against visiting service personnel on the grounds that it is against the spirit of the Visiting Forces Act. Is that the considered view of the Foreign Office in this matter?
    Mr. Nutting: The Act, as I have made plain, is not yet in operation.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman recall the specific assurance given by his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary when this Bill was in Committee and on Second Reading,

    345
    that the Order in Council bringing the Act into operation would not be promulgated until it was clear that reciprocal arrangements were being accepted by the United States Government in their own territories? Are we to take his announcement now as meaning that this assurance has been given?
    Mr. Nutting:As the hon. Gentleman knows, the United States have ratified the Status of Forces Agreement and the Home Secretary made an explanation at some length to the House last night, which was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). We awaited the ratification of this Agreement by the United States before bringing this Order before Parliament. We hope to bring it before Parliament shortly.
    Mr. Ede: Will the hon. Gentleman read what his right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday afternoon, because it would appear from that that there is no satisfactory answer yet regarding the question of reciprocity.
    Mr. Beswick:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that authorities responsible to the Government, controlled by the Government, are tendering advice to citizens in this country that although in theory they have redress in a civil court, in practice, the difficulty of carrying out such an order makes it not worth the expense incurred?
    Mr. Silverman: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of some of the replies which have been made, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    PERSIAN OIL NATIONALISATION (BRITISH RECOGNITION)
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government recognises the legality of the nationalisation of oil in Persia in the same terms as stated by the preceding Government at the time of the Mission of the right hon. Member for Ipswich to Teheran.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): The present Government, as I understand their predecessors also, are prepared to recognise the
    346
    principle of the nationalisation of oil in Persia within the framework of an arrangement which, on the basis of justice and equity, satisfies the interests of the parties concerned.
    Mr. Brockway:While appreciating that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will make it known in Persia, where there seems to be some doubt about it?
    Mr. Eden: I think that it would go rather well in Persia.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he means that in fact what Her Majesty's Government now recognise—still recognise—is what we know as the March nationalisation law and that they do not yet accept the April nationalisation law, because that has an essential difference in Persia?
    Mr. Eden: I have been very careful in my answer. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are considerable legal complications in this matter. As I understand the position, certainly neither this Government nor, from my researches through the documents, the previous Government have recognised the legality of the action hitherto taken by the Mossadeq Government. What we have said, and what I repeat now, is that we recognise the principle of nationalisation of oil subject to certain conditions being fulfilled.
    Mr. Stokes: Yes, Iknow, but, for the purpose of clarification, will the Foreign Secretary say that that in effect means the acceptance of the March law in Persia and not the acceptance of the April law, which is a very different one? The whole of the negotiations in 1951 were carried out on the basis of the March nationalisation law.
    Mr. Eden: The matter is slightly more complicated than that. The nationalisation matter is inevitably connected with the question of compensation. Now that I am embarking on these new negotiations with the Persian Government I do not think that it is desirable to raise that in an acute form, but I have to safeguard our national position and that of the company, and that is why I used the words which I have employed.

    ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
    Mr. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what answer he has sent to the petition signed by nearly 1,000 Grimsby trawler men's wives and organised by Mrs. Irene White, 72, Daubney Street, Cleethorpes, which asked him to take decisive action to settle the Icelandic fishing limits dispute, since it may make it impossible for British trawlers to make a living in Icelandic waters and cause unemployment and distress in the Grimsby district.
    Mr. Nutting:I replied to Mrs. White on behalf of my right hon. Friend on 23rd November; and will send my hon. Friend a copy of my letter.
    Mr. Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety in the district that this dispute has lasted so long? Is there anything he can do to break the deadlock? Is he aware that the matter is causing considerable anxiety to the traders and to the whole people of Grimsby and district? Is there any hope that the dispute may be settled in the near future?
    Mr. Nutting:As my hon. Friend knows, we have made many propositions to the Icelandic Government for taking this matter to the International Court, for direct talks between Governments and for direct talks between the trawling interests, and we have made proposals through diplomatic channels. All these have either been rejected or frustrated by the Icelandic Government. Should any further ideas occur to the Government we shall, of course, try them out. Meanwhile, we think that the Icelandic Government might make a proposal.
    Mrs. Braddock:Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Foreign Office are not being held to blackmail by the Trawler Owners' Association?
    Mr. Osborne: Nonsense.
    Mrs. Braddock: Can the hon. Gentleman give some explanation of the fact that on 26th October a fish merchant in Grimsby asked the representative of the Grimsby Trawlers Owners' Association why the Foreign Office was not doing more in this matter and the amazing reply he received was, "Because we will
    348
    not let them"? Can the hon. Gentleman give any explanation of that position?
    Mr. Nutting: The Government are not being held to blackmail by the trawling industry, nor are they responsible for the answers which individual trawler owners or fishermen may give.

    GERMANY (OCCUPATION COSTS)
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements have been made with the Federal German Government for the payment of the British occupation costs after the end of the present year.
    Mr. Nutting: As long as the occupation régimeis in force, the Federal German Government meet the local costs of the British occupying forces in accordance with their requirements. We are at present discussing with the Federal German Government our requirements for the period after the end of the present year.
    Mr. Fletcher:As it is now very doubtful whether the European Defence Agreement will be fully ratified, may we have an assurance that next year there will be no reduction in the present contribution of the Germans towards the cost of the British occupation forces?
    Mr. Nutting:As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 7th May, 1953, arrangements have been made to ensure that the cost of our troops in Germany will be covered between the date of ratification of the Bonn Convention and the E.D.C. Treaty—which are to be ratified simultaneously as the hon. Gentleman knows—and 30th June, 1954. Thereafter, of course, German defence contributions will be assessed in the same way as that adopted in N.A.T.O. But if the occupation régime should still be in force on 30th June, 1954, then, of course, the existing arrangement will still apply.

    CHINA (AMERICAN TRADE)
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for Foregin Affairs whether he will publish the report he has received from

    349
    Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington on the extent of American trade with Communist China.
    Mr. Nutting:The extent of American imports from China in 1952 and the first quarter of 1953 is set out in a memorandum issued by the United States Department of Commerce, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member. I am informed that during this period there have been no American exports to China.
    Mr. Wyatt:As the Americans bought 28 million dollars' worth of goods from China in 1952, which represents nearly 10 times as many goods as we bought from China, and as dollars are the most valuable war potential now in existence, should not the British Information Services in Washington be instructed to inform the American public that, far from Britain being the only country to trade with China, America has been of far more assistance to Communist China than we have?
    Mr. Nutting: So far as I am aware there has been no attempt by the American Government to conceal this fact. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I said by the American Government. This is a statement issued by the United States Department of Commerce which, so far as I am aware, is available to the whole of the nation, just as I am making it available to the hon. Member.
    Major Beamish:Will my hon. Friend arrange to put in the Library a copy of Mr. Harold Stassen's last report to Congress which contained all the relevant information about this matter, including all the figures sought by the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), and also a full record of the trade of Britain with China?
    Mr. Nutting: I will certainly do that.

    KOREA (JOINT POLICY DECLARATION)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the discrepancy between the terms of the 16-nation declaration on Korea, and the provisions of the United Nations Charter for dealing with threats to, or breaches of, the peace; and whether he will take steps to have the 16-nation declaration suitably amended.
    Mr. Nutting: No, Sir. The joint policy declaration is in no way inconsistent with the United Nations Charter. The second part of the hon. Member's Question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Warbey: May we take it from that reply that in the event of any incidents occurring in Korea likely to lead to a breach of the peace, whether it comes from the Communists or from Syngman Rhee, the first act of the Government would be to refer the matter to the Security Council of the United Nations for investigation and action?
    Mr. Nutting:The hon. Gentleman can take it from that reply that the Security Council resolution of 27th June, 1950, is still in force and that all that the 16 nations have done in their declaration is to announce that if the aggression were to be renewed their own resistance to aggression would be renewed also. In the event of a breach of the armistice from the South Korean side the Government are in no way committed to any action.

    U.N. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BUDGET
    Sir R. Aclandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions were given to the British representative attending the recent United Nations Committee to consider the size of the Budget for the United Nations Technical Assistance Programme for 1954; whether the size of the Budget has now been determined; and what will be the British contribution.
    Mr. Nutting: The programme for 1954 must depend on the funds available. It will be worked out by the Technical Assistance Board, on which Governments are not represented. The pledges made by contributing Governments amount so far to $23·7 million. The size of the programme for 1954 has not yet been announced, and will depend on whether pledges are made by other countries. As regards the contribution of Her Majesty's Government, I would refer the hon. Baronet to the reply given to the hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) on 11th November.
    Sir R. Acland:The hon. Gentleman has not answered the first part of my Question. Is he aware that the Press

    351
    release of the conference shows that the British representative there did not make any suggestion that the countries of the world should increase the size of the programme, and, indeed, denied that any financial difficulties were involved? Was that done on the instruction of the Government, or was it on the British representative's own responsibility?
    Mr. Nutting: It is not for Her Majesty's Government to lecture other Governments in this matter. It is for Her Majesty's Government to set an example, and we set an example by increasing our contribution by 20 per cent.
    Sir R. Acland:Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    EGYPT (SUEZ CANAL NEGOTIATIONS)
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the Suez Canal negotiations with the Egyptian Government.
    Mr. Eden:I have nothing at present to add to what I said on this subject in the course of the debate on the Address, except to say that, as the House will already be aware, Sir Ralph Stevenson, Her Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo, will shortly be returning to Cairo. General Sir Brian Robertson has now returned to this country to take up his duties as Chairman of the Transport Commission. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the gratitude of Her Majesty's Government to General Robertson and of paying him a personal tribute for the part he has played in these negotiations.
    Mr. Wyatt:Is it not the case that these negotiations are now being held up on two very narrow points, first, what clothes the technicians who are to remain behind in the Canal Zone shall wear, and, second, what conditions would precede availability of the base to us again in the event of war? Are we not missing a great opportunity to sign the agreement with the Egyptians while General Neguib can still hold the nationalist element under control, merely because the Foreign Secretary has become afraid of 25 Tory back benchers?
    Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman can, of course, use his imagination as to the reasons for the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. However, the issues upon which we are at present divided will, I trust, be resolved. I cannot for a moment admit that one of them in particular is other than of major importance.
    Mr. Speaker rose—
    Captain Waterhouse: On a point of order. This is an extremely important subject, Mr. Speaker. Might not one supplementary question be allowed from this side of the House?
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not now. These are all very important subjects.

    TRIESTE AND ROME (RIOT DAMAGE)
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what damage has been caused to British property or suffered by British persons during the recent riots in Trieste and Rome.
    Mr. Nutting: I am glad to say that there were no injuries to British persons either in Trieste or Rome during the recent incidents. As regards damage to property, in Rome windows were broken at the Consular Section of Her Majesty's Embassy, and at the offices of British European Airways and of the British Council. The total amount of the damage is estimated at £100. At Trieste windows were broken in three hotels, one service club and one forces cinema, all under military requisition. Fourteen military vehicles were damaged, one of which is a complete wreck. The total damage is estimated at £536.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe:Can my hon. Friend say whether any claim for damages has been lodged by Her Majesty's Ambassador against the Italian Government?
    Mr. Nutting:With regard to damage in Rome, we have reserved the right to claim compensation for damage to British property, which, as I said, amounts to about £100. Since Trieste is under Allied Military Government, the question cannot arise there.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not the case that the riots were organised by neo-Facist agents, and was not the major damage that done to Italian interests and reputation?
    Mr. Nutting:My right hon. Friend dealt with that matter in his statement on 9th November. I have nothing to add to what he said.

    AVRO VULCAN BOMBERS (U.S.A. MAGAZINE ARTICLE)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the top secret information that has been revealed in a United States magazine which in this country is forbidden under the Official Secrets Act, details of which have been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Dartford, what approach has been made to the United States of America suggesting the setting up of machinery designed to obviate the divulging of highly confidential information.
    Mr. Nutting:Arrangements exist for safeguarding confidential information exchanged between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government. In the case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind the article was written by a private individual on the basis of information which has already been released in this country. Such a case does not therefore seem to call for additional security arrangements between the two Governments.
    Mr. Dodds: How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he now says with the answer I got from the Minister of Supply on Monday, which stated:
    "Some of the information in the magazine in question is of a kind which would not have been published in the British Press."—[Official Report, 23rd November, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 5.]
    That was a reply to a Question about the Official Secrets Act. In view of the fact that this man, who goes under the the pen-name of Peter Scott, was Assistant chief designer at A. V. Roe, The Gloucester Aircraft Co. and De Havillands and has some of our most guarded secrets, is not something going to be done about it, particularly when America has witch-hunters to prevent secrets going to friend and foe alike?
    Mr. Nutting:The hon. Gentleman suggests that additional security machinery should be set up. Arrangements already exist for safeguarding information exchanged between the two Governments. I do not see how this case could be covered by any additional machinery.
    Mr. Speaker: Mrs. White.
    Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the information which I queried has appeared in this country, whereas his right hon. Friend said that some of this information has not been disclosed and would not be disclosed in this country.
    Mr. Speaker:That is not a point of order for me. The answer may be unsatisfactory to the hon. Gentleman and he must take some steps to raise it again if he thinks fit. I am afraid I cannot allow too much time to be taken on one Question. Weare proceeding very slowly. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the clock he will see how long it has taken us to reach Question No. 40.
    Mr. Dodds:In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Elliot: Further to that point of order. Is it not clear that the machinery for raising matters on the Adjournment is falling into hopeless confusion? Would it not be desirable for this matter to be reviewed again by you, Mr. Speaker, in view of the changed circumstances of the present time?
    Mr. Speaker:That is a very large question. I have been thinking about it, and I shall be very grateful for suggestions from hon. Members.
    Mr. Stokes:Is the fault not a matter of raising subjects on the Adjournment but of hon. Members on both sides of the House being far too long-winded in their supplementary questions?
    Mr. Speaker: I have frequently, in my own way, tried to suggest what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. There seems to be a misconception among some hon. Members that one can debate Questions. Questions are for extracting information. A Question should be left to

    355
    the hon. Member who asks it; it is his hare and he should be allowed to hunt it.
    Mr. I. O. Thomas: You say, Mr. Speaker, that one of the purposes of a Question is to extract information. What is the position if the information cannot be extracted?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must try again.

    EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL AUTHORITY
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet received the proposals for the closer association of the United Kingdom with the European Coal and Steel Authority prepared by the committee under the chairmanship of M. Monnet.
    Mr. Nutting: No, Sir.
    Mrs. White: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we shall not enter into further commitments relating to the very important industries of coal and steel without having a full discussion in the House?
    Mr. Nutting: I cannot give such an assurance, but, of course, we have not yet received M. Monnet's proposals and we should like to study them first.
    Mr. Bottomley:Has this matter been held up by Her Majesty's Government, or are other Powers responsible for the delay?
    Mr. Nutting: So far as I know, there has been no delay. M. Monnet has told us that he will shortly be sending us some proposals. We hope to get them fairly soon.

    EUROPEAN DEFENCE COMMUNITY (SOVIET NOTE)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he proposes to make to the Soviet Government's request for a clarification of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the taking of steps to ratify the European Defence Community agreements during the time when a Four-Power Conference on Germany is under consideration.
    Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Note presented to the Soviet Government on 16th November, the text of which was laid before this House on 17th November, in Command 9008.
    Mr. Warbey:Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that this point, probably the key point in the Soviet Note, is evaded in the reply? Will the right hon. Gentleman adopt the very sensible view put forward by the Opposition that any further steps towards German re-armament should be held in suspense until and after a conference with Russia has been got under way?
    Mr. Eden: I did not know that it was the view of Her Majesty's Opposition that we had in our reply in any way evaded the issue. On the contrary, our reply is absolutely plain and has been made public, though not in Russia so far. I made plain in that statement and in the House that we, for our part, are prepared to discuss Germany and Austria with the Soviet Government at any time at any place and without any prior conditions at all. If Russia will do the same, she can meet us tomorrow.

    SPAIN (U.S.A. BASES)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had with the United States Government regarding the participation of Spain in Western Defence plans.
    Mr. Eden: The United States Government kept us continuously informed regarding their negotiations for the recent United States Spanish bases agreement.
    Mr. Warbey:In any further discussions with the United States Government on this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the United States the view widely held in this country that any participation of Franco's Government in Western Defence, either through the front door of N.A.T.O. or through the back door, is regarded with abhorrence and makes a mockery of the view of N.A.T.O. that we are fighting for a democratic cause?
    Mr. Eden: Her Majesty's Government saw no reason for objecting to the conclusion of this arrangement, and, on the

    357
    contrary, I should have thought that the House would have felt that the existence of other bases besides those in this country would not be entirely disadvantageous to this country.

    E.D.C. (BRITISH ASSOCIATION)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. WyattTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the agreement with the French Government whereby Britain will move into closer association with the European Defence Community than previously announced by Her Majesty's Government.
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. May we have a reply to Question No. 52, please? I ask this question because I think it raises an important constitutional point. M. Bidault, the French Foreign Minister, made a long statement in the French Parliament last week describing
    Mr. Speaker: In answer to the hon. Member's point of order, so far as it is a point of order, as far as I am aware, I have received no request that Question No. 52 should be answered, and the time for Questions is now over. I am sorry to have to rule that, but, to some extent, these things are not in my control.
    Mr. Wyatt: Further to that point of order. What is our position when announcements are made about the British Government's policy in the French Parliament which are not made in this House and to which we have no reply?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must use what Parliamentary opportunities he can get.
    Sir H. Williams:Further to that point of order. May I have an answer to my Question No. 82?

    ROYAL NAVY CADETS (NEW ENTRY SCHEME)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. H. BROOKE: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will
    358
    make a statement about Cadet Entry to the Royal Navy.
    At the end of Questions—
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to answer Question No. 95.
    The House will recall that the Report on Cadet Entry into the Royal Navy which was published as a Command Paper and debated on 6th July dealt especially with the age at which boys should enter as cadets. I have considered it with great care in the light of advice I have received from the naval authorities concerned and from representatives of educational opinion.
    The overriding need is to establish a system of cadet entry into the Royal Navy which not only gives the Navy adequate numbers of cadets of the required standard but also conforms beyond dispute with the general trend of educational policy and is entirely outside the field of controversy. I have accordingly decided that all cadets of the permanent entry should join the Royal Navy in one age group at about 18. The first open written examination under this scheme will be held in October, 1954, for entry in May, 1955. The last open written examination for entry at 16 will be in June, 1954, for entry in January, 1955.
    An immediate review is being undertaken of officer training as a whole to meet the new conditions and the scientific and technical advances of our day. Whatever conclusions may emerge from this review, I have no personal doubts that the Britannia Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, will have an important place in naval training as it has had since its inception 50 years ago.
    Mr. Brooke:Is my right hon. Friend aware that this plan will be judged by one thing—whether it does, in fact, produce the requisite number of first rate officers for the Navy, and that everybody will hope that his announcement will put a stop to this unhappy period when this very important question has become mingled with party politics? Could he tell the House what arrangements he is making for the present admirable staff at the Royal Naval College?
    Mr. Thomas: I can assure my hon. Friend that this decision will give the

    359
    Royal Navy the adequate supply of first class candidates which it needs. This has obviously been my prime consideration throughout, but if, at the same time, it raises the matter above political controversy, it would be of inestimable benefit to the Royal Navy, and I believe to the country as a whole. In reply to my hon. Friend's question about the staff at Dartmouth, I should like to place on record how grateful we feel to all the staff, and above all the civilian masters, many of whom have devoted most of their lives to the education of naval cadets. I am not, of course, able to speak about their prospects of further employment after the Royal Naval College has ceased to be a college for naval cadets of school age, but I can assure the House that this question is one which will receive the most careful and sympathetic attention.
    Mr. Callaghan:May I ask the First Lord if he agrees with his hon. Friend that this has been a question of party politics—[Hon. Members: "Yes."]—or whether it has not been a question of finding the best solution for the Royal Navy? May I further ask him if he would take note that, in our view, he is approaching a solution if he feels it necessary to abolish the 16-year-old entry, which will remove this question from the sphere of political controversy—which is a quite different matter from party politics—and will lay a foundation for long-term permanent recruitment to the Royal Navy? Finally, may I ask him whether, in view of the scheme announced by the R.A.F. last week for giving free entry scholarships to young men between 16 and 18 to enter the R.A.F. at the age of 18, he has in mind giving the same sort of opportunities to young men who desire to enter the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Thomas: I said in my original answer that I think this Question has been one of controversy—not party political controversy—but controversy in all quarters, both in the political and educational worlds, and I hope and believe that this decision will raise it above that controversy. I quite realise that there will be certain boys who will wish to join the Navy at 16 and who now have to wait until 18. It may be difficult for their parents to keep them at school during that period, and I have that very much in mind. Amongst other
    360
    proposals, I shall consider in due course what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air has done as far as air cadets are concerned.
    Captain Ryder:In welcoming the statement by my right hon. Friend, which appears to hold out a prospect of a permanent solution as far as the best age of entry is concerned, may I ask him if he can consider the question of a system of scholarships similar to that announced by the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Thomas:I have just said that that is definitely one of the proposals which I shall take into consideration when I come to look at the question of boys of 16 whose parents are not able to keep them at school until they are 18.
    Mr. W. J. Edwards:While I am very glad that the First Lord has resisted the pressure to re-introduce the 13-year-old entry, may I ask him whether this is going to interfere with the age at which cadets are able to become midshipmen, and with their further progress as far as the Royal Navy is concerned?
    Mr. Thomas: As I said in my original answer, there is a review being held into cadet training at the present time to bring it up to date with the scientific changes that are happening in the world at the moment, and that will be one of the questions to be considered by this committee, which is going into the matter immediately.
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. As we have taken nine minutes on the answer to one Question, and as a lot of other Questions have not been answered, is it not time that we stopped these Ministerial statements at the end of Questions?
    Mr. Speaker: I think we had better stop now.
    Brigadier Rayner: On a point of order. In view of the fact that Dartmouth is in my constituency, may I be allowed to put a supplementary question?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has a point which interests his constituency, he can take it up with the Minister by correspondence.

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
    DENATIONALISED STEEL UNDERTAKINGS (SHARES)
    Mr. J. Hynd: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 11th December, I shall call attention to the terms and conditions for the issue of shares in the denationalised steel undertakings, and move a Resolution.
    COMPANY DIVIDENDS
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 11th December, I shall call attention to the recent increases in company dividends, and move a Resolution.
    RETIRED OFFICERS' PAY
    Sir Edward Keeling: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 11th December, I shall call attention to the retired pay of certain serving officers, and move a Resolution.

    BILL PRESENTED
    ELECTORAL REGISTERS BILL.
    "to alter the date for the publication, in the year nineteen hundred and fifty-five and subsequent years, of registers of parliamentary and local government electors, and consequentially on that alteration to alter the elections for which those registers are to be used, and the qualifying date for those elections, and make further provision in place of section four of the Electoral Registers Act, 1949," presented by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe; supported by Mr. James Stuart; read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.42 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I may fairly claim that the Bill is the most complicated Measure which I have yet had to contemplate. What I must endeavour to do as simply as I can, and this is not an easy task, is to explain the main alterations which the Bill proposes to make in the present equalisation grant arrangements.
  As the House is aware, the present arrangements were made by Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948. This Act put an end to the old block grant system and substituted for it a system of equalisation grants, that is to say, a system under which the rating resources of local authorities which fall below a certain average, measured in terms of rateable value per head of weighted population, are made up to that average. In Scotland, under the 1948 Act we have been receiving 25 per cent. in addition to the average for England and Wales, but this 25 per cent. was strongly contested at the time, and since then both my predecessor in office and I have been pressed to have it reviewed.
  After consideration and discussion with the local authority associations, I agreed in March, 1952, that an investigation should be carried out. A committee was set up consisting of representatives of the three main associations and of my own Department, and was asked to give priority to the question whether the 25 per cent. addition to the England and Wales average was fair to Scotland and was adequate. The Committee submitted an interim Report in January, 1953, and advanced strong arguments that the 25 per cent. is not adequate; but it was unable, owing to the lack of uniformity of valuation in England and Wales, to propose any precise measure of the difference between the levels of value in the two countries.
  It therefore proposed that, pending revaluation in England and Wales, the

  363
  Scottish grant should be reckoned as the Goschen equivalent of the English and Welsh grant, that is to say, eleven-eightieths of the England and Wales total. I should also mention that the fact that the committee under Lord Sorn had been set up to investigate the system of rating and valuation in Scotland, naturally influenced the committee, which came to the conclusion that some interim adjustment was best at this time. The local authority associations unanimously supported this view, and I announced in this House last July that the Government accepted it.
  Therefore, Clause 1 of the Bill proposes that from 16th May last the total equalisation grant payable to Scottish local authorities shall be eleven-eightieths of the English grant. This will mean a benefit to local authorities in Scotland of approximately £2 million in the year, or a little above that figure; or to put it in other words, it is an increase of approximately one-third in the present total grant. I hope that this interim adjustment, which is acceptable to local authorities, will commend itself to this House also.
  The Committee next considered how the grant should be distributed. The final Report was presented to this House on 11th November of this year. After discussion with local authorities the Government decided to carry out the recommendations of the investigation committee, with one important modification to which I will refer later. I believe that the decision is acceptable to the County Councils Association and to the Convention of Royal Burghs, but not to the counties of cities.
  Before dealing with the changes that the Committee proposed, I should perhaps refer briefly to the present method of distribution of grants. First of all, the amount of grant is calculated for each city and large burgh, and for each county inclusive of the small burghs in the county, so as to produce the same amount of revenue as the area would have had if its rateable value per head of the weighted population had been equal to the national average. The county grant having been determined, a capitation grant is then paid out of it, or out of the rates if there is no grant or not sufficient grant. It is paid to the town council of each small burgh and to each
  364
  county council for the benefit of the landward area.
  This capitation grant is arrived at by multiplying a fixed sum by the population of the area concerned. For the landward areas, this fixed sum is two-thirds of that for the burghs. The Committee decided not to recommend any change in the basic principles of the equalisation grant. For the Committee's reasons for this advice, I would refer hon. Members to page 10, paragraph 26, of its Report.
  The Committee then proceeded to deal with the method of distributing these increased grants, which naturally affect many authorities and mostly for the better. As regards the others, the authorities which would not gain, we shall propose certain safeguards to which I will refer shortly. Before dealing with these changes, I must deal with one or two other somewhat complicated points. One result of using the Goschen formula is that we must fix a new standard up to which the rating resources of Scottish authorities are brought by equalisation grants. This is dealt with in subsections (2) and (4) of Clause 4 of the Bill. I admit that it is a complicated matter, but I am assured that it is capable of being carried out.
  Mr. James Mclnnes: By whom?
  Mr. Stuart: I do not necessarily undertake to carry out the calculations myself, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me.
  This new standard, or "constant factor" as it is called in the Bill, must be of an amount to ensure that the total grant is actually expended.
  Of the other main changes proposed by the Committee, the most important is the proposal that capitation grants should be discontinued, and that, instead, the grants should be calculated separately for each burgh, large or small, and for each land ward area by reference to its own resources and to the amount for which the council concerned would have to rate.
  This change will operate as from 16th May, 1954, and is dealt with in Clauses 3 and 5 of the Bill. The Committee felt, and I think rightly, that if the principle of equalisation grant is accepted, it is logical and fair that its amount be related to the commitments of each rating area.

  365
  and not determined, as at present, partly by reference to such circumstances and partly, in the counties and small burghs, by reference to an amount per head which takes no account of local needs.
  In conjunction with this, the Committee further proposed that where expenditure has to be shared among authorities, that is to say, between the landward area and the burghs in a county, the allocation should be made, not as at present on the basis of actual rateable value, but on the basis of actual rateable value plus the notional rateable value, if any, credited to the area for the purpose of calculating the equalisation grant.
  The reason for using this standard rateable value is that the grant is really the rates payable on the credited rateable value, and it is logical, and I think fair, that if the State is, in effect, a ratepayer, the value on which it pays rates should be taken into account like other rateable value, when expenditure is being apportioned. In the same way, it is proposed to take account of this credited rateable value in sharing out the payments made to local authorities in lieu of rates by the British Transport Commission and by the Electricity Authorities. Effect is given to these proposals in Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill. Similarly, though it is not dealt with in the Bill, the rate deduction made in calculating the education grant will be calculated on the actual rateable value plus credited value, if any, of the area concerned.
  These new provisions cannot, of course, come into full effect until the next local authority financial year, because the requisitions for the current year have already been made on the old basis. Transitional arrangements for the current year are therefore necessary, and these are dealt with in Clause 2. Broadly, the proposal for 1953–54 is to calculate grant on the new basis for each large burgh and for each county, including the small burghs, and then to share out the county grant between the landward areas and the small burghs in proportion to their expenditure.
  There are two other changes to which I wish to refer. First, Clause 4 (3) proposes an amendment of the formula for calculating weighted population so as to take account of the additional burdens placed on areas with expanding populations, that is to say, new mining areas.
  366
  If hon. Members will turn to the examples given, they will see that they refer to areas such as Clackmannan and Midlothian.
  Secondly, in working out the equalisation grant, we propose to take for all local authority houses a notional rent equal to the average rent of such houses for the country as a whole. At present, the grant varies with the rent which any local authority chooses to fix for its houses; but under Clause 4 (1) of the Bill an authority is free to fix the rent it thinks right in the knowledge that the grant will be unaffected.
  Further, under Clauses 8 and 9 we propose, as recommended by the Committee, that each district council should receive a share of the county's grant proportionate to its expenditure. At present these district councils receive no direct grant, and it seems not unreasonable that they should. These changes, of course, affect the rates of many authorities, and I would call the attention of hon. Members to the illustrations given in the White Paper of the effects upon local authority rates.
  As a result of the proposals, there will generally be a substantial gain for the country, but there are, I admit, some areas where there would be a loss unless special provisions are made. The investigating Committee recommended that in the current year any such loss should be made up in full and in future years to the extent that it exceeded the produce of a rate of 1s. in the £. But the Bill proposes to modify the Committee's recommendation, and we think it reasonable that, until we have experience of the new system, local authorities should be safeguarded against loss.
  Clause 6 of the Bill provides for this by transitional grants to compensate local authorities for any loss. These transitional grants should not greatly exceed £200,000 in a year, and will be the first charge on the total Scottish grant of some £8 million. Even at the risk of repetition, I think that I must make it clear that these arrangements are definitely of a transitional character. There are some, I know, who hold that the system of equalisation grant is unsound, but to those critics I would say that they should study the Committee's Report and realise the difficulties of achieving agreement on an alternative system to this.

  367
  I suggest to the House that it would be better to stick to the present transitional arrangement pending two things—the revaluation of property in England, which is bound to affect the whole method of calculating grant, and, most important, the receipt of the Report of the Committee at present sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Sorn which is inquiring into the whole system of rating and valuation in Scotland. I think it would be most unwise to make any radical change in the system until we have a chance of studying that Report.
  Therefore, we agree with the investigating Committee that the right course is to proceed on the lines which it advocated and which are in the Bill, but to regard the changes as interim, to watch carefully how they work, and to review them at the latest after receiving and considering the Report of the Sorn Committee. It will be noted that Clause 12 (2) of the Bill makes provision for review at any time, and not, as under the 1948 Act, after a five-year period.
  Therefore, I can commend the Bill to the House, as, I repeat, an interim Measure, providing Scotland with an immediate and substantial gain, and as one which, while maintaining the principle of equalisation grants, provides a more logical and equitable method of distribution. I commend it also on the ground that no local authority will suffer, which is some comfort at least to those who do not actually gain, while the rest will gain. We will re-examine its working, in the light of experience, with local authorities, whenever that is felt to be desirable.
  Finally, I should like to take this opportunity of saying how greatly indebted I am to the local authority associations for their friendly co-operation in carrying out this review, and to the local government officers who served on the investigating Committee. It was, I fear, a laborious task, certainly a highly complicated one, and it was carried through efficiently and impartially. All concerned displayed a sense of realism and a genuine desire to reach a fair settlement. I hope the House will permit me—and I believe that the Committee would agree with me—to take this opportunity of also expressing my thanks, and I think theirs, to the chairman for the admirable way in
  368
  which he carried through this very difficult task.
  4.2 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Secretary of State has said that this is a complicated Bill. It is a most complicated Bill. He helped a little, I think, in assisting us to understand the Bill, though at one point I thought he made things a little more complicated. At the beginning of his speech he said that, under the 1948 Act, the provision for Exchequer equalisation grants was that, in Scotland, we would have a 25 per cent. grant in addition to that received by England and Wales. I know that he knows that is not so, but that is what he said.
  Might I make clear, however, that we on this side of the House who had the honour of introducing the Bill that became the 1948 Act do not claim any responsibility for the parentage of the 25 per cent. In Scotland, it has been assumed for a very long time indeed—I do not know for how long—that our average rateable value was 25 per cent. above the average rateable value in England and Wales. That assumption has been made in many statutes over the years, and was continued in 1948.
  Mr. Stuart: I should have said, of course, receiving the English average plus 25 per cent. If I left out the word "average" I must have departed inadvertently from the gospel according to St. Andrew's House.
  Mr. Fraser: I am sure we are all grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
  It is quite obvious that no Scottish Member would dare to say that he opposes the Bill, which gives to Scotland an additional £2 million to aid the local authorities in the services they have to provide. As the Secretary of State has said, the provisions of the Bill are accepted by the local authority associations. Might I say, however, that if, as experience has shown, the average rateable value in Scotland is more than the 25 per cent. that has always been accepted, and that this old notion of ours is no longer acceptable, it is equally true to say that very many of us consider the Goschen formula to be a rather outmoded means of measuring the assistance to be given to Scottish Local authorities. It is not a very original idea, and I want to

  369
  make one criticism of it. The Goschen formula is not in any way related to the principle of Exchequer equalisation grants, which is that the central Government should give financial assistance to local authorities in accordance with the needs of those local authorities. They should help the local authorities as a ratepayer, to enable them to provide the local services for which they are responsible. If one accepts that principle, one cannot accept the Goschen formula as a long-term policy, and I think all of us will pay heed to the Secretary of State's promise that this, in fact, is an interim arrangement.
  Might I give one further reason why, in this matter, the Goschen formula is not a long-term solution to the problem in Scotland? In Scotland we have areas which must inevitably attract a more generous grant from central funds, as a ratepayer, than any other part of the United Kingdom. One thinks of the whole of the Highlands and Islands—which have been treated generously, and rightly so, under the 1948 Act—where the rateable value per head of population has always been, and still is, deplorably low. The rateable value per head of population in that part of Scotland reduces very considerably the average rateable value per head of population in Scotland.
  To give an example, we have 24,000 or 25,000 crofters in the Highlands. Those crofters in the main—I do not say all—pay their local rates, if they pay any at all, on the basis of the rateable value of the land that they hold as a croft. The land is very often got at an annual rental of 20s. a year. That is the rateable value—£1 a year. The improvements on the land, which include the crofter's house and any steadings or outbuildings he has, are not taken into account at all. There is no additional rateable value for improvements, so the total rateable value on which the crofter pays his rates is the 20s.
  The crofter, however, enjoys the advantages of agricultural derating, so he is relieved of about 87½ per cent. of that £1. That means that, of that £1, his rating obligation to the local authority is 2s. 6d. a year. One can see that in such an area the responsibility of the central Government to contribute to local resources is greater than it can possibly be
  370
  in any other part of the country. If we were to accept the Goschen formula, as a long-term solution, we should be accepting the inevitability of that part of Scotland outwith the Highlands being held to be responsible for aiding the Highland local authorities, instead of making that a responsibility of the nation as a whole.
  In July, in the Scottish Grand Committee, I ventured to suggest that it was a mistake to give the investigation to a committee of finance officers. With the greatest respect, I submit that the result of their investigations proves my contention. None of us is ungrateful to the officers for the work that they have done. We are sure that they worked hard and long and gave of their best in seeking a solution to the problem. The fact remains that they ought not to have been given the job to do.
  If the investigation had been made by a committee of public persons of standing, such as the Secretary of State normally appoints to committees, we should have had quite a different report, and the Secretary of State this afternoon would not have had to give effect to their recommendations by a Bill which he said was the most complicated he had ever had to contemplate. It is a complicated Measure because it contains a set of proposals worked out by finance officers, proposals that cannot be understood by any member of a local authority, by any hon. Member of this House, nor, I suggest, by the Secretary of State for Scotland—nor even, I should think, by a great many finance officers.
  Sir William Darling: I do not want the House to be misled. I think that I am right in saying that over one-third of the officers were town clerks and not finance officers, and that another one-third were officers from St. Andrew's House and elsewhere.
  Mr. Fraser: I have the Report here and I think I am right in saying that a great many were finance officers. There were town clerks, county treasurers and the like and city chamberlains from the four cities, but in the main these people were finance officers. In any case, in proof of what I have been saying, I challenge the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Joint Under-Secretary to stand at the Dispatch Box and, without reading, tell us

  371
  what calculations the Secretary of State will employ to determine the "constant factor" which is set out in Clause 4 (4) of this Bill and, in consequence, the standard rateable value. The Bill makes it clear that the constant factor will be something that will be varied from year to year.
  Previously, in the 1948 Act, the formula was written into the statute, but now it is a secret formula and it really ought not to be necessary to have a secret formula for the allocation of public money. The investigating Committee and the White Paper both propose that in place of the additional 25 per cent. to the standard rateable value in England and Wales there should be substituted such notional figure as will absorb the total of eleven-eightieths. Is it plain that for the current year it works out at any percentage? If so, what is that percentage? No document has so far told us what it is, and the Secretary of State has not told us today.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): What does the hon. Member mean by percentage?
  Mr. Fraser: I do not think that I have got it wrong. I think that Hansard will show that I did not get it wrong. Both the White Paper and the Report of the investigating Committee proposed that, in place of the addition of 25per cent. to the standard rateable value in England and Wales to get the average in Scotland, there should be substituted a notional figure to absorb the total of the eleven-eightieths—the Goschen formula, or the extra money. I say that we have had no documents giving us the notional figure. What is the new percentage? The Secretary of State has not told us this afternoon.
  Early in his speech the Secretary of State called attention to Clause 4 (2) and Clause 4 (4). These are just beyond understanding and I was not surprised, though I was a little disappointed, that the right hon. Gentleman did not seek to give us some explanation of them in his speech. The White Paper gives the impression that all the gains to local authorities are the direct consequence of the adoption of the Goschen formula.
  372
  I believe that I am not wrong in saying that the speech of the Secretary of State further buttressed that impression, but surely some of the increases or some of the rate reliefs flow from the adjustments proposed under Clause 10. It is the discontinuation of the capitation grants and the employment of the new formula as a balancing factor for educational grants and for the disbursement of moneys in lieu of rates on certain nationalised properties. Some of the rate reliefs flow from those adjustments.
  Those that do flow from those adjustments, of course, do not come out of the £2 million at all. That ought to be clearly understood, because some authorities in Scotland, and many Members of Parliament, have assumed that if any authority is to receive relief under this Bill that authority will be receiving some part of the £2 million. But if I have read the Bill aright, that is not necessarily so. Some of them would have received the rate relief from adjustments provided in Clauses 10 and 11 even if there had not been an additional penny of Exchequer grants.
  The Secretary of State has told us, and we have read it in the Report, that many small authorities who would suffer in consequence of discontinuation of capitation grants and the adoption of the new formula in Clause 10 have to be protected as the first charge on new money. I believe that to be wrong. It is the one departure from the investigating Committee's Report. The Secretary of State says that only £200,000 is involved. He may be right, because he has the facts and figures at his disposal. I have checked over the White Paper and have calculated that some 90 local authorities would be protected against an increase in rates by assistance out of the new money. Indeed, the protecting of the local authorities is, by the final words of Clause 4 of the Bill, the first charge on the new money.
  That seems to me to be quite wrong. There is no principle in the decision at all, and it is a great pity that the Secretary of State has made the provision. If he wishes to protect these authorities who would suffer the increase in rates under the changes proposed in Clauses 10 and 11, it seems to me that the right thing for him to do is to find money from other sources rather than take it from the local

  373
  authorities who stand to benefit from Exchequer equalisation grants. That is a matter which we shall no doubt examine further in Committee, and a matter upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Mclnnes) will have something more to say.
  Commander Galbraith:So that I may understand the hon. Gentleman, it is his suggestion that "some other source" might be an additional sum from the Treasury?
  Mr. Fraser: Yes, that is what I had in mind. I think that it would be far better. If the Secretary of State wishes to protect these people from loss, I do not think that in equity he should take the money from the people who are entitled, by reference to their rateable value, to enjoy Exchequerequalisation grants. I said in the Scottish Committee in July that, in my view, rateable value was not the best yardstick to measure need. I said at the time that I was not sure that I was speaking for all my hon. and right hon. Friends, but I think that now I am speaking for them. I should like to repeat what I then said. We accept the responsibility for introducing it in the 1948 Bill and it has served many authorities in Scotland well. The Investigating Committee said that they could see no good reason for departing from using this yardstick, but I feel confirmed in my belief that that yardstick is faulty.
  I get confirmation even in the Bill, where the Secretary of State proposes to adopt a notional rateable value for local authority houses as determined by him, instead of the actual rateable value, as a measure of rateable value and thereby as a measure of need in the area of any local authority. I merely say, in passing, that I welcome this step towards my point of view. I believe that we all welcome the proposal to apportion a calculated share of equalisation grants to small burghs and district councils. We must all regret, however, that at the present time we can have only temporary arrangements to help local authorities in their financial difficulties.
  We must allow the Bill a Second Reading without challenge in the Lobby. I cannot, however, make any such promise about the Committee stage. There are details which will have to be closely examined, and many explanations
  374
  will be sought. It is impossible, however, so to amend the Bill as to provide a long-term solution of the problem of the relationship between the Exchequer and local government in connection with the provision of moneys for local services. Many problems will remain, none more obvious than that which arises from the continuation of derating as introduced in 1929.
  A promise was made in the White Paper of 1928 that the loss of income from derating would be balanced by compensating Exchequer grants. We must try to fulfil the promise which was made then. Many changes have occurred since then, but local authorities are still aggrieved that they are not being given compensation from Exchequer funds for loss of income from derating. We must either repeal the 1929 provisions or find additional money from the central Government to assist local authorities in carrying through their work.
  I need comment no further upon the Bill at the moment. We shall give it a Second Reading today, but we shall examine it very closely on the Committee stage.
  4.21 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Elliot: The one thing with which we shall all be agreed is that this is an exceedingly complicated Measure. Reference has been made to Clause 4 (1), which reads:
  "The adjusted rateable value of a county, of the landward area of a county or of a burgh for any year, for the purposes of this Act, is the amount which would be the rateable value of that county, area or burgh for that year if in the valuation roll in force therefor on the first day of that year every local authority house were entered at a rateable value of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine to be the average rateable value for the year preceding that year of all local authority houses in Scotland."
  This is optimistically referred to in the margin as:
  "Meaning of 'adjusted rateable value' and 'standard rateable value'."
  In those circumstances, it is natural that many references will have to be made to the gospel according to St. Andrew. But we must try to apply our minds to the meaning of what is being done here in general.
  The first thing for the House to grasp is that a grossly bad and foolish Act was

  375
  placed upon the Statute Book in 1948, and this is a belated attempt to remedy some of the growing evils and scandals which arose under it. Nobody can deny that. This difficulty is not confined to Scotland. The incapacity and incompetence of those bringing forward that Measure was so great that they placed upon the Statute Book a law which is breaking down as badly in England as in Scotland, except that as the whole country of England has its good areas as well as its bad areas, the sharp differentiation which we can see becoming evident at the Border has not yet penetrated into actual legislation in England.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: I suppose the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) is still suffering a little from the smarting he had when the previous Measure was going through the House and he could not get his own way. He has made some very extravagant statements about the Measure not working, but has he read the Report on the operation of Exchequer equalisation grants in Scotland, and does he refute what it says about the benefits? Is he prepared to go to the Highlands of Scotland and say that the Measure has not benefited them?
  Mr. Elliot:I shall make my speech in my own way, and I shall deal with all those points. According to the statements in the White Paper, but for this Bill the provisions of the previous Measure would have overtaxed all local authorities this year to the extent of over £2 million sterling. There is also back money for five years, under which Scotland has been smarting—to use the right hon. Gentleman's own expression.
  Mr. Fraser: Two million pounds each year?
  Mr. Elliot:The evil has been growing. The hon. Gentleman must not attempt to put words into my mouth. I say that the lag began five years ago and it has now reached the point where Scotland, but for the legislation of this Government, would suffer a loss of £2 million sterling this year.
  The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) asked if I would go to the Highlands of Scotland and speak about the evils of the previous Measure. I certainly would go there, and
  376
  I should speak about some of the examples mentioned in the White Paper. Under the provisions of the right hon. Gentleman's Act, Caithness, by the figures given in the White Paper, would be overtaxed to an extent of 3s. in the £. They will now be relieved from that. It is the agreed statement of all the local authorities in Scotland that they are being overtaxed, and these figures can be quoted for many of the Highland areas. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire cannot escape from the fact that this Bill is being brought in to remedy a scandalous bad piece of legislation placed upon the Statute Book by his Government.
  Mr. Woodburn:The right hon. Gentleman is building his case on the fact that he objected to the 25 per cent. When the previous Measure was going through the House, it was explained that the 25 per cent. was an inheritance from Tory Governments of previous times, which had accepted that as the standard relationship between Scotland and England. There was no evidence at the time to show that it was wrong, so it was left, and a promise was given that when revaluation took place in England, and the matter was investigated, this question would be reviewed. Until that information was available, we were compelled to accept what had been laid down in previous Tory Acts of Parliament.
  Mr. Elliot: I admire the way in which the right hon. Gentleman leads with his chin on every possible occasion. If he had read the debates in the Scottish Grand Committee, he would have seen a statement by his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) on 7th July, 1953, to this effect:
  "I do not think that 25 per cent. was far out "—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 7th July, 1953; c. 148.]
  He was not basing his argument upon the opinions of past Tory Governments, but upon the evidence available to him at that time, and that was in 1953.
  Commander Galbraith:Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman who was then Secretary of State for Scotland actually said that we should accept the 25 per cent.
  "…as being reasonably accurate and fair to Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 10th December, 1947; c. 2230.]
  Mr. Speaker:This debate is becoming a little irregular. Hon. Members should be allowed to make their speeches with as little intervention as possible. That is the old custom and the best one. I am far from forbidding an occasional interjection, but this debate is really becoming a conversation.
  Mr. Elliot: I am always most willing to give way—all the more so as we are discussing two of the subjects which are dearest and nearest to the hearts of Scotsmen, namely, local government and money. It is almost impossible for us to contain ourselves when these subjects are being considered. If I do not give way subsequently, I hope that hon. Members will not attribute it to any discourtesy on my part; it will be merely my humble desire to fulfil your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as far as possible.
  Nobody can deny that under the previous Measure the disproportion of taxation in Scotland was growing to a point where repealing legislation had become necessary. That is what this Bill states in the opening paragraphs of the Explanatory Memorandum; it says:
  "Clause 1 provides for the discontinuance of the Exchequer Grants payable under the 1948 Act and for the payment instead,…"
  of certain other sums. Our difficulty is that we are now trying to deal with a piece of bad legislation by an amending Measure, and that leads to a great deal of complication and difficulty.
  I say that this complicated Bill arises out of a bad piece of legislation, that this bad piece of legislation has overtaxed Scotland to a considerable degree, that all credit is due to the Secretary of State for Scotland who has succeeded in arresting that. But he has not succeeded in getting the back money. This heavy burden, unjustly extracted from Scotland, still remains on our shoulders. All we can hope is that in future some of these gross mistakes will be set right by the Bill at present before the House.
  My right hon. Friend said, rightly, that the local authorities have on the whole agreed. But I think he said himself that the counties of cities are by no means happy about the position as it stands at present under this Bill. After all, the counties of cities do include a very considerable proportion of the population of Scotland. It is true that they are
  378
  to a certain slight extent relieved by this Measure, but I still think that, in view of the burdens which the counties of cities carry, a further share of these moneys might reasonably have been given to them.
  I think that we under-estimate the extent to which burdens from the rest of Scotland pour into the great cities. Take one single example. In Glasgow we have built, as hon. Members know, something of the order of 30,000 houses. When we started that building we had a waiting list of 70,000. Now we have a waiting list of 120,000 or thereabouts. We have added two people to the waiting list for every single person we have taken off by building a new house. [Interruption.] I have not before me the whole of the gospel according to St. Andrew.
  Mr. John Wheatley: We are talking about building.
  Mr. Elliot: The difficulty of the great cities is that in some ways they underwrite the whole economy of Scotland. People pour into the great cities from many areas, sometimes looking for employment, sometimes they are older people coming to the end of their days. It is not quite true to say that we can judge the burden on the great cities solely by the accepted standards of the whole country. I think that a certain amount of consideration should be given, and can be given readily, to what I call the residual problems which press more heavily on the cities than they do on the rest of the country.
  I do not wish to stress that. I did say, when this sum was first announced in the Scottish Grand Committee, that I thought it was a pity that it should be too quickly allotted according to existing formulae, and that some might well be allocated, in respect of the more clamant problems of housing, which includes overcrowding. This in Glasgow is of an altogether different order to that in some of the country areas which may do well—I do not complain of it—from the proposals in this Bill.
  The very complicated details of the Bill will, I think, require to be elucidated further in Committee. I do not think that we shall get very much closer to them on Second Reading, which is, after all, the time at which no one can consider the great problems and the general principles.

  379
  I say that the whole difficulty arises from the optimistic belief, apparently of Government Departments as a whole and certainly of the Minister of the day in 1948 that a revaluation in England of every house from end to end of that country would be speedily carried out and would be smoothly translated into legislative and financial provisions. It was not the sort of expectation that anyone with practical experience could really justify. Now in page 3 of the Committee's interim Report it says:
  "Pending revaluation in England and Wales, however, the Committee do not consider it possible to arrive at a precise arithmetical measure of the difference in the levels of the rateable value of the two countries"—
  the inference being that revaluation in England and Wales will soon be carried out and that then it will be possible to arrive at a precise arithmetical measure of the difference in the levels of the rateable value in the two countries.
  It will be years and years before that is carried out, and further years before it is translated into actual financial provisions. I do not understand the optimism with which this problem has been approached either in the back-rooms of the Departments or by the Government which introduced the Act of 1948.
  Mr. T. Fraser: And by the present Government.
  Mr. Elliot:The present Government have brought in an admittedly interim Bill. The French have a proverb, "Riendure comme le provisoire," and lest my French accent is not very good I would say, translating, there is nothing that lasts like the provisional. One of the dangers that I see in this Bill is that it is still rather closely connected with revaluation in England, and I fear that. I think that, if it is to be closely connected, there should be a time-limit in this Bill of, say, a five-year period. I am certain that by the end of that time-limit we should still find we were a long way off having a complete new Act, a complete revaluation, translated into the sections of a statute, of the properties in England from the Border to Land's End.
  Mr. Fraser: Has not the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that this revaluation would be completed by 1956? That seems to me to be three years hence.
  Mr. Elliot: I am talking not only of the revaluation. I am talking of translating that revaluation into the Clauses of a Bill and into financial provisions. Once the revaluation has been done, it will still be necessary to translate that, and I should not be at all surprised if even the Minister of Housing and Local Government, great though his knowledge is, were a little over-optimistic on this point. I still say that the difficulty of hanging our Scottish Measure on English valuation is the difficulty of carrying through the English valuation which will recur and come back again to succeeding Ministers and even to succeeding Governments, and we must face that.
  The question whether the rateable value is the proper yardstick was raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton. It may not be, but it is at any rate in Scotland, a straightforward figure which can be understood. I personally prefer a much greater use of the formula containing such factors as the number of young children, the mileage of roads and so on. I think that in many ways brought components into the argument that were much more useful and in some ways much more definitely ascertainable than this rather fluid figure of rateable value. The City Assessor in Glasgow has just revalued all the departmental stores; a very great alteration has taken place there. The number of young children under five is on the contrary a fairly well-known figure and a fairly constant figure, and similarly the number of miles of major or even minor roads is also a figure which can be easily measured, and about which there is no dispute. I am not at all sure that the departure from the old 1929 formula was in itself an advantage.
  In present conditions local government everywhere is suffering the most fearful strain and is being very badly distorted. It will probably be necessary to carry through further valuations and, maybe, further reforms in local government, but we cannot believe that while year by year the whole of the rate figures are constantly subject to these earthquake changes. I throw out for the consideration of the House the suggestion that for five years we should pay the present rate levels in Scotland, meanwhile discussing the wider questions of local government which will have to be tackled and solved if local government is to continue to

  381
  exist. I do no more than throw out the suggestion. The Second Reading is an occasion when questions going outside the narrow ambit of the Bill may be considered.
  This is a temporary Measure, and it is inevitably complex. It will undoubted here and there be unsatisfactory, and in certain quarters it will lead to a sense of injustice being felt, such as is felt today in the counties of cities. I am sure that we must give the Bill a Second reading, and we must compliment the Secretary of State upon the success of his action in remedying the mistakes and omissions of his predecessor. But we cannot be at all satisfied with the position as it stands. Nor can we be satisfied with the position as it will be when the Sorn Committee reports. The Sorn Committee's Report will not be Ten Commandments coming down from Sinai and receiving the universal acceptance of all who see them. We have had such reports before and we have not always greeted them with the universal acceptance necessary to get Measures through a difficult and stubborn House of Commons and, in spite of what the best we say about it, a very argumentative Scottish Grand Committee.
  We need to be thinking now of the steps which we shall take when the Sorn Committee's Report is received. We must consider our steps against the background that at present local government is suffering very heavily indeed. Local government in both Scotland and England is undergoing strains which it was never built to carry. Unless we can do something to remedy this, the whole great structure of local government, of which we are proud in both Scotland and England, will be damaged, maybe irreparably. It may well be turned into an annex of the central Government or a mere set of rubber stamps getting money and Measures from the State, putting the two together in an office and passing the result out to the rest of the world as local government, when it is nothing of the sort.
  This is by no means an unimportant Measure. I hope that it will lead to our considering very thoroughly the wider problems involved, of which the Bill and the 1948 Act are mere symptoms. The deep-seated malaise of local government, if not still undiagnosed, is still un-
  382
  remedied. It will remain unremedied even after the Bill reaches the Statute Book, which I hope it will do very shortly.
  4.44 p.m.
  Mr. James Carmichael: I am rather diffident about participating in the debate. The first three speakers have all had close association with St. Andrew's House. Two of them were former tenants of it, and the Secretary of State still occupies it; and each of them said that this was a very complicated Measure. Thus, the diffidence of a back-bencher can be appreciated.
  I do not propose to argue about the 1948 Act. The fact that we shall agree to the Second Reading of this Bill indicates that certain shortcomings have been found in the 1948 Act. We all appreciate that local government in Scotland is in a very difficult financial situation. In the Scottish Grand Committee, during the summer, I said that I regarded local government as one of the most powerful influences in democracy.
  In connection with the Bill we have to bear in mind that the amount of money to be granted will not give substantial gains as the Secretary of State suggested. There are about 87 authorities in Scotland who will not get a penny in the way of grant. I exclude Glasgow from my calculations, for Glasgow will get a rebate of about 2d. However, if we examine the Bill we discover that Glasgow does not get it from the £2 million; Glasgow gets it because Clauses 10 and 12 alter the 1948 Act.
  There is something seriously wrong about this. How can there be a substantial gain to Scotland when 87 authorities will get nothing? That fact is admitted in the Bill. It is a very unsatisfactory Bill if it needs a provision like Clause 6, which clearly indicates that, in the event of any local authority having a loss, arrangements will be made from the Exchequer to cover the loss. This is evidence that the people who framed the Bill saw its shortcomings.
  We regard the Bill as an interim Measure. It is interim because we are awaiting the Sorn Committee report and also the revaluation in England. If the Sorn Committee is to do its work properly and we are always to be tied

  383
  to England, it indicates that the Committee will remain in session until England has been revalued. The stress in the White Paper is on revaluation in England, and perhaps the Joint Undersecretary of State, who has some association with accountancy and is better able than I am to handle figures, will tell us whether he expects the Sorn Committee to remain in session until it has examined the revaluation in England.
  I should like to have seen it suggested in the Bill that we should not work on the formula of eleven-eightieths, which is based on the English practice. We all recognise that it is not a good yardstick. The point was made in a general way by the right hon. Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Elliot) when he suggested the basis might be population. I feel we might have regard to the population of the cities and the counties. We might also have considered the problem of derating which is a very important point. It might have been possible to evolve a formula operating on the basis of both population and derating.
  In that sense, the highly populated boroughs, which are undergoing a tremendous strain at the moment, might have some easement. We can understand that the people running local government in the City of Glasgow are somewhat disturbed when they find that the City of Birmingham gets £1 million out of equalisation grant and the City of Glasgow gets nothing.
  As a matter of fact, according to the figures for the last financial year, Wales got almost double what Scotland got. I am not arguing that we should readjust our finances so as to take something off the City of Birmingham. Neither am I suggesting that Wales is getting too much. My own view is that the financial commitments of the Government through the Exchequer grants with the rapid development of local government are not big enough to meet the responsibilities of local government.
  I want to make this particular point. Is it not possible for local government grants in Scotland to be allocated purely on a national basis and to be the responsibility of the people of Scotland? I do not know why we should always be brought in behind the formula adopted in the English Measures. I think that it
  384
  is possible, recognising the responsibility of local government in Scotland, to devise ways and means of giving Exchequer grants without taking into account any other part of the country.
  Commander Galbraith:Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the formula is contained in a Scottish Bill. The financial formula is devised by the Scottish Ministries and put in a Scottish Bill.
  Mr. Carmichael: Yes, but the point which has already been made this afternoon is that it is based on English calculation and, in my view, there is no reason why we should not examine the structure of local government in Scotland and its financial responsibilities exclusive of any other part of the country. I say the same about England and about Wales. It should be possible for any Government to measure the responsibilities of authority in Scotland, England and Wales separately and to make their financial allocations according to their needs. We do this in other directions.
  We are the heaviest hit area in respect of unemployment of any part of Britain. Even in the hour of prosperity, the West of Scotland always has the difficult problem of unemployment, which exceeds that in any other part of the country. Similarly, with the housing problem. Our housing problem, particularly in the West of Scotland, will be a serious burden on local authorities for many years. That should be taken into account quite separately from measuring up to the standards in England.
  There is one further observation which I should like to make and I hope that someone associated with the recommendations of the Sorn Committee will take note of it. Whatever policy is finally evolved and whatever the method of measuring Exchequer grants to local authorities I hope that it will be done in such a form that it will be possible for people to understand it. I think it is shocking that we have men in public life today adopting a Bill—even the Minister himself—who, if they were thoroughly cross-examined on it, would have the greatest difficulty in explaining the Clauses detail by detail.
  There is something wrong with the way of government if people cannot understand a Bill. The Secretary of State for

  385
  Scotland is a most tolerant, kindly man, who never "loses his wool," but if he had not taken great care in the preparation of his speech and if he had lost a sheet of foolscap when going to the Dispatch Box, I think he would have been in a serious mess this afternoon. Yes, there is something seriously wrong in the State of Denmark or in the state of St. Andrew's House.
  I plead that when we are bringing forward Measures associated with local government, and particularly with rating, they should be so framed that even Members of Parliament who claim to be some authority on the ways of Government, can understand them. If we cannot do that we can readily understand the inability of people to harness themselves actively and objectively to the machinery of democratic government. In my view, one of the reasons why there has been a very serious decline in interest in local government work is because of the complicated Measures brought forward from time to time.
  I back this Bill, but with a whole lot of reservations. If this is the Bill which is to supersede the 1948 Act, I am not very enamoured of the proposition after the boosting which it got from the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove.
  4.57 p.m.
  Sir William Darling: I find myself in very full sympathy with the hon. Member for Bridge-ton (Mr. Carmichael) in what he has said. This is a very complicated Measure. Local government in relation to Parliament always has been complicated, and I think it is fair to say that the 1947 Act, for which the hon. Member for Bridgeton had at least some responsibility as an ardent supporter of it, was also a piece of complicated legislation. I remember the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on that Bill, and I remember the part which hon. Gentlemen took in it. The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, if not he himself, commended it. I did not. I said at that time that the Bill was impossible and likely to lead to disaster when it came to be applied.
  My experience of this affair was that we were led by the number of observations made by the then Secretary of State for Scotland. For example, when speaking about the 25 per cent., he
  386
  said then that 25 per cent. was reasonably accurate and fair to Scotland. He said that on 10th December, 1947, and in case he felt that I had not been fully convinced, he went on to say that the Committee should accept the decision of the Government. The former Secretary of State also said that the acceptance of the England and Wales standard plus 25 per cent. was best for Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Bridgeton did support him, but the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel), always a powerful ally in any hard fought field, came forward and told the Secretary of State at that time that he was quite satisfied that the grant proposed by the Secretary of State was reasonable. Here we are this afternoon with a Tory Government seeking to amend a Measure which, from the very outset, was condemned by many local authorities in Scotland and certainly by many Tories.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: The quotation which the hon. Gentleman gave as emanating from me arises, I take it, from the 1948 Act. The Central Ayrshire constituency was not created then, and I certainly was not here.
  Sir W. Darling: I think it was the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). If the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire thought that I was addressing myself to him he must have felt carried away with ecstasy. I had no such intention. I was indicating that the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) had the support of his hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire.
  When we hear the hon. Member for Bridgeton and his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) decrying this Bill—and no doubt it has its intricacies and anomalies—I have little sympathy with them, because they are the guilty men. They are the men who imposed this piece of legislation upon our unhappy country. They need not pretend it was wanted, because local authorities at that time, again referring to the 25 per cent. grant, said that this equalisation was open to criticism; and even allowing for a considerable margin of error, which certainly is not all on one side, the 25 per cent. addition was quite inadequate, even in 1946.

  387
  The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends forgot the warning they had received, and not from ignorant Tories who knew nothing about local government in the sense that Glasgow knows about it. They had no time to listen. They were carried away by this kind of free for all which gave nothing to Glasgow, nothing to Edinburgh, nothing to Aberdeen and nothing to Dundee; which created the preposterous anomaly referred to by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, in that a place like Birmingham, with a similar population to Glasgow and with an abounding and expanding prosperity, was getting thousands of pounds while Glasgow was getting nothing.
  That was the Act which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite fastened upon the Scottish public, and it has been left for my right hon. Friend—I admit it is a difficult and disagreeable job—to come forward with what is admittedly a complicated remedying Measure to put right the foolishness, the anomalies and the absurdities of the Act which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite forced upon us.
  Mr. T. Fraser: I wonder whether the hon. Member can explain how, in this Bill, the Government can put right the anomalies to which he has just called attention. He will be aware that Birmingham will continue to get nearly £1½ million by the Exchequer equalisation grant, and that Glasgow will continue to get absolutely nothing.
  Sir W. Darling: I am aware of that. This Bill is only a remedying Bill to deal with some of the anomalies. The hon. Gentleman will hear from Edinburgh and Glasgow a justification of what I am pointing out, that the Act emanating from his brain and from the brains of his right hon. and hon. Friends is, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton pointed out. riddled with anomalies and absurdities; and that, so far as Scotland is concerned has been the insecure foundation on which we have to build in trying to remedy some of the anomalies.
  We are trying to get over the fundamental difficulties imposed upon us in Scotland by the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends. I find myself very much in agreement with what the hon. Member
  388
  for Bridgeton has said. He said that we began this experiment, this investigation, which led to the 1947 Act on the basis of what was the English system. Looking at the English system we found the Minister of Health engaged in a valuation which, he said, could be carried out in 18 months. The advisers of the then Secretary of State for Scotland said, "Scotland has come behind England very often. This is not a bad thing to do. We in the Socialist Party do not believe in Home Rule for Scotland very much, and if the English Minister of Health says it can be done in 18 months we will have an interim Measure to carry on."
  That is what I and the hon. Member for Bridgeton object to equally, the acceptance of the promise, or hope, or suggestion, or anticipation, of the English Minister of Health, that he would have a basic valuation for us in about 18 months' time. They accepted that advice in good faith and, as an interim Measure for Scotland, they produced an Act which is full of anomalies.
  The English Minister of Health let us down. It reminds me of the second phase of the March retreat in 1918. I was standing on a ridge outside Albert with the 9th Scottish division and I was talking to a medical officer. On the right was an English division, I think it was the 21st. The line was going back. The whole British Army was in full, but fighting retreat.
  I said to my friend, this medical officer in the Scottish division, "What do you think is happening on the right?" He said, "Look at it. I fear our English allies have let us down again." In this instance the then Secretary of State for Scotland, backed by the hon. Member for Bridgeton and others, found that his faith in the ability of the English Minister of Health to arrange a valuation in about 18 months was not justified—our English allies had let us down again.
  We had hoped that we had got from them a formula on which we could base an improvement. It did not happen. For five long years we have stumbled along and now there comes along a proposal that there may be this grant from central public funds. I agree that it is a very complicated Measure, but it follows a very bad Act, which, I repeat, was objected to at the time and which has many anomalies apart from those mentioned. It

  389
  made too much of the needs criterion which I do not think so important. As my right hon. Friend said, it did not take into account a certain number of difficulties from which large communities suffer.
  It must be said that after all this was not a politician's plan. Politicians have their limitations and stupidities. But this was a plan sold to us by the bureaucratic planners. Simple men like the hon. Member for Bridgeton and myself could never have thought of such a plan. Neither he nor I would dare to go to a municipal meeting and try to explain it, even if we were able to understand it.
  Let us not be too unhappy about this Bill. It is one of those things which came from what the Secretary of State for Scotland referred to as the "temple of St. Andrews" or the "kirk of St. Andrews"—I am not sure which. It was a plan pushed on us by the Civil Service bureaucrats, and they have not done too well. They have had too many successes not to meet an occasional set-back and this plan was extremely badly done.
  Whether we should indict the Minister of Health in England or the Department of Health in Scotland I do not know, but the whole House agrees that this matter should be remedied. But do not let us forget that the people who accepted the wrong advice, or the misleading advice, in the first instance were those hon. Gentlemen, now so smug and self-complacent, who are sitting on the benches opposite. If my right hon. Friend has made a mistake or a blunder by this Bill and if, when it becomes an Act, it is no more fortunate than the Act which preceded it, he may salve his conscience by asserting that it was not he who took the first step along that foolish road.
  I would put forward my own history—not a very authentic one—of this long and difficult business. These Exchequer equalisation grants have been on the go since 1948, but I would point out that when they were first put into operation some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite took the advice of the English Minister of Health. They took the hospitals from the local authorities. The Socialists believe in principle no matter how absurd and foolish the practice may be. They took from the local authorities
  390
  their hospitals and—what was not such a rich and a ripe plum—the Public Assistance administration.
  But more than that, because from some authorities they took away their transport, their gas and their electricity, these were very valuable parts of local government administration. They enabled local authorities to reduce what I think are called general overheads, the administrative expenses of the local authority under five or six headings instead of one or two. So, when this particular Act was brought forward, it had first dismembered local authorities in a very serious direction. They were bleeding from almost every pore. There was immense dissatisfaction.
  I know Glasgow Socialists who were shocked and horrified when they learned that the application of the theories which they had been preaching for 30 years really meant that the Glasgow hospitals, Glasgow trams, Glasgow gas and Glasgow electricity had to go from the control of the local authority. Many Glasgow Socialists never recovered from the blow. They still call themselves Socialists, but that is all that is left, for they are now only that in name.
  Mr. McInnes:Is the hon. Member aware that on not one single occasion did Glasgow Socialists protest about the Public Assistance and health services being taken over from the local authority?
  Sir W. Darling: That would surprise me, 'but I accept it that they were glad to get rid of the care of the poor of Glasgow. They did not protest, but they said, "The care of the poor of Glasgow is no longer ours. Let us give it to Mr. George Buchanan."
  Mr. Carmichael:On a point of order. Surely the discussion of the Assistance Board is not relevant to this Bill. I know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you have a discretion on the Second Reading in allowing a line of argument to be developed, but when hon. Members refer to Public Assistance in Glasgow as it was 10 years ago surely we are getting very far from the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris):I understood that the hon. Member's argument was directed towards tracing the history of this matter.
  Sir W. Darling: I am very glad, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to have your support and also that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). He is a little nettled at the point which I have raised, which is a very relevant one.
  In spite of the discomfort of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, I am willing to accept that Glasgow, which produced James Maxton and others whose names I cannot mention because they are hon. Members, never protested that the care of her poor, who are always with us, was taken away by the cold, clammy hand of the National Assistance Board. I am surprised, but I am willing to accept it and glad to have it on record.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now straying a little wide.
  Sir W. Darling: My general argument is made, and that is that in 1947, when the Act which is the forerunner of the Bill which we are discussing today, was applied by the then Socialist Government to local authorities, and which, as I suggest, dismembered them, it meant that they lost control of Public Assistance, of their civic transport, of their civic gas service, of their civic electricity service and of their municipal hospitals. And what I am arguing is that it was at that moment that a further brutal blow was delivered upon the City of Glasgow and certainly upon the City of Edinburgh.
  I am referring to the Exchequer equalisation grants under which some bodies got more than they expected and some got less than they deserved. I happen to be the Member for Edinburgh, South and I want to refer to the particular position of the capital city. Although many of the local authorities got much that they did not expect under the 1947 Act, some got nothing. Edinburgh got nothing. In fact, it was worse than that, because Edinburgh lost £232,000 of its annual income, and is still losing a sum relatively in that neighbourhood.
  I note that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central has written down the figure probably to improve it by thinking of a number, doubling it and adding the first number of which he thought. But I will give him the details of the formula by which Edinburgh has been—and I do not think it is an exaggeration to say this—defrauded of £232,000 under the
  392
  previous Act and is continuing to be defrauded under this Bill.
  The formula was calculated on the loss of the block grant, the loss of savings in the transferred services and the education grant. Edinburgh, Perth, Inverness, and the county for Peebles were, under the previous Act, literally minus authorities, but the pill was sweetened by a transitional grant which was to be £357,000. That formula was based on the £232,000 I have referred to, plus 4⅘ of the rate, which is to say, £125,000. This grant was for five years, it diminishes by one-fifth each year and it finishes this year.
  Under the Act of 1947 and under this Bill when it becomes an Act, Edinburgh this year will be under the permanent loss of £232,000. It is a very important matter because this new Bill is going to lay a second foundation and leave the other as if it were unrecorded, forgotten history.
  Mr. Mclnnes: How can the hon. Member expect us to accept those figures in any degree of confidence when he makes the reckless assertion that Edinburgh and Glasgow have lost their transport undertakings? The actual position is that Edinburgh and Glasgow still run their own transport.
  Sir W. Darling: The hon. Member is at least six or seven sentences behind. I thought he would have taken me up on that point earlier. It is the case that the central administration of many of these municipal services—I did not specifically say which local authority—has been denuded, and the local authorities are now left with a loss of revenue when meeting their overhead, administrative costs. While the hon. Member makes the point about Glasgow which he is entitled to make, he will not, I am sure, refuse to accept my general argument that the City of Edinburgh on the basis of the 1947 Act has been permanently deprived of this sum of money. Nothing that was done in that Act and nothing in this Bill is calculated to put that right.
  Under the new plan which is envisaged in the Bill £2 million is to be made available from the central Government. I do not like the phrase "central Government," and I should perhaps say that this sum of money is being made available from the taxpayer—he is the central government—to the ratepayer. It is

  393
  approximately eleven-eightieths of the aggregate grant of England and Wales, and I think this is admirable. The Secretary of State is entitled to praise for this achievement but it means very little in the City of Edinburgh. I will go further and say that, looking the gift horse in the mouth, if we are justifiably entitled to £2 million for this year, it is a shortfall of what we should have had last year.
  I would suggest to the Secretary of State that while he has been bold and successful in securing this £2 million, he might enter a claim with some degree of justification for five years, because, during the time while the former English Minister of Health and his successor have been proving their incompetence to find in a reasonable time, a financial basis for valuation, which they have promised us. England has been dilly-dallying but we have been waiting. It is only in the fifth or sixth year that we get the £2 million.
  I put it to my right hon. Friend that he should put forward a claim not for one year but for four or five years. Under those circumstances he would have a sum of money which he would be entitled to say was a fair allocation for Scotland in all the circumstances. I feel that while something must be said in praise of the Secretary of State for Scotland for procuring this £2 million, there is something else which should be added, and that is that the local authorities, which are outside the wide, general scope of these advantages, should be considered in some special fashion.
  There is a great deal of natural sympathy for local authorities which have a small rating area where the penny in the pound return is negligible. I have more sympathy, however, for the four large capital cities, particularly Glasgow and Edinburgh, which have their own peculiar responsibilities. The old formula based upon unemployment, young children, mileage of roads, and so forth, should be modified because a new problem has emerged, that of the ageing population. An increasing feature of every local authority budget will be the provision of homes and hostels for old folk. This work has not been taken over by the National Health Service but left solely to the local authorities.
  We all know that it is often to the large towns that folk tend to retire. The son
  394
  or daughter of the person who has worked his life out in one of the small burghs has probably gone to Glasgow or Edinburgh, Aberdeen or Dundee to secure work. When he retires, the father does not remain in Linlithgow or Cupar, as in my view he should, but goes to a big town and there makes a demand first on the housing reserves and secondly, possibly, on the provision of accommodation for old folk. I suggest that there is a case. If, as I hope, there is to be a fund of more than £2 million—a multiple of £2 million either by three, four or five—and if that fund comes into the hands of the Secretary of State, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the claims of the large authorities who have these special responsibilities.
  If it happened that every local authority in England had something from an Exchequer grant except London, there would not be these empty benches this afternoon if that subject was being discussed. Yet that is what has happened in Scotland. The two great cities who carry the main burden of the production of wealth in the country are practically being left out of this arrangement. No special consideration is being given to them. They are supposed to be big enough to stand on their own. Yet, after all, they are capital cities.
  The example of Birmingham has been given and London might well be instanced in comparison with the City of Edinburgh. When tragedy falls across our island the City of Edinburgh supports the Lord Mayor's Fund and readily gives what it can. When the great Festival of Britain was held in London the City of Edinburgh made a marked contribution. When, however, something reciprocal is required, this capital city is ignored altogether as if it were not. It has to arrange its own exhibitions, its own festivals, and if there are any grants to be given, they have to be given to other authorities.
  It is a proper thing to try to raise those who have fallen and to assist those in difficulty, but it is an unwise policy which ignores the needs of the capital of a country. That capital is under great disadvantage in this Bill. It is not only under great disadvantage, but it is being ignored to an extent which is offensive to Scottish public opinion which I, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, choose to voice this afternoon in this House.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. David J. Pryde: I regret that I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) in his attack on the English, much as I should like to do so. The hon. Gentleman has a very short memory because his goes back only to 1948 and does not, apparently, go so far back as that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), who told us that Scotland had been losing a great deal of money in recent years. I suggest that if Scotland has been losing money, she did not lose it through the effects of the 1948 Act but through that Section of Part II of the 1929 Local Government (Scotland) Act dealing with derating, which struck a mortal blow to local government in that country.
  I am not blinded or hypnotised by the £2 million which Scotland is to get out of this Bill, because I am apprehensive of the Bill. It is ghostlike and weird in its construction. It reminds me of a thriller I read once called "The Ghost of Guy Thyrle," which was a forerunner of "The Invisible Man." The Secretary of State certainly has my sympathy. I listened carefully to his attempts to elucidate this Measure, and when the right hon. Gentleman told us that certain mining areas would benefit by it, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South, told us that it was an amending Bill which would correct some of the doubts of the 1948 Act.
  In my mind's eye I compared the effects of the two. I found that the 1948 Act steadied local government in Scotland and came to its rescue for the time being. At that time I pointed out, as I have consistently pointed out since 1945, that the entire structure and basis of Scottish rating must come under review. I doubt whether the present arrangements will bring any benefit because, as we have been told here today, we have had samples of that committee under that person before, and the local government bodies in Scotland did not benefit.
  We have heard a great deal about north of the Caledonian Canal. I suggest that south of a line drawn from the Forth to the Clyde we find a state similar to that in the north, and I challenge the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who will wind up the debate for the Government
  396
  to tell me what benefit will accrue from this Bill to the small burghs in the south of Scotland, especially in Dumfriesshire, in Kirkcudbright and also in East Fife. Where is there a greater mining town than Dalkeith, lying in the centre of the Midlothian coalfield, with a record in housing and low rents second to none in Scotland?
  Sir W. Darling: High rates.
  Mr. Pryde:If the hon. Gentleman looks at the rates in Dalkeith he will find that they compare favourably with many of the burghs in Scotland.
  Sir W. Darling: Not with Edinburgh.
  Mr. Pryde: But Dalkeith gives greater service to its citizens than does Edinburgh.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South went to great lengths in trying to elaborate the case for the Bill, but he said something in agreement with his right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove—he had his doubts about this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) propounded exactly what was wrong. What is wrong is simply that the local authorities in Scotland will never know exactly where they are because any grants that come to them from this House are based on an algebraic proposition: something has to be equal to something else and things that are equal to the same thing are equal to one another.
  We must get down to basing Scottish taxation and rating on a more solid foundation. All the talk about waiting for the revaluation in England and Wales is so much moonshine, because there is a revaluation taking place in Scotland today. We are the only country in the world where property appreciates in value. In England the capitalist writes off something for depreciation each year, but in Scotland every year a house stands we add something to its value until it is falling down, and even then we want something for the site value.
  I therefore suggest that the Government withdraw this Bill because it is a bad Bill. If my hon. Friends on this side of the House would take my advice, they would press for the withdrawal of the Bill because, otherwise, in years to come the people who come after us will blame us for coming here and passing a bad Bill.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: We should first recognise that the Government are not claiming that this Bill is other than a sop to tide over what has become a particularly bad period in Scottish local authority finances. Therefore, this is entirely an interim Measure. Although we have heard today about the problems which the 1948 Act has brought in its train, we should recognise that that Act did a great deal of good. In many instances, it stopped the rot and enabled work to be done in various areas which otherwise would not have been done.
  The 1948 Act tried to help the weaker and poorer areas which had been hard hit for a long time. When I hear hon. Members opposite criticise that Act, I like to remind them that there was a lengthy period after the passing of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, during which very little was done to help Scottish local authorities who were complaining bitterly from the commencement of that Act.
  As a local government member for a lengthy period, I was certainly aware that local authority officials and members in Scotland felt that the 1929 Act had worked very badly from the point of view of future solvency in Scottish local authority circles. Under that Act, derating took large slices off the valuation in our industrial towns where industry was derated by as much as 75 per cent.; and in our rural areas there was an even larger commitment in respect of agricultural holdings.
  The main provision on which the local authorities depended was that an Exchequer grant would be made to the local authorities to make up for that derating which took place under that Act. The complaint of the local authorities was that while this provision was maintained in the first year, it has steadily been whittled away, and that burden which was previously carried on a larger rate application field is now being carried on a narrower one, and this led to the necessity for the Labour Government to do something about it in 1948.
  The adoption of the Goschen formula of eleven-eightieths in this Bill will certainly not solve the problem. We in local authority circles have never accepted that the Goschen formula was the best means of deciding what the Exchequer
  398
  grant should be. Although that formula has been adopted in this case. I think Clause 6 of this Bill shows that the formula has not succeeded in accomplishing what the Government required.
  Clause 6 says:
  "Where the council of a county or the town council of a burgh are, under the provisions of this section, to be regarded as having incurred in consequence of the passing of this Act a loss in respect of the year 1953–54 or any subsequent year, there shall be paid to the council of the county or the town council of the burgh, out of the amount available by virtue of section one of this Act for the payment of Exchequer Grants in respect of the year in question, an Exchequer Grant (in this Act referred to as an "Exchequer Transitional Grant") in respect of the loss."
  In other words, Clause 6 says that if we do not include that Clause, certain local authorities are going to lose under this formula. But surely the formula is not doing what it set out to do.
  Commander Galbraith:Surely that has got nothing to do with the Goschen formula, which is giving us another £2 million to distribute.
  Mr. Manuel:What I am saying is that the Goschen formula has not been accepted by Scottish local authorities as the best means of deciding what grant they should get from central funds. I was then passing from that and saying that the system which had been adopted under the disbursement formula has not accomplished what the Government wanted it to do, or they would not have needed to bring in Clause 6.
  The Clause is merely a means of protection for the Government in order to avoid an outburst of feeling and indignation among a large number of Scottish local authorities who would have lost under this Bill but for the inclusion of the Clause. That in itself is a bad thing. Why are we having this situation in Scotland whereby, although we are getting an extra £2 million and although we have had a fairly large amount of money under the 1948 Act and the Goschen formula. Scotland as such is not receiving the financial benefit that it should have?
  Commander Galbraith: The answer must be well known. It is because we are following the principles of the equalisation grant.
  Mr. Manuel: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to

  399
  develop my point, I think my case will reveal itself.
  The benefit under the 1948 Act would be much more apparent to Scottish local authorities if we had not in Scotland problems which are peculiar to Scotland and in particular to the Highlands. The Highlands, because of their low rate able value and their peculiar domestic problems, are receiving so much help from the Exchequer equalisation grant that they are taking too large a proportion. There ought to be a greater share of the grant going to the other local authorities in the industrial and more populous areas in Scotland.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is not here. When we consider that out of the total rate levied in Orkney for local authority work 70 per cent. of the outlay is met by the Exchequer Equalisation grant, hon. Members will appreciate the problem I am trying to pose. If we took the same percentage for Glasgow it would be nil, and in Ayrshire and most of the local authority areas in the industrial part of Scotland we would get the same result.
  If there is to be a real chance of success, the Government ought to devise help for the crofter counties in the Highlands generally in the ratio of the needs of those counties. But that ought not to be made from the same central fund as that upon which other local authorities in Scotland depend. If the grant was not drawn upon to the extent that it is now drawn upon for the peculiar domestic problems of the Highlands, there would be more for disbursement in the Southern counties.
  There ought to be a different way of meeting these peculiar problems of the Highlands than the way in which they are presently being met. When we are trying to get a cure we ought to be considering just what are the problems which local authorities face in Scotland. While we see that Highland local authorities have domestic problems we have also to recognise that authorities in more populous areas have also pressing problems because they are industrial and a greater proportion of the population live in their areas.
  400
  Attention should be paid to the amount of housing which a local authority must provide in the future when we are deciding the ratio of help they should get from the central source. Possibly the incidence of tuberculosis ought to be considered, the number of old people, the number of homes that will need to be built and things of that character in which the work of local authorities is restricted because they are not given enough help from central sources.
  The matter we are talking about today is a serious one and of great consequence to Scotland. Those of us who are concerned about it and have some knowledge of local authority problems and the headaches which members of local authorities have in meeting the commitments which ratepayers ask of them must recognise that local authorities have more to do than ever. From 1929 there has been a curbing of local authorities influence and a greater dependence on the centre by reason of rateable value being filched from them. They are not getting what they should get in rates. Local authorities feel that they can only accomplish their job in their own areas if attention is paid by the Government of the day to the nature of their problems and if there is an adequate disbursement of the equalisation grant or whatever the central grant may be in relation to the problems of the respective authoritiesin Scotland.
  5.44 p.m.
  Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: We have had a short debate which has been peculiarly characterised by the fact that acceptance of the Bill and the financial benefit which will accrue to Scotland under the Bill seems to be so grudgingly given. I wish to illustrate my point by the fact that many hon. Members have criticised the Bill and the benefits to be received under it. I am not here to argue the merits of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and places referred to by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel).
  It will be recalled by hon. Members that my constituency in the south-east of Scotland was used for illustration in the White Paper. I can say with truth that in Roxburgh and Selkirk there will be pleasurable acceptance of this Bill and the financial benefits which will acrue from it. Perhaps it does not give everything hoped for, but in large measure

  401
  there will be appreciation of the Bill and the fact that it is a step in the right direction, which Scottish Members on both sides of the House will admit.
  The future will depend to some extent on the application of this Measure and of the Reports in relation to other subjects. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) referred to the subject of rating values and derating. We all know that that is a very intricate problem, but we are not so concerned with the intricacies of the problem as with acceptance or refusal of this Bill. I am certain that Scottish Members will be indeed ungrateful and unappreciative of a vast step forward for Scotland if we cavil too much at the terms of the Bill. I think we should accept it—certainly with justifiable reservations in some cases—as something which, in broad terms, is good for Scotland. Therefore, I commend and support the Bill.
  5.46 p.m.
  Mr. James McInnes: We can all agree that this short debate has revealed that whilst we welcome and gladly accept the additional £2 million provided for in the Bill, nevertheless dissatisfaction has been expressed with the method of allocation. That has been expressed from both sides of the House and I think I should be justified in saying that that expression is the echo of dissatisfaction among local authorities now that they realise and appreciate all the implications of the Bill.
  I know that it could be argued that it is only natural that those who get nothing, or those who get very little, under these proposals should be dissatisfied, but it would be correct to say that it was the dissatisfaction among local authorities which culminated in the present review. Indeed, the Secretary of State said so this afternoon. I must confess that the fact that we are getting an additional £2 million for Scotland does not prevent me from harbouring a feeling that it will take far more than £2 million to avoid the almost inevitable breakdown of the financial structure of Scottish local government.
  I know that there were weaknesses add defects in the 1948 Act, but I rather thought the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) gave a bad example when he referred to the position in the Highlands and quoted the County
  402
  of Caithness. In fact, in 1952–53 Caithness received 56 per cent. of its net expenditure through equalisation grants, and I could quote another seven or eight Scottish counties which received over 50 per cent. of their net expenditure through these grants.
  I well understand why the right hon. Gentleman advances alternative proposals, but he suggested that it might be worthwhile to consider going no further and that local authorities' rates should be pegged for five years. Does he mean that the rates should be pegged at their present level for five years and that any amount in excess of the present-day figure would be payable by the Government? What has the right hon. Gentleman in mind?
  Mr. Elliot: It is rash for the hon. Member—my hon. Friend, if I may call him so—to ask me to start another speech, after I have just finished one. Naturally I should have tobe guided by the Sorn Report. The problems in that Report will be very great indeed, and I should need to take my proposals in connection with that Report.
  Mr. McInnes: Ithought that the right hon. Gentleman would put forward a progressive proposal, but I visualise now what he has in mind. He anticipates that there will be a complete re-orientation of Scottish rating following the Sorn Report: that owners' rates will almost certainly be pegged or stabilised, and that the rating revenue of local authorities, from that source will, as a result, be infinitely less. The burden will have to fall on the owner-occupiers of other property. As a result, the figure of rating will be at a comparatively high level, and the proposal is that when it is pegged at that figure the national Exchequer shall not be asked to make any great or valuable contribution.
  Mr. Elliot:The hon. Member is going too far if he tries to read all that into my remarks.
  Mr. Mclnnes: It is intelligent anticipation nevertheless.
  Mr. Manuel: We will see how the right hon. Gentleman goes when we come to the Bill on housing.
  Mr. Mclnnes: In certain respects the right hon. Gentleman justifiably attacked

  403
  the 1948 Act. I confess that it contains many weaknesses and defects, but if the right hon. Gentleman was dealing in a broad way with the serious financial position of Scottish local government he should have recalled the Act which was passed by his own party when in Government and which has imposed a tremendous strain on Scottish local government. I refer to the derating Act of 1929. Indeed, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was one of its best advocates. In the city of Glasgow, in which the right hon. Gentleman has the honour to represent a constituency, he would save the ratepayers no less than:1s. 8d. in the pound in rates if the local authority were to be compensated in respect of derating.
  One or two observations made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) rather shook me. He referred to what he described as "this very bad Act of 1948"and went on to indicate that it was left to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to remedy the grave injustices of that Act. The hon. Member indicated that Birmingham, a city of unbounding prosperity, was receiving £1,300,000 each year in respect of equalisation grants, and that cities in Scotland—Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow, for example—were receiving not a penny. I ask the Joint Undersecretary whether it is not a fact that there is nothing in this proposal that will bridge the gulf between the £1,300,000 which Birmingham is receiving and the nothing that Glasgow and Edinburgh are receiving.
  There has been comment regarding the addition of 25 per cent. to the English rateable value for the purpose of calculating the grant to Scottish local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) indicated that 25 per cent. was the generally accepted figure that was used for other purposes in determining grants made during the same period to Scottish local authorities. One must also remember that at the time of the 1948 Act the Government were engaged in the process of relieving Scottish local authorities of millions of pounds of rating liabilities when they relieved them of the responsibility for public assistance and part of the health services.
  404
  The 1948 Act was based on a wrong calculation or formula. I am satisfied that it was not produced by any local authority or any association of local authorities, nor by any Minister. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, I feel that the calculation of the formula was produced by the Department. That is my opinion of the present Bill and it was my opinion of the 1948 Measure. I would go further and suggest that the formula in this Bill is far more intricate, more complex and more ambiguous than anything in the 1948 Act.
  Sir W. Darling:I said that this was not a politicians' formula but was the product of the experts. I must not be thought to attack the experts for this reason, because the politicians could think of nothing. Something had to be put forward for our acceptance.
  Mr. McInnes: I do not attack the Civil Service or any particular Department for that production. I merely indicated that it is, obviously, produced by them.
  We have talked about the intricacies and complexity of the Act, and the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove referred to Clause 4. In subsection (3) we find:
  "In this section the expression 'the weighted population' means—

  (a) in relation to a large burgh, the population thereof plus the number of children under fifteen years of age therein;

  (b) in relation to a county, the population thereof plus—

  (i) the number of children under fifteen years of age therein, and

  (ii) twice the number of persons by which the increase of the population of the county during the period of five years immediately preceding the year in question exceeds one twentieth of the population of the county in the first year of the period of five years aforesaid, and

  (iii) in the case of a county the population whereof divided by the road mileage thereof is less than seventy, one third of the additional population needed in order that the population thereof divided by the road mileage thereof should be seventy;…"

  I hope that it is the intention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State clearly to define that Clause for our benefit. I should also like him to define the meaning of the phrase:
  "…the constant factor determined for that year by the Secretary of State…"

  405
  which appears in Clause 4 (2). What is this mysterious ingredient called the "constant factor"? Are right hon. Gentlemen opposite sure that it is not the forgotten factor? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire said, it might be the landlord—or it might be the constant nymph.
  I pay my tribute to the Committee for the way they handled their task. The formula they produced seems to have worked out something like this: they said to themselves, "We have an additional sum of £2 million more available for allocation, so we shall apply the Goschen equivalent of eleven-eightieths of the equalisation grant payable to local authorities in England and Wales." But fundamentally that is entirely wrong. It is contrary to the spirit of equalisation. The idea of equalisation was to distribute grants on the basis of need and not of population.
  As I understand the 1948 Act, it was designed to assist by Exchequer grants those local authorities which would be unable to provide or maintain their local services without undue strain on their own local resources. I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South will agree with me that the Goschen formula is a mystical form of calculation. If we are talking in terms of eleven-eightieths, I could argue that Scotland receives far more than its share of the Goschen formula when we consider matters like unemployment, infantile mortality, tuberculosis, overcrowding and the whole degree of social poverty in Scotland as a whole when compared with England and Wales. One could continue. All the indices are a great deal higher than those in England and Wales.
  Let us see what happens when we apply the Goschen formula and the formula laid down in Clause 4. I take the town of Kirkcaldy, where the rates are 16s. 8d. It gets equalisation grants equivalent to 2s. 5d. per £ in the rate. Under the Bill, Kirkcaldy's rates will be reduced from 16s. 8d. to 15s. 1d. and it will get another 1s. 7d. per £ of relief, so Kirkcaldy will get about £33,000. The rates at Greenock are 18s. 11d., and the equalisation grant is 2s. Id. Under the Bill, Greenock's rates come down to 17s. 5d. The local authority is given an additional relief, therefore, of 1s. 6d. per £. So Greenock gets approximately £51,000.
  406
  I take the great City of Glasgow which houses almost a quarter of Scotland's population. Glasgow does not get one penny of the £2 million; yet Glasgow is perhaps the most heavily-rated industrial city in Great Britain. Glasgow has a rate burden of £11 8s. per head of the population. It gets a benefit of 2d. in the £ in rate, but how and by what mystical means was that achieved under the Bill? It is from the formula that has now been applied in respect of education grants.
  By taking the standard rateable value where it is higher than the actual rateable value, Glasgow gets £160,000. But we do not leave it there. We apply the same formula in respect of Part V of the 1948 Act to local authorities which receive payments in lieu of rates in respect of railway and electricity undertakings. Under the provisions of that part of the Act, Glasgow loses £40,000. So, while Glasgow gets nothing out of the £2 million, it gets £160,000 out of the new formula under education and loses £40,000 under the new formula covering rates for nationalised undertakings.
  It is abundantly clear to me, despite the complexities and intricacies of the Bill, that the Committee has amended the basis of the education grant so that some local authorities will get more at the expense of other local authorities. They have amended Part V of the Act so that the local authority which at present receives equalisation grant will get greater payments from the railway and electricity undertakings than it has had before. But the local authority which gets no equalisation grant will get less payment from the nationalised industries. That is how it appears to work out.
  Under Part V the local authorities will get less from the pool—that is, the block rating grant payable by the railways and electricity undertakings. Then to cover up the position, and so that it would appear to every local authority in Scotland that the idea is that no local authority shouldbe penalised, the Government bring in this transitional Clause which provides that, although there are nearly 90 local authorities which get nothing under the Bill, they are safeguarded and they have the first claim on the £2 million additional which is available. Did the Secretary of State give the House the correct information when he indicated that the first claim on

  407
  the £2 million amounted only to something like £200,000? After all, there are something like 90 local authorities involved.
  Mr. Stuart: As far as I am aware, that calculation is as correct as we are able to make it at present. I was under the impression that the number of local authorities to whom the hon. Member had referred and who would get nothing was 76 and not90, but that is only a figure out of my head and I am not absolutely certain about it.
  Mr. McInnes: That is the procedure as laid down in the Bill for the calculations and formulae under the various Clauses, and it amounts simply to this: that such local authorities as Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee and several others which have no equalisation grants are now being offered, by devious means, a miserable penny or twopence in order to appease any wrath which might develop. That is the economics of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
  May I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who is to reply, one or two questions? May I ask him why consideration was not given by the Committee to the proposition of introducing a formula on the basis of the rating burden per head of population? Secondly, why did not the Committee tackle this question, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South said, without any reference of any kind to English rating? Thirdly, why was there not a proposal that some weighting should be introduced to help those areas where the cost of housing is excessive? Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that some local authorities have a rate burden in respect of housing today which is 1,000 per cent. more than their burden in 1939. It was entirely wrong of the Committee merely to indicate in respect of housing that it appreciated the situation and that it should be watched and considered at the next investigation. When is the next investigation to take place? Is it to be when we get the Sorn Committee's Report or have we to wait until the revaluation which has to take place in England and Wales? Or when will it be?
  Dr. H. Morgan: Domes day.
  Mr. Mclnnes: I think I am justified in asking when the next investigation is to
  408
  take place, because it is vital to the interests of Scotland.
  Commander Galbraith:My right hon. Friend has answered that question. It is laid down in the Bill that such an investigation can take place at any time, whenever the situation warrants it.
  Mr. McInnes: I agree, but I am not being kidded by that. I want something more concrete. Obviously the right hon. Gentleman can do it at any time, but he will not do it until there are some new circumstances on which to act. They may arise from the Sorn Committee Report or from representations in respect of the revaluation in England and Wales.
  Commander Galbraith:The hon. Member will grant that there is an improvement. Whereas we have to wait for a period of five years under the existing legislation, we shall be able to make the investigation in future whenever we feel that the situation warrants it.
  Mr. Mclnnes:Yes, there is an improvement in some respects but there is a definite worsening in other respects. That is why I say the whole of this Bill is the economics of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. It is no use kidding ourselves; we have improvements but in other respects we have a definite worsening of the position.
  Why I ask when the investigation is to take place is because Birmingham and other English cities have been getting millions and millions of pounds of equalisation grants while the large cities in Scotland have not been getting a single penny. Has that to continue for another two or three or four or five years? The longer the next investigation is delayed, the longer will Birmingham continue to receive this money.
  It is in the light of all those circumstances that, while we welcome the additional £2 million, we must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the method of allocation of the £2 million does not merit the approbation of those on this side of the House.
  6.16 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): We have had a very amiable debate and one which has produced a lot of points which we can consider before we reach

  409
  the Committee stage. It seems to me that two general criticisms have been levelled against the Government's proposals. The first is on the method of distribution, about which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Mclnnes) has just spoken with such feeling, and the other is on the amount of money which we have to distribute by way of equalisation grants.
  I suggest to the House that those who are criticising the distribution proposed in the Bill of the £8 million which is available are criticising not this Bill but the fundamental principles of equalisation grants as laid down in the Act of 1948. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central spent most of the time in his speech criticisng that Measure and not criticising this Bill.
  After looking at the matter pretty carefully, it seems to me that the principle on which the equalisation grant is distributed is probably more just and fairer than that of any other system which has so far been devised. This Bill merely carries the principle further, and it is therefore even fairer than that which was provided in the 1948 Act.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central and other hon. Members have alluded to the great financial burden which is placed on certain of our local authorities as a result of their housing programmes. I acknowledge that at once and it may well be that the day will come when some additional weighting will have to be introduced into the method of distributing equalisation grants in respect of that housing burden. The House surely realises—I am sure it does—that the principle is simply that the State should assist to a greater extent those local authorities whose rateable value falls short of a minimum standard. That is the whole purpose of it; it is intended to assist the weak and the poor and not the strong and the rich. I have always assumed that that was a principle generally accepted in the House.
  What was the alternative put forward during the debate? The only real alternative put forward is that the sum available, or at least part of it, should be distributed on the basis of population. I quite well realise that that might enhance
  410
  the prestige of some of those who represent the great areas which at the moment are getting no assistance under the Bill or from equalisation grants. It would no doubt be of assistance to some hon. Members, myself included, when we are next under the necessity of seeking the franchise of the electors. From that point of view, I should welcome it very much indeed, but I submit that, on all other counts, such a method of distribution would be very unfair and therefore undesirable in the interests of the country as a whole.
  The object of the Bill is to even up much further the rating resources of our local authorities, and I can think of no fairer means of doing it than by the measures proposed in this Bill. If, however, when we come to the Committee stage, other methods of distribution are put forward, I give the assurance to the House that my right hon. Friend will examine them with an open mindand with the utmost sympathy.
  Running through a number of the speeches today, there has been a comparison of the position as between Birmingham and Glasgow, and I have been asked time and again during the debate why Birmingham should receive £1 million or £1½ million while Glasgow got nothing. I submit that that is a matter which is outside the purview of any discussion on this Bill, in view of the fact that we are now getting eleven-eightieths of the total equalisation grant payable in England and Wales. Surely it is no concern of ours how England and Wales should distribute their equalisation grant.
  If the operation of the equalisation grant principle results in money being paid to Birmingham, even though, in our opinion, that is done to the detriment of other authorities, that is no affair of ours and is not our business. Our business is simply to distribute the sum allocated to Scotland in such a manner as we consider just and fair, which, in my opinion, is just what this Bill does.
  Mr. Woodburn: By implication, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman acknowledges that there seems to be an anomaly, and there is no question that that anomaly is disturbing the minds of people in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Having discovered there is an anomaly, would he not like to offer the House some explanation of the anomaly?
  Commander Galbraith:The explanation simply arises out of the whole principle of the equalisation grant. We are now distributing in Scotland on the principles of the equalisation grant the money which has been allotted to Scotland for that purpose, and which has been welcomed time and again during the debate. In England and Wales, the money is distributed on the English basis, which was the basis that we had previously, and which we did not like at all.
  Mr. T. Fraser: Are we not all responsible, as Members of Parliament, for the public money that we give either to Glasgow or Birmingham, and under whatever Act of Parliament it may be given?
  Commander Galbraith: That may be perfectly correct, and the hon. Gentleman may be quite right, but that is not what we are discussing this afternoon. What we are discussing is the Second Reading of this Bill.
  The other pint on which there was general criticism was the amount of money we had received, and I would remind the House in that connection that the matter was very carefully and seriously considered by the expert investigating Committee set up by my right hon. Friend to examine the operation of the equalisation grant in Scotland. That Committee was composed of the most eminent authorities on local government finance, valuation and rating in our country, and it included persons nominated by the three local authority associations and officers of the Scottish Home Department, and among its members were the city chamberlains of four cities, the town clerks of small and large burghs and the county clerks of counties. We could not, in fact, have formed a more representative or more highly-qualified body to consider this very intricate matter.
  Now, in its examination the Committee obtained evidence which tended to show that the percentage increase necessary to raise rateable value on the English basis to rateable value on the Scottish basis should not have been 25 per cent. but something considerably higher. That evidence, however, the Committee did not find itself able to regard as providing the best comparison between the English and Scottish levels, and the Committee gave detailed reasons why it could not accept it. In that regard, I would refer
  412
  hon. Members to paragraph 7 of the Committee's interim Report.
  The Committee came to the conclusion that 25 per cent. was too low, but it was unable to suggest any reasonable alternative other than the Goschen formula, and I would say to the House that, where experts such as these who formed that Committee, after factual and objective study, came to that conclusion and advised that the Goschen formula should be adopted, we would be somewhat rash to turn down that advice unless we had at least some other reasonable alternative to offer.
  Of course, as I am sure the House will agree, it is a human failing that, when we receive something we like, we always want some more of it, and I fear that that is what has come up time and again in this debate. I feel very strongly that, rather than criticising, hon. Members ought to be congratulating my right hon. Friend, than whom none is more active in the interests of Scotland, on his success in convincing the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the existing formula was not working out fairly as far as Scotland was concerned, and on obtaining from him an additional £2 million, which, let me say, was given with good grace and which will very greatly help our local authorities whose money resources are below the standard and whose need is great.
  A great deal has been said today on the great complexity of this Bill, and I would agree. To endeavour to read the Bill, with all its references and cross-references from one Clause to another, and, indeed, to previous Acts of Parliament, is a most bewildering undertaking, and I wonder whether I might venture to try to put to the House in my own way how the provisions of this Bill will work out in practice. When I put it to myself that way, I find that I understand it, although it may be that hon. Members will not understand it. However, perhaps they will allow me to try.
  In doing that, we have to start off from the existing position under the existing law, under which we in Scotland receive grants under the formula of rateable valueper head of weighted population for England and Wales, plus 25 per cent. Having applied that formula in Scotland, we are in the position of rendering an

  413
  account to the Exchequer, and requesting payment. The change that has come about is simply that we do not now present an account, but we are given a sum of money which we have to assimilate under the Bill.
  I have been asked a number of times during the debate what on earth is this so-called "constant factor." It so happens that there is no known method of arriving in one operation at a figure which will assimilate the whole of the money which we are given to distribute under the equalisation grant. What we have to do is to proceed by a system of trial and error. We take one figure, and, if we find out that all the sum available is not taken up, we take another, and if we find that takes up too much, we have to go on until we gradually reach the figure where the whole of the grant is taken up.
  Having found that figure, we then ascertain the weighted population of Scotland, and we divide the constant factor, as it is called—which is really a notional rateable value—by the weighted population of Scotland and we arrive at the figure of the standard rateable value per head of the weighted population.
  To put it into figures, the notional rateable value, or constant factor, is £55,890,000-odd, and the weighted population is 6,494,000 and some odd units. The standard rateable value per head of the weighted population is £8·606 and some more decimal points. Having ascertained what the standard rateable value per head of weighted population is, we can then find the standard rateable value for any local authority whatsoever merely by multiplying the weighted population of that local authority by the standard rateable value per head of the weighted population.
  As an illustration, let me give the figures for Peterhead. The weighted population amounts to 16,927. Multiplying that figure by £8·606, we arrive at a standard rateable value for that burgh of £145,678. That gives us the standard rateable value. We pay Exchequer equalisation grant to all those burghs whose rateable value as adjusted, as laid down in the Act, is below the standard. Those which are above the standard naturally get nothing. The gap between the rateable value of the burgh and the
  414
  standard rateable value is the credited rateable value on which the Exchequer pays rates.
  I hope that I have succeeded in explaining some parts of the Bill. That is how the matter works out in practice. Now I am prepared to answer some of the questions which were put to me.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said that the impression given by the White Paper and by my right hon. Friend was that the effect on the rates was entirely the result of the new grant. In that connection I would refer him to paragraph 11 of the White Paper, where he will see that that is not the case. Another question or suggestion that he put to me was that compensation should be paid for derating losses. That point was frequently put. Let me remind the House of what actually happens. Under the Local Government Act, 1929, the block grant was introduced and included estimated losses on rates due to derating. That system remained in force until the coming into operation of the Local Government Act, 1948.
  Mr. L. M. Lever: And unemployment.
  Commander Galbraith: I am not going into all the factors but am merely dealing with one matter on which a question was addressed to me. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not expect me to stand at the Box and say what all the factors are, and that my explanation satisfies them that I know what the constant factor means.
  I was asked by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) to indicate whether I expected that the Sorn Committee would remain in being until revaluation was made. I should say that the answer was "Certainly not." He asked whether eleven-eightieths was a good yardstick. Up to the present I do not think we can say that it is bad, because it has given us another £2 million. He asked whether housing should be taken into account. I have already answered that point when I intimated that at some future date it might not be unreasonable to introduce weighting for housing into the calculation.
  I was rather shocked and surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling)—and

  415
  incidentally other hon. Members when making their speeches—seemed to put the blame upon the Scottish Office for certain things that happened. Any blame, as the House knows, does not attach to the Department but to my right hon. Friend and those who sit with him on the Government Front Bench.
  Sir W. Darling:I only suggested that the formula which he admitted was complicated, was unworkable. I was not suggesting that that was due to my right hon. Friend or to my right hon. and gallant Friend, but to people who, to the best of their ability, did the best they could for their masters.
  Commander Galbraith: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has said that, because he has removed from my mind the suggestion that he was attributing blame to the officers of the Department in St. Andrew's House. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) asked that the Government should withdraw the Bill. I do not think the hon. Gentleman had better go back to Scotland and to his own constituency and say that he has invited the Government to withdraw a Bill which gives to Scotland another £2 million to meet the expenditure of the local authorities.
  Mr. Pryde:If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will guarantee that Midlothian and Peebles will get something substantial out of the Bill, as has been enunciated, I shall be very pleased. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will turn to the White Paper he will find that Peebles, the town with the highest rateable value per head of the population, is getting a penny in the £, and that the town of Dalkeith, with its fine record in housing and low rents, gets nothing. We must take the Government's assurances that they are going to act in a corrective and amending fashion with some degree of circumspection.
  Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman knows that a penny is better than nothing. He also knows that the purpose of the Bill is not to assist local authorities whose rateable value is already above the standard. He will have observed in the Bill provisions for weighting which make allowance for a change in population, and they may well apply in his own constituency.
  I have answered to the best of my ability many of the questions which were put to me, and I now ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified].
  [SIR CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the payment of Exchequer Grants to local authorities in Scotland in lieu of the grants payable to such authorities under Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, and, among other things, for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise !he payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, in respect of the year beginning with the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, and of any subsequent year beginning with the sixteenth day of May, of grants to local authorities in Scotland amounting in the aggregate to a sum equal to eleven-eightieths of the total amount certified by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to have been paid in respect of the twelve months ending on the thirty-first day of March falling within the year in question to local authorities in England and Wales by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grants under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948.—[Mr. J. Stuart]
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILM PRODUCTION (SPECIAL LOANS) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20th November], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Question again proposed.
  6.37 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Lever: As I was saying, the Bill is peculiarly a non-party matter, because we are surely all concerned that there shall be proper examination of the financial proposals. I am fortified that, through the determined action of more than five-sixths of the Members of this House, the House has now an opportunity of reviewing the matter with more consideration than was intended by the Government.
  I think it right to commence my remarks, which I hope will be received in a proper frame of mind, by saying that it was never my intention to cripple the time of the House or to obstruct Government business for the sake of obstruction, but merely to achieve the purpose which has been achieved. The Leader of the House, who has been most generous in this matter, is most chivalrous, considering that he was the one most inconvenienced in the matter, in giving us an opportunity now of doing what ought to have been done in the first instance, considering this matter on a proper day of the House of Commons.
  In the course of my address to the House on Friday, I observed that there was a growing interest in points of detail, and I was constantly pressed for answers, which I shall do my best to supply in the course of my address tonight; but I should like the House to know that it is not my intention to be in any way tedious in the matter.
  It also came to my notice over the weekend that the hon. and learned Member who is to reply for the Government said when this matter was last debated and when I ventured to voice a contribution in criticism of the Bill:
  "The hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) showed a rather refreshing concern for public money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February. 1952; Vol. 496, c. 1524.]
  418
  I hope that I was at least as refreshing on Friday, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman was refreshed by anything that I said, I am bound to say that he dissembled it very effectively.
  I give notice that I shall protest very forcefully if nothing is done about the points I raised. I should also like to say, so that my remarks may be properly understood, that I am not speaking either out of malice or affection for any person, but because I feel now, as I did when it was last debated, that the matter calls for a great deal more careful examination than it has been given on any occasion when it has been discussed.
  We seem to have a sort of inter-party Hallelujah Chorus as each side applauds the improvident action of the other. I think we must examine once again what is being done in our name. I have addressed a number of Questions to the Minister, and I hope that he will be able to give the House specific answers to what I consider to be extremely relevant questions.
  The first question I have to ask him is what directives at present govern the Film Finance Corporation in the conduct of its business? I have not the faintest idea what principles govern the present operations of the Corporation. Does it depend on the whim of the particular chairman at any given time, or upon some directive concealed from us?
  What the House has forgotten is that as each party comes for a further dollop from the public purse hon. Members are told something different from what was said when the Bill was brought in the first time. I will read to the House what was said when this Bill was first brought in. I am certain that it has been forgotten by hon. Members, as otherwise it would have been pressed home upon the Government and Questions would have been asked about it. When permission was obtained in 1948 to set up the Film Finance Corporation, the House was told that there would be a collapse of the film industry in this country unless finance was forthcoming.
  Sir William Darling: By whom?
  Mr. Lever: By the Government in the form of the Film Finance Corporation. Some finance had been provided by the

  419
  then President of the Board of Trade, and that this was a completion of those emergency measures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), the then President of the Board of Trade, after saying:
  "This Bill is a necessity—but, in my view, a regrettable necessity."
  went on to say:
  "The scheme set out in the Bill starts from three points. First, we consider it essential that working capital must be found to enable the industry to carry out the production programme of which it is capable. Secondly, I think it is necessary to affirm that the industry's financing must be of an entirely self-liquidating basis. There must be no question of a subsidy for film production."
  The House will observe that all that has been abandoned. All this talk about an emergency, a self-liquidating loan and no subsidy has been abandoned, because this Bill completes the full cycle. First of all, the emergency has become something permanent, and, instead of pretending that the money is going back to the State, we are being asked to make provision for the abatement of Government claims. My right hon. Friend went on to say:
  "Thirdly, that the special emergency arrangements proposed here should be temporary, and that in a reasonable period when the industry has built itself up again, it should be able to float itself free of the special arrangements and revert to more normal methods of financing."
  What is a temporary period? The then Minister regarded a year as a temporary period, because 18 months later my right hon. Friend said specifically that this was no substitute for a more fundamental solution of the problem. He said that pending the more fundamental attack which would have to be made on the problems of the film industry, it was proposed to limit the additional finance available to the Corporation to £1 million.
  There has been no fundamental attack since then except on the taxpayer's pocket, and that was for another £2 million in 1952, an attack which was far more accurately directed than any attack upon the problems of the industry. In case it might be considered that this was an ill-considered word on the part of my right hon. Friend, he went on to say:
  "The film industry is, of course, engaged primarily in the business of popular entertain-
  420
  ment—and when I say popular entertainment, I am not excluding, of course, the great educational and cultural aims of the film industry; but they are subsidiary to the main business of the industry. That means that the box office is from the point of view of the industry the final judge of art. I know that in saying that I shall be written off as a Philistine."
  My right hon. Friend may now have qualified himself for a more attractive epithet than the one he justified by his then attitude, but at all events he has changed his tune. He went on to say:
  "The money that is being provided is limited to £5 million, and the duration of the scheme is limited in time. All loans must be repayable within five years"—
  that is now—
  "and after five years from the passing of this Bill new lending must cease. These limits were, of course, set quite deliberately. The industry must so manage its affairs that in five years' time it can raise money on its own credit in the normal way, just as any other industry needing large-scale finance must do The Government have no intention of subsidising the film industry. I have said that on a number of occasions, and I hope that fact has been well marked in the industry itself.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December. 1948; Vol. 458, c. 2183–88.]
  My right hon. Friend is no longer to blame because he has not the conduct of affairs today. He said that in 1953, had he been President of the Board of Trade, he would have brought the matter to an end, judging by his then expressed intentions. It is to be regretted that he has not complained that his original intentions, which were sound, were not operated by this Government. But as he has not, it has fallen to me to go into the matter perhaps in rather closer detail than I would otherwise have done.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: My hon. Friend was good enough to tell me that he intended to proceed on these lines, but as he is suggesting that when I spoke on Friday I did not attack the Government for their failure to bring the Film Finance Corporation to an end after five years, perhaps it would be only fair for my hon. Friend to point out what I said on a subsequent occasion to that from which he has just quoted, when I said that I had come to the conclusion that the Film Finance Corporation should be a permanent part of the financing of the film industry.
  Mr. Lever: If that is so, then I am bound to say that I did not hear it, and

  421
  if it was said, then my right hon. Friend obviously showed on Friday that he does not share the views which he held when he persuaded the House to vote it into existence, and obtained £5 million for the purpose of financing it.
  I find myself in a paradoxical situation. I never thought that the time would come when a Labour back bencher would have to stand up and castigate a Tory Minister for unsound finance. But these things happen, because there is a too-ready agreement between the two Front Benches about legislation which has not been adequately considered. When the Bill was first brought in, the present Colonial Secretary, the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said:
  "I am very glad that the President of the Board of Trade has in more than one part of his speech expressed himself as being rather shocked that the taxpayers' money should be committed to risks of this kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 2196.]
  Of course, the sense of shock departs the more often one is outraged, as I understand it. and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister who is to reply tonight will show us that there is some substance in that supposition.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, that he did not want to stress the point too much, but that it was very important that the industry should trade at a profit. He said that his hon. Friends were in some doubt whether they should divide against the Second Reading of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was in doubt five years ago whether we should have £5 million, but now the Ministers are arm in arm with him in coming to the House, not only to support the use of £8 million, but to support its use for another three years, and to support giving it away to film producers who would find it inconvenient to repay it to the Government.
  Anyone who will take the trouble to read the debate on the Bill instituting the Film Finance Corporation will see I, a lone heretic today, am expressing the views universally popular at that time on both sides of the House. I observe that even the then hon. Member for Wood Green, now Wood Vale—I am corrected—Southgate (Mr. Baxter)—made a very
  422
  interesting speech when the Bill was before the House in 1948. He said:
  "This is a strange Bill.…I agree that this Bill is not big enough to be of any importance I do not like to see the Government entering into the film industry. From this faltering beginning they could find themselves having to go further into it to begin to control production policy, and then on to nationalisation—a rake's progress that will be logical and inevitable. The Government have said many times, 'This is only a small Bill,' which it is, but it travels in the wrong direction. I agree that the industry, with its vast income, ought to be able to finance itself. While the Opposition are not opposing the Bill, I believe it is inadequate, a mistake, that it will not help the really independent director and producer and will certainly result in a loss to the Treasury."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1948; Vol. 458. c. 2209 and 2213.]
  I read that speech, and I read the hon. Member's speech on Friday, and I am bound to tell the House that the hon. Member has been consistent only in his jokes. I notice his jokes are the same though his views are different, and I thought it only fair to say that there is partial consistency on the part of the hon. Member, who ventured to accuse me on Friday, with far less justification, of misleading the House.
  That is how the matter stood in 1948, and how the matter was, if I may use the expression, "put over" to the House, but the position in which the House now finds itself is that it has to decide what to do about it. The House was then told that this was a shield under which the Government would prepare a policy which would produce a viable industry in this country. No policy has been produced, except for the Eady Plan, which played a useful part, but even there it is complained that the industry has not been properly self-supporting.
  I ask the Minister, in regard to the question, "What is the directive which at present governs the Film Finance Corporation in the conduct of its business?", whether it is the conduct implied in the speech of my right hon. Friend in 1948, and if not, what is it? I also want to ask whether the three years' extension proposed is meant to be final? I ask that because we are constantly put off with further and further extensions, in order to give the Government time to make up their mind, but the Government are not entitled to buy time in this expensive way.
  Next, I should like to ask the Minister what is the Government's estimate of the

  423
  actual cost today of the operation of the National Film Finance Corporation, as opposed to the figures as they appear in the Report? What, in the Government's estimate, is the actual cost—or do not the Government thus deign to estimate what it costs? We are entitled, as the House of Commons, to know what is the benefit. We have had a lot of talk about the benefit. The hon. Member for Wood Vale—Southgate—
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: On Friday the hon. Member was good enough to refer to me as the Member for Wood Green, Southgate and then Wood Vale. I do ask him, in order to ease the burden of the reporters upstairs, to note that it is Southgate, as far as I am aware.
  Mr. Lever:The hon. Member has so many facets to his personality that perhaps I may be pardoned. He did not always take the humane and artistic approach to industry, but on Friday he said, looking at the illuminated ceiling as if looking towards his ultimate destination, "Why cannot we have the beautiful and artistic productions that are going round the Empire? Never mind the cost." That may have had reference to his special interest in the Empire, which is very understandable, but, however beneficially and however picturesquely the benefit is put, we are entitled to know how much we are to pay for that benefit on which Members tirelessly expatiate.
  I should like also to ask the Minister what is the Government's estimate not only of the actual cost, but the future cost, of the concessions that are going to be made if this Bill becomes law. I should like to ask the Minister whether, in his opinion and that of his advisers, the Corporation have the statutory powers to advance money to the film industry without the bona fide expectation that the money can be recovered. In other words, can the Corporation, under the powers governing it—and the Minister must have far better legal opinion than is available to me—deliberately lend money intending to lose it, or knowing that some part of it will be lost? I think it very doubtful.
  If the Minister cannot tell me, or has to tell me when he replies, as may well be the case, so far as anyone has told the House, that the Corporation has no
  424
  statutory right to hand out public money without reasonable expectation of recovering it—and we all know that it has handed out money without the expectation of fully recovering it—then it is very doubtful whether it has even been lawful in doing so. I want the Minister to pay some attention to that point, because the Government are responsible for seeing that its creatures obey the law in this regard. I want to know whether the money, lent without expectation of full recovery, has been lawfully lent, and whether the Minister intends to exercise control over future lending in order to ensure that it is lawfully done.
  The Minister has a responsibility to the House. He may not have power over the Corporation but he has a responsibility to the House. I think it was the late Lord Baldwin, when Conservative Prime Minister, who drew attention to the fact that power without responsibility was the privilege of the harlot, but the President of the Board of Trade is in the reverse and less enviable position of having responsibility without power, which, I should have thought, was the privilege of the eunuch, where a certain amount of impotence is regarded as a matter for promotion, rather than for a reduction to the ranks. But, from the public point of view, it is not desirable that we should have a Minister introducing a scheme in which he has a responsibility to the House but no power to see that the money is lawfully expended.
  I should like to ask the Minister some more general questions. What is the Government's position so far as the concessions provided in Clause 2 are concerned? Have any tentative arrangements been made for any person to operate those concessions before they are made known to the House of Commons? The reason I ask that question is that after the debate I heard something which indicated that the chairman of British Lion had already been thinking, by a happy coincidence, along the lines on which the Government had been thinking in providing this concession Clause.
  I should like to know whether there were any discussions, what they were, and why they were not brought to the attention of the House. The House will realise that if there had been discussions, it is an elementary principle that the

  425
  President of the Board of Trade shall be as candid with Members of the House of Commons as the chairman of British Lion is with his shareholders. We are entitled to know what, if any, negotiations have been going on to give effect to the concession of public money provided for in Clause 2 (1).
  I should like to know whether any general directions have been prepared and given to the Film Finance Corporation on how it is to operate this concession-giving Clause if it is passed into law by the House, which I sincerely hope it will not be, though I gather that the Government presume it will be, not because it will carry the logical support of the House behind it but because, as a famous civil servant in the 18th century used to say when faced with a hopeless case, "We must apply our majority to this question." I am afraid that that is what the Government are relying upon to get this Clause through.
  I must ask the Government another question to which I promise I have given my most earnest consideration, and it is this. Does the Minister approve in principle of a person or firm acting in an advisory capacity to the Corporation and also being a borrower from its funds? So that there shall be no misunderstanding, I want to make plain that I refer to Sir Michael Balcon. Far from making any aspersion on that gentleman, although I do not know him personally I am aware that it is the universal opinion in all parts of the House that he is a most distinguished figure in British film production, and, without any doubt whatever, he has done more for the benefit of British films than any other producer in this country. What is more, he shares my own penchant for sound finance in the arrangement of his affairs, unlike some of the more optimistic film producers.
  I have not the smallest intention of defaming or denigrating Sir Michael, but I feel it my duty to press the Minister for an answer as to whether he deems it right and proper that a man should occupy the function on the one hand of adviser to the Film Finance Corporation disposing of millions of the public money, and, on the other hand, either personally or through his firm, be a borrower from that fund. It obviously is not to be tolerated that a man should sit in judgment upon
  426
  his own commercial rivals' work, however honest he may be and however concerned he may be with the artistic side of film production.
  It is also obvious that there cannot be in the public mind the feeling that when he comes as a borrower, his applications will receive the same detached consideration as anybody else's application. Sir Michael has done a great service to the industry and the Film Finance Corporation. I have no wish to injure the gentleman's reputation, but I believe the Government should make it plain that he should cease to embarrass himself by continuing in this position.
  Do the Government still maintain that the film industry is in a state of temporary financial crisis? This is a complete fallacy which has dominated all the actions of the Government in bringing in this legislation. They always seem to imagine that the industry is about to emerge from a temporary crisis, but the film industry is not in a temporary crisis. It is chronically unable to pay its way unless the Government assist it to do so. So long as the Government go on pretending that these are temporary financial crises, and continue to provide the kind of finance which might be appropriate for temporary financial crises, the film industry will be placed in the situation whereby Ministers in both parties have to come to the House and talk of this industry as if it were a pauper industry.
  As long as the industry is financed in this way, it will not only be a pauper industry in which the most efficient producer will not make a claim on public funds, and the less efficient the producer the bigger the claim on public funds, but there will be a great deal of heart-burning among the producers themselves when, for no apparent reason, different concessions are made to different producers.
  We do not want a pauper film industry. We want the industry to have a proper basis on which it can permanently establish itself. This sort of basis is admittedly unstable, and it will lead to the kind of debate that we have had over and over again, in which Members are liable to criticise all sorts of aspects of the industry. You have ruled, Mr. Speaker—and far be it from me to question your Ruling—that we all have the right to criticise each and every servant of every company which borrows money from the

  427
  Corporation. We started on Friday discussing who would make a suitable chairman for British Lion and who would make a suitable chairman of some other company. We can end up by discussing whether the actresses are suitably chosen, whether enough brunettes or blondes are chosen in order to ensure a profitable film.
  I am far from wishing to damage the film industry. I wish to put an end to this pauperisation of the industry which the idleness and indifference of the Government are perpetuating. This is only because the Minister cannot get time off to go and see what is happening in the film industry. I do not pretend to be an expert on the film industry. I do not know enough about it. But I do know enough to be convinced that as long as this sort of finance is employed it will continue to be a pauper industry, continually being discussed in this House as it has been on previous occasions. There will be no incentive to the efficient producer because his only reward will be to obtain less from the public funds than the less efficient producer. That is no incentive. The producer should be given a chance to earn a profitable livelihood.
  I have been asked what is my solution to the problem. I do not know whether I should be in order in mentioning it, but there are positive measures which could be taken to see that the present distribution monopoly is broken, to see that the producer is given his fair share of the enormous box office receipts even if this meant a concession in Entertainments Duty. We ought to give the producer a chance to survive in a normal way and not in this unseemly and undignified way, which reflects not only on the industry but on the idleness of the President of the Board of Trade and his Parliamentary Secretary, who seem merely to sit here instead of using their brains. They remind me of Lord Chesterfield's famous dictum in another place, when he said "We, my Lords, may thank Heaven that we have got something better to depend upon than our brains." The President of the Board of Trade is in the same unfortunate situation. Neither he nor his Parliamentary Secretary are making a proper and industrious effort to do the job that they were placed in those position to do.
  Another thing that the Government must tell us is what is in their minds
  428
  when they support the film industry. It is all very edifying, although it resembles a chapel service rather than the House of Commons at its brainy best, when we hear on both sides a good deal of talk about lofty artistic impulses and national prestige. It is all very edifying, but it does not get us very far. We ought to know why we are financing the film industry.
  I am going to suggest three reasons why we should support the film industry, and we should separate those reasons. There are only three reasons; one is popular entertainment, the second is the cultural value of films, and thirdly the dollar saving aspect of the film industry. It is the confusion of those three reasons with which I am concerned, and the Government must approach this matter in a sensible way. They must not take umbrage if I express myself forcibly. I assure the Minister that I intended no discourtesy to him on Friday and I have not the slightest intention of being discourteous to him now. If I express myself forcibly it is because I wish to drive home points in which I believe, and I have no personal rancour for him or his colleagues who are in a situation which is not altogether of their making.
  These are the three reasons for financing the film industry, and nobody has yet attempted to separate them. Let us look at the question of popular entertainment as a reason for supporting the industry. We cannot go about subsidising the industry on that ground alone. At least, there is a great danger in doing so, because it may cease to be one by reason of competition from other and newer industries, such as television.
  As one hon. Member pointed out, there was a time when public torture was regarded as popular entertainment, and when a number of men, including incompetent and negligent Ministers, were taken into the market place and tortured. The people who were maltreated by them and who suffered from their negligence and intolerance at least got the satisfaction of hearing the groans of anguish as the torturers performed upon them. I am far from suggesting that we should have a public torturer of the National Film Finance Corporation for the purpose of keeping it in order. By the effluxion of time films may be overridden by more

  429
  modern entertainment. In subsidising popular entertainment, we must be careful that it is current and popular and is not being driven out by new and better inventions.
  Then we are told that we have to subsidise the industry because of its cultural value. I do not know much about the industry or its personnel, but from time to time I have seen them at gatherings to celebrate various trade functions, and nothing has yet occurred to make me regard the personnel of the film industry as I regard professors of Oxford or Cambridge University, for their cultural value.
  This policy comes ill from a Government who have disbanded the Crown Film Unit, which has produced many wonderful documentary films which have been regarded as of real cultural value throughout the world. They destroyed that very valuable national asset and they did it ruthlessly, against the protests of their own intelligent Members, including the hon. Member for Southgate—if I have got it right this time. The most impartial and intelligent supporters of the Government begged the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to destroy this national asset and yet, after doing so, the Government have the impertinence and the effrontery to talk of the cultural value of the film industry, and to say that that is the reason for lending £3 million to the British Lion Film Corporation and for producing a Clause to write down and write off the loans made.
  Next, we are told that the film industry is a dollar saver. There are a great many other dollar savers, and until we know how many dollars we are saving and how much it costs to save those dollars we are not in a position to judge whether we should go on saving dollars through films, subsidise the television industry, or pass the subsidies to some other industries which are dollar earners.
  It is lamentable that the British film industry should not be given the chance to be allowed to find its own feet. I am sure it has values which are worth preserving, but the Government are doing it an ill service by continuing to finance it in this way. It is a breach of faith on their part, when my right hon. Friend, who started this payment, did so with the intention that it should not be a permanent provision.
  430
  It is a wrong approach and a piece of muddled thinking on the part of the Government. They fail to realise that there is a limit to the national resources, and that when public money is spent some regard should be had to what benefits are produced and the question whether one is solving the problem which one has set out to solve. We should not deceive ourselves with the comfortable illusion that we can solve the problem by writing out another cheque. That sort of approach has led to the provision of "smog" masks from the National Health Service, instead of an air-purifying scheme; it has led to the provision of the epileptic orange beacons instead of a proper road safety policy. That is why we get this film finance policy instead of an intelligent policy which would put the industry into a viable condition, so that it could earn its own living, honourably and reasonably, without pauperisation under this unsavoury and unattractive scheme.
  One of the reasons I find it hard to protest with less than indignation about what is being done is that there are other competitors for the money which the Government are so lightly casting away without adequate safeguards. I think of the slum schools in my constituency which, for the want of a lick of paint, are a disgrace to send children to. I think of the other cause which hon. Members opposite supported yesterday, when we were told that, for the sake of a few hundred thousand pounds, the Government could not do the decent thing for people who had fought for their country.
  At the same time, they can lay out these vast sums for the film industry. We ought to have regard to alternative claims for public finance. It is surely wrong and idle on the part of the Government to pauperise an industry, because it leads to a state of chronic uncertainty. The industry will never know where it stands until it is allowed to earn its own living in a reasonable way, instead of by this unsavoury and unsatisfactory method of finance which the Government are seeking to perpetuate in this Bill.
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Swingler: My hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) has given a brilliant performance, probably far better than anything produced by the

  431
  British Lion Film Corporation, and certainly much longer. Although Iwas one of his victims on Friday, I congratulate him most warmly. But I still have one complaint. After he had been speaking long enough to fill 50 columns of Hansard I was able to ask him what was his policy. Thereupon the Deputy Chief Whip moved the Closure, so that my hon. Friend was prevented from outlining his alternative to the policy which he had been analysing for a period of two hours and 20 minutes.
  Although my hon. Friend has probably added at least another 15 columns to Hansard, I still cannot discern his alternative to the policy which, as he rightly said, has been so complacently supported by both Front Benches in connection with this Bill. There is a lot in what my hon. Friend has said. I agree with him that on Friday this Bill was received far too complacently. Members on both sides of the House expressed themselves in what I can only regard as a completely defeatist manner in their attitudes towards the financing of the British film industry.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that the Government refused to find money for very many necessary and desirable objects, but are prepared to come forward with a Bill to throw some more money down the film production drain. It seems to me that no vestige of a policy whatsoever was presented to us to meet the parlous situation in which this industry exists. On Friday, one of my hon. Friends drew attention to the summary of the situation in the last Annual Report of the National Film Finance Corporation. All the understatements of that Report could not disguise the fact that the film industry simply staggers from crisis to crisis, and that no solution is being produced, either by the leaders of the industry or by the Government, to meet the basic problems.
  The facts are that the market for films is very unsettled and is falling, and the 30 per cent. British quota is increasingly flouted. But the Board of Trade refuses to produce a realistic quota and makes no serious attempt to enforce the quota which it maintains, or, if it does attempt to do so, it gets its fingers badly burnt, so that the quota is largely ineffective.
  432
  The production of films is, in any case, quite insufficient to meet the quota, but nobody seems to worry about the situation. We go on year after year accepting a so-called quota for the showing of British films to encourage the British film production industry, but there are just not enough films being produced, in spite of all the loans and subsidies, to enable exhibitors to meet the quota. So, a large number of exhibitors default on the quota; but nobody worries, because no attempt is made to enforce the quota, and so a series of Measures are openly flouted by those concerned, and the industry staggers from crisis to crisis.
  The most amazing thing in this Report is the statement of the National Film Finance Corporation about the number of films produced and released that are likely to be profitable. I should like to remind the House that, according to the Corporation's estimate, of the 34 films released in 1952 the number likely to be profitable, that is, likely to pay the producers for what they have laid out, without the Eady plan is eight, and with the Eady plan 15.
  That is to say, less than half of the films are likely to get the money back even with the Eady plan, which is becoming increasingly unpopular for reasons well known to the President of the Board of Trade. If we did not have the Eady plan, if we did not have the levy running through the industry, less than a quarter of the films produced and financed by the Corporation could pay their way.
  That is the fact that we ought really to be considering in connection with a Bill which is complacently presented as a Measure to tide the industry over for another few years by pouring another few millions of pounds of public money down the drain. I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent, that we ought to face up to one of three alternatives.
  First, we could accept openly and honestly that we are nationalising the losses—for that is the position at the moment—and allowing the profits to go to private enterprise by this system of a disguised subsidy, of pumping money into the Corporation which pumps the money out to producing companies, who then make the inevitable losses that everybody knows they are going to make

  433
  because of the crazy situation in the industry; and we write those losses off.
  Secondly, we could nationalise the lot, nationalise the producing industry. If we are nationalising the losses there seems to me to be a good deal to be said for nationalising the industry and running it as a public enterprise, though I know that I shall be unpopular for saying it. That is the implication of the speech on Friday of the hon. Member for South-gate (Mr. Baxter)—I am sorry he has gone away—who said that films should be produced not to pay commercially, not to pay their way, but because they were a good thing for the country and a good thing for the Commonwealth, and that there should be subsidies out of public funds without regard to whether we could gel the money back that was laid out.
  If that is to be the policy we should have the courage of our convictions and say that the whole thing should be run as a public enterprise, and the money could be paid over from the Treasury, and then we could run the industry and produce films without regard to whether we were going to get the money back or not, and without making any particular attempt in that direction. However, that, of course, is not honestly admitted. The facts are disguised under a great number of complacent phrases about producing plans for the industry to deal with this crazy set-up.
  The third alternative is to do something, if we are not going in for a policy of genuine public enterprise, to promote film production—because we think it a good thing for the country—by trying to make production pay, in order to give the producers of films the chance of getting their money back and give the Corporation the chance of getting its money back. That, in my view, is the policy we ought to adopt, because we are not going to adopt the policy of nationalisation and it is a bad thing to adopt a policy of simply nationalising the losses on film production.
  The only way to do that is by discriminatory taxation. The only thing to do is to adopt the sensible policy the Italians have adopted and to make profitable the production and exhibition of British films, which cannot ever be put on the basis of equal competition with American production because of the vast
  434
  American market, by introducing discriminatory taxation in favour of the exhibition of British films so that the producers of British films may be able to get back more of the money that comes through the box office than they can get back now.
  The Board of Trade has had a scheme on those lines submitted to it very recently, and it has passed that scheme on to the Treasury, and all the usual hullabaloo is being raised about this being contrary to G.A.T.T., and all the rest of it. There are many things going on that are contrary to G.A.T.T., and if we are to protect in a special way certain industries in this country, then I believe that of almost all the industries the film production industry has the most powerful claim for this kind of protection because it cannot, owing to the economic facts of life and the state of the British market of cinemagoers compared with the American market of cinemagoers, compete on an equal basis with Hollywood. It is quite impossible.
  Therefore, if we seriously want to promote the exhibition and production of British films and give a chance to British film producers to get back the money which this Report shows they cannot get back even with the Eady plan the only way to do it in present circumstances, I believe, is to introduce a lower rate of Entertainments Duty on the exhibition of programmes of British pictures compared with any other kind of pictures. Then the extra profits that would be made at the box office on the showing of British pictures could be divided between the exhibitors and the producers in the industry so as to give some chance to the producers of the pictures, whether good, bad or indifferent, to get their money back.
  The fact is that today, however good a large number of the pictures are—and the films listed in the back of the last Annual Report make one proud, to some extent, of what the British film industry has done during the past few years—on some of the very best of those pictures the producers have no hope of getting their money back owing to the division of the spoils within the industry, a very heavy rate of taxation on entertainments, and, I agree, to some of the lavish setups that have existed in some of the film companies. Therefore, I think that it is quite right that some protest should

  435
  be made about this Bill and the continuance of other expedients without any really serious review being made of all the actions taken in the name of promoting British film production.
  Personally, I think that the whole setup is idiotic. The quota does not work. Film production is stagnant. The facts of film production are completely in contradiction to the facts of the quota. We lend money to try to subsidise the production of films, but no measures are taken to try to get the money back from the other end. The State takes an enormous amount of money from the box office end of the business in the form of Entertainments Duty and puts a little back at the other end in the form of the National Film Finance Corporation. There is no rhyme or reason about the whole situation and no kind of a policy for trying to put British film production on its feet.
  I want to know, therefore, what is the Government's view of the situation. Is it their view that film production should be permanently subsidised out of public funds without any hope of getting the money back? That is what the presentation of this Bill suggests. Is it the Government's view that there should be more or less public enterprise in the business? We must seriously protest at the idea that the Government are to make up the losses on film production, but are to have no say in any profits which may be made. Is it the Government's view that there should be more public intervention in the film industry or less?
  Thirdly, what action, if any, do the Government intend to take to try to make British film production a profitable enterprise—if that is Government policy—instead of an enterprise which is bolstered up by a series of Eady plans and finance corporations and injections of subsidy from year to year, while the State continues to take a huge levy on the industry in the form of Entertainments Duty and while we continue to resist the very sensible idea of discrimination which some countries have instituted? These countries are getting away with it. We continue to resist what could be a really constructive step in favour of the exhibition and production of British films by giving a rebate on the Entertainments Duly,
  436
  I hope that in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give an answer on those points, because it would be shameful for this Bill to go through without an elaboration of a more constructive policy on the part of the Government to promote the production of British films.
  7.33 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Brooke: The hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) started his speech on Friday by saying that he knew nothing at all about the cinema industry and then spoke for nearly three hours. If I were to make the same admission it would be completely true, but it might fill the House with some alarm and despondency, so I want to make it quite clear that while, like the hon. Member for Cheetham, I am no expert about this industry, I intend to detain the House for only a minute or two.
  I am concerned about the Reports which the National Film Finance Corporation submits to my right hon. Friend and which he lays before Parliament. It strikes me as thoroughly justified criticism that a body which is entrusted with very large sums of money, and to which we intend to give some unusual powers under Clause 2, should be prepared to furnish the House with considerably more information than was contained, at any rate, in its last Annual Report.
  Let me take, for example, the case of British Lion, of which we have heard so much. In paragraph 13 of the last Report of the Corporation it simply states, about the £3 million loan,
  "No repayment has, in fact, been made, nor has it been possible for a programme of repayment to be prepared."
  That may be perfectly true; I do not doubt that it is, but in most other spheres of activity the House of Commons would demand considerably more explanation than that before it agreed to any talk of writing off £1 million as a loss, or granting these fresh powers in Clause 2 by which some kind of compromise arrangement can be reached if the Corporation is satisfied that the amount of a loan cannot be recovered in accordance with the terms on which it was made.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: To be perfectly fair, if the hon. Member reads the rest of the paragraph he will

  437
  find adequate reason why British Lion was not able to make a start in repaying the Joan.
  Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman and I are not in agreement. I have read the rest of the paragraph, which consists of a number of general statements, and I have never known the House of Commons consent to write off £1 million of public money on the basis of some general statements.
  I suggest most strongly, and I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is to reply, will be able to give the assurance, that the Corporation be asked, if it receives these new powers under Clause 2, to furnish a considerably fuller explanation in its Annual Reports as to the use of these powers, as to the efforts it has made and as to the manner in which circumstances proved unfavourable when questions of repayment were being examined.
  Let me pass to a later section of the Report, on page 5, where the Corporation is describing the further losses which have been sustained by a number of other producers on films which it has assisted. That takes nobody by surprise; everybody knows the chances of the industry. But here, in the Bill, we are asked to authorise arrangements whereby these loans may be written off or compromised in some way or other, and before we grant those powers I think we are entitled to ask the Corporation to explain rather more fully its policy in making loans. There are jealousies within the industry; there may be misunderstandings; there is a certain amount of public interest and a considerable lack of public information.
  Can we be assured that, if the Corporation finds that one particular producer never seems to be able to make a success of anything, it will be extremely chary of lending any further money in that direction? That would be the act of any prudent man, and I have no doubt it is the attitude of the Corporation. But Parliament is entitled to ask the Corporation to specify the principles on which it is proceeding in these matters. It should inform hon. Members that, in the use of the powers they give it, it intends to husband this money with the utmost care, and, in the light of its over-riding duly to keep the British film industry alive, proceeds with no favouritism whatever, is
  438
  guided by financial and economic considerations, and is acting throughout as a prudent trustee of public money.
  7.39 p.m.
  Sir Leslie Plummer: I propose to make my intervention a short one, for I think it is necessary to reduce the average time of speeches as a result of the remarkable performance of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever). I must follow the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) in supporting his plea that the Corporation should be asked to explain more fully its policy in the making of loans. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider what steps he can take to get the Corporation to explain its policy to him in respect of the documentary films of this country.
  The documentary films were the most distinguished films that this country has ever produced. We had a long, important and historical rôleto play in the production and distribution of these pictures. In 1928 or 1929, when Sir Stephen Tallents was at the Empire Marketing Board, and afterwards when he took the film division of that association to the G.P.O. and called it the G.P.O. Film Unit, he took with him the interest of an organisation which succeeded in introducing and distributing into British cinemas and all over the world films that were of extremely high artistic merit, and, at the same time, played a dual rôle in projecting what, for use of a better phrase, I would call the British way of life, to people as no other medium at that time succeeded in doing.
  The result of this was that the documentary film productions of this country were regarded as an important contribution to the motion picture industry of the world. Then the war came and despite the fact that the Ministry of Information, when first setup, failed rather badly in the production of its first pictures, the documentary men produced a series of pictures for this country which did an enormous amount to sustain the morale of the people when they were going through an extremely difficult time. As a result of the fact that this nation had accepted the documentary film as a national asset and as a national instrument of policy the industry developed greatly.

  439
  I may say that in the travels I made before the war and during the war, and particularly in the United States, I never found that our feature films—and this is one of the claims which I think is made on behalf of the Film Finance Corporation which is not borne out by the fact—were as popular in the United States as some people imagine. In fact, we all know that even today the best feature films produced in this country are very largely shown in the small theatres, known as the art theatres of the United States, for the cinema moguls of that country see to it that our feature films do not appear in the plush and large cinemas of the broadways and main streets of the United States.
  But our documentary films, which were cheaper to produce, were, in fact, greatly welcomed and I submit that they could today make as much money for the British film industry by proper distribution to the dollar area as the feature films we are producing. The war ended with the documentary film business of this country established on a considerable scale. After the war, some good pictures were made. Then, with the advent of this Government in 1951, the blow fell on the industry. It was not so much that the Government destroyed the Crown Film Unit but that, at the same time, they destroyed or almost destroyed the whole of the documentary film industry of this country, for this reason.
  The previous Government had regarded the documentary film industry as a national asset and an instrument of national policy. In other words, they were using documentary films, and as a result of that they were asking for more films to be produced than the Crown Film Unit could itself produce. So around the Crown Film Unit, ancillary film-producing organisations were set up. When the Crown Film Unit was killed these organisations died, too, because the Government renounced as a method of propaganda the use of documentary films. When they did that the general industry, which had been following the trend of Government publicity and watching the development of the documentary films, decided that it was not interested and the documentary as a method of important commercial propaganda was curtailed. For that reason the industry virtually died.
  440
  More serious still, the decision of the Government to wind up the Crown Film Unit, for the quite insignificant saving which resulted, meant that the distributing machinery which the industry had set up throughout the world was destroyed as well. They had built up slowly, painfully and carefully a first-class distributing machine. That is why they were able to get into the theatres of America. That is why they were able to show their films in cinemas almost all over the world. All that has practically gone. All that happens now is that the Central Office of Information produces a trickle of documentary films and for all the use they are to the Government, to the nation and to the film industry they might as well cease. There is no future at all in that scale of production.
  I had the honour of showing yesterday in the Grand Committee Room, a documentary film called "World Without End," which was made by the two leading documentary film producers in this country, and in the world—Basil Wright and Paul Rotha. This picture was produced, sponsored and its cost guaranteed by U.N.E.S.C.O. and in so far as we make our contribution towards U.N.E.S.C.O. I am happy to think that this country did pay its share of the guarantee for that picture. When U.N.E.S.C.O. decided that what was necessary was a documentary picture to illustrate the workings of the United Nations' agencies it came automatically to this country to find the men to produce it. It did not go to the United States, to Italy or to France. It came here, to the home of the pioneers of this great intelligent educative movement. They made a picture which is magnificent. It is a superb picture. I know that all my hon. Friends who saw it last night will agree with me. That picture is not to be shown in the cinemas of this country.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Who is stopping it?
  Sir L. Plummer: The cinema exhibitors, because they havea rule that if a picture is shown on television they will not show it in the cinemas. The television public is by no means 100 per cent. in this country. The cinemas do reach all our people. Yet the people who are getting money through loans from the National Film Finance Corporation are themselves boycotting the documentary

  441
  picture industry in this country, which ought to be supported.
  The effect of this on the future will be very disturbing. I do not know how many hon. Members saw, on Sunday night, the nauseating religious picture on television. It was produced to advance the cause of the Lutheran Church. I have no objection to the cause of that Church being advanced, but it is a dreadful thing that, after 20 years of pioneering which we did in connection with the documentary films, the B.B.C. has to sink to the level of producing a bad American film and to put it on television under the title of "Epilogue." It is a disgraceful and corny picture. This had to be shown to the people who had themselves in their midst the men capable of making a truly great documentary film.
  The Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders are protecting and helping their own documentary film industry. Through the National Film Board of Canada they are doing a great job in producing documentary films which we are happy to see in this country. It goes without saying that the Iron Curtain countries know the value of this method of production.
  Mr. Ellis Smith:We have had enough of them this afternoon.
  Sir L. Plummer: The Government made a grievous error in practically knocking out the documentary film industry. The Government have the chance now to consider the error of their ways and to relent their action. They can still do a great deal to revive the industry by seeing that it gets at least its share of the money that is available for the financing of films in this country.
  A little more of this intelligent, educative, interesting form of film production going out from these shores would do a great deal more for this country and contribute a greater amount to its future than "Mother Riley Meets the Vampire," or whatever it is called, and the nonsense of many of the feature films which are now attracting the money that they are getting. I hope, therefore, that the Government will consider doing what they can now—it is the eleventh hour, and it is just not too late—to restore for this country the prestige and value of the documentary film industry.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: When the President of the Board of Trade initiated this debate on Friday, he had the temerity to say that the purpose of the Bill was a relatively simple one. As it contains only two operative Clauses, perhaps he thought that it would go through with a minimum of criticism. We have, however, had a debate which, in one direction at least, has been outstanding. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), in the early sentences of his speech, on Friday, indicated that in view of the nature of the debate he ought to say that he knew nothing whatever about the cinema industry and that the most he could hope to do would be to bring a breath of refreshing ignorance into it.
  When we are dealing with a subject of this kind, particularly when firms and individuals are in question, we should be careful that before we speak at large we make sure of the facts.
  Mr. H. Lever: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry to say that from my knowledge of the cinema industry, such as it is, many of the things that have been said during this debate have either been misleading or, in some instances, quite definitely erroneous. I must say that I preferred my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham when he was piloting through the House his Bill on defamation, rather than when he was making his speech in this debate, great though it was as a Parliamentary effort.
  After all, this place is a great sounding board. Although legitimate criticism is very desirable, we should be careful that anything we say accords with the facts. I notice that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) is not in his place, but he definitely mentioned certain individuals by name. It ought, therefore, to be said that Sir Alexander Korda is not now an executive producer, whatever he may have been in the early days. For some years now, he has had nothing to do, I understand, with actual production in British Lion. He is only production adviser and has no voting rights whatever in the Corporation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham said tonight that Sir Alexander Korda holds a high and honoured place in the film industry.
  Mr. H. Lever: I did not say it, but I gladly agree that it is so. I was speaking of Sir Michael Balcon.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Well, the same observation applies to Sir Michael Balcon. Although he is the honorary adviser to the National Film Finance Corporation, he does not advise it in any sense or shape on the financial side. He deals, only when his advice is sought, with the cultural and the artistic side. These facts make all the difference when these men and their relationship to the Corporation are considered.
  The Bill does two things. It extends the powers, but does not enlarge the financial limits, of the National Film Finance Corporation, and it allows the Corporation to lend for a period of another three years. Secondly—and this is where the main criticism arises—it attempts to close a gap in the earlier legislation and to permit the Corporation to make the best arrangements possible with those concerned where a loan has become irrecoverable.
  Why is it essential that the Board of Trade should introduce this Measure now? What is the background for these proposals? First, the Bill continues legislation which was passed by the Labour Government; some of my hon. Friends on the benches behind me are inclined to forget that. It is true that the first Act was passed as a temporary measure for five years only, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) who introduced the original legislation and has had a great deal to do with this matter throughout, said on Friday and repeated tonight, circumstances have changed and it is now necessary that the powers conferred on the National Film Finance Corporation should be continued.
  It may well be that today we may think that certain legislation should be only temporary but that as time goes on experience quite definitely shows that our original conception of the legislation has to be changed. In my view, there is not the slightest doubt that experience shows quite definitely, not only that this legislation should be continued, but that it should presently be made permanent. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) indicated as much when she spoke last Friday.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I may have misheard the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he said that the original intention was for three years.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Five years.
  Mr. Strauss: I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. It was for five years.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall:My hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham queried the statements that had been made during this debate that in 1948 the film industry was facing collapse.
  Mr. H. Lever: I must make it plain that I never queried either that the production industry was then on the point of collapse or that the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), the then President of the Board of Trade, were entirely justified. I wholly agreed with his taking those measures at the time as a temporary provision.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I apologise if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. What is quite definitely a fact, and is generally accepted—I am delighted to think that my hon. Friend also accepts it—is that the film industry in 1948 was in great difficulties and something had to be done. It was essential that the Government should come to its assistance. We have to remember that this industry, although not a large one, stands in a very particular and peculiar position in our public life. No Government can afford to ignore that fact.
  As I understand them, the critics say that although that may have been true in 1948, the industry by now should have put its house in order, and by now found itself able to raise its own finance. I see that one morning newspaper suggests that the House should reject the Bill so that the industry should be forced to stand on its own feet and find money for its productions.
  The short answer to those who say that this Corporation should now be allowed to come to an end is that they are not facing the facts. Neither the Government nor this House can afford to take such a course. As the President of the Board of Trade indicated in his speech on Friday, about two-thirds of British

  445
  film production is still financed in part at any rate, by the Corporation. That, I must say, carries very great weight with me.
  It follows that if the powers to lend money ended next March quite a substantial halt—as I think the President of the Board of Trade himself said—wouldtake place in British film production. We cannot afford to see that happen. Films, whether they are British or American, have a profound effect on the public mind. Millions go each week to see films, and there is not the slightest doubt that they form a major part of the entertainment of the majority of our people.
  It is unthinkable that any Government should contemplate such a halt taking place, because that is what it would mean if the Corporation went out of business. Film production here would also pass into other hands. It is therefore essential on cultural grounds alone that the Corporation should continue because, in that way, we both uphold the British way of life and, most important, ensure that the best quality films continue to be made.
  We are already threatened by the Government with American television methods, and it would be tragic if, in addition to that, supposing this Bill were not passed, we should have to rely almost entirely on American films. As several of my hon. Friends have said, although we have to contemplate some losses by the Corporation we have also to remember that every year the nation gets a return in Entertainments Duty of something like £40 million, and, in addition, exports earn us between £2½ million to £3 million. These sums, when placed against the £6 million which the National Film Finance Corporation is allowed to handle through the Board of Trade, give us a better picture than that presented to us tonight and on Friday by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham.
  There is a misconception in the minds of very many people as to who really is helped by the National Film Finance Corporation. It is quite clear that both Groups 1 and 2, the Rank Organisation and the Associated British Picture Corporation, no longer use the facilities which the Corporation offers. They are fortunate in being able to find such moneys as they require from other sources. That means that if, as we are
  446
  told, two-thirds of present production looks to the Corporation for help, the smaller producers must be using the facilities envisaged by this Bill. If the Corporation went out of business, it would mean that only the big organisations would survive.
  I remember that when this Bill was first contemplated there was first a discussion on the advisability of setting up a film bank. Later, it was decided that the National Film Finance Corporation should be brought into being. One of the great arguments for setting it up was that it would help the independent producer, the young script writer, director and producer who were unable, because of the stranglehold of the big circuits, to get their films made, or get them screened once they were made. Remembering that one of its functions was to help people of this kind, we can today congratulate ourselves on the fact that obviously they have been helped.
  Undoubtedly, Group 3 is doing an excellent job, and I for one should like to congratulate the managing director, Mr. John Baxter, on getting a very good team together and producing some first-class pictures. The Everest film might have passed into other hands if it had not been for the fact that Group 3 exists. That would indeed have been a tragedy.
  Most of the arguments in favour of this Bill as well as most of those against it have been put. We have to remember, however, that the whole purpose of setting up the Corporation was to help producers who could not find anyone else to assist them with finance. It was because we knew that film making meant great risks that we had to setup the Corporation. Financial interests in the City, because of the risk and because there were few fat profits to be made, were chary about advancing money and, this being so, it was quite obvious, if the industry was to continue, that the Government must find some other means. I, for one, think that the Corporation has justified its existence up to the hilt, and, as I have already said, I should like to see it continue and, in fact, be made permanent.
  We cannot allow Hollywood to monopolise the film industry even if a scheme such as this costs the British taxpayer some money over a period of years. We get it back overwhelmingly in the

  447
  prestige of our films abroad, in the fact that our films are able to show the British way of life, and, as has already been said, because some of our films earn dollars abroad.
  Hollywood is, at the moment, I believe, extremely anxious to hold its market in this country. It, too, has its difficulties, particularly those connected with television. Our market is very useful to them, I therefore say that we ought to do nothing to cripple the home industry, even temporarily. I can assure the Government that a majority of us on this side of the House support this Measure, and hope it makes a speedy journey to the Statute Book.
  8.10 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) for his characteristically brief but comprehensive speech which set out admirably our purpose in bringing forward this Bill, a purpose which has, I think, the sympathy and approval of the House with the exception, I at once admit, of the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever).
  In the continuation of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that in an intervention on Friday I appeared to accuse him of discourtesy. Let me say at once that I thought I was parrying an accusation of the same kind, but supposing I was mistaken in that, I am happy to withdraw any such implication. Greatly though I differ from most of the things which the hon. Gentleman said, I have no differences with him at all as a Parliamentarian.
  It may be convenient if I answer some of the points put by various hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in the course of the debate, and sometimes if a point was put by more than one hon. Member, I may answer it in dealing with the speech, of another.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) asked me a not unimportant question, namely, whether the two Rank circuits were really being operated as separate circuits. I know he had in mind some negotiations which passed between the right hon. Gentleman himself, when he held the office of President of the Board of Trade,
  448
  and the Rank Organisation. As a result of correspondence, that Organisation made it clear that no changes in the booking arrangements designed to increase the effective booking strength of either circuit or to affect adversely the supply of British films to independent exhibitors would result from the arrangements that they were then proposing to make. They were forming a management company to operate both the Odeon and Gaumont circuits.
  It was after he had received those assurances that the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not use certain powers which he had under Section 5 (5) of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, to oppose the centralised management scheme. He has now asked me whether they are being operated as separate circuits. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, if those undertakings had been disregarded, we should have expected to receive complaints either from the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association or from the British Film Producers' Association. I am glad to inform him that we have received no representations to the effect that the undertakings he then received have not been observed.
  I would also say, in reply to a point made by the right hon. Gentleman himself or by another hon. Member, that no independent producer has applied since 1951 for a direction under Section 5 (2) of the 1948 Act, under which the Board of Trade could in certain circumstances have directed one or other of the circuits to show films.
  Mr. H. Wilson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the evidence he has just given in reply to my query about the two Rank circuits is very sketchy. All he has said is that there is no reason to think that there is any change in those arrangements because there has been no complaint either from the exhibitors or the producers. Has not the hon. and learned Gentleman or his right hon. Friend been in contact with the Rank Organisation on this point? Have they asked whether the arrangements are still the same as they were at that time? Has the hon. and learned Gentleman, for instance, ascertained the view of the National Film Finance Corporation? Are they entirely happy about it? Surely the hon. and learned

  449
  Gentleman should make more thorough inquiries and not merely say that as far as he knows he has received no complaint?
  Mr. Strauss: I thought I was answering the point fairly fully. Of course, I did not mean to say that I was relying wholly on that. I am sure that our relations with the National Film Finance Corporation are sufficiently intimate to ensure that, if the Corporation shared that fear, they would have informed us. I will not say that we have made a specific inquiry of the Rank Organisation between the time the right hon. Gentleman made his speech and today, but I am confident that, if the state of affairs I have described did not exist, there would have been complaints.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) was anxious lest, as a possible result of Clause 2 of this Bill, the National Film Finance Corporation might get the majority shareholding in a company. Certainly there is nothing in the Bill which makes that an impossibility. Certainly it is not the desire either of the Corporation or of the Government that this should be necessary, but it would be wrong to put a limitation in the Bill which would prevent the best arrangement being made in any particular case so that as much as possible of any loan could be recovered.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) made certain suggestions about reorganisation of the management of the British Lion Film Corporation. It would be wrong for the Government to set up a body like the National Film Finance Corporation, which can consider with more expert eyes the professional abilities of those to whom they advance money, and then for us to intervene directly. At the time of the original loans to the British Lion Film Corporation, the National Film Finance Corporation insisted on certain conditions which have been substantially observed. Therefore, for the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley and myself, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to go into any personalities in this connection. I would add a correction already made by the right hon. Gentleman, in order to make it quite clear, that Sir Alexander Korda is not a director of the British Lion Film Corporation. He has advised them
  450
  on some of the films which the Corporation has helped to finance, but I should say that the record of "The Third Man," "The Fallen Idol" and "The Sound Barrier" is not perhaps too bad.
  Mr. M. Follick: Very good.
  Mr. Strauss: Therefore, if I do not go into any further details, I hope it will not be assumed that Her Majesty's Government are agreeing with any of the criticisms that have been made.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) asked whether Sir Alexander Korda had applied to the Corporation for a loan in order to make a series of commercial television films. Here again, I should like to make it clear that the Board of Trade do not know normally who have applied to the Corporation for loans. Nor do we intervene one way or the other to encourage the Corporation to make loans in particular cases or to discourage them from making loans in others. I have ascertained by inquiry, however, that no proposal of the kind referred to by the hon. Lady has been received from Sir Alexander Korda.
  On the general question of whether any advance could be made for a television film, there is nothing in the principal Act to prevent it. The Corporation financed two such propositions in the very early days, but since then no proposals made for this purpose have seemed to qualify for loans from the Corporation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) asked whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies had not been right in some of the things he said at the time the Corporation was formed. The answer is, "Yes"; my right hon. Friend has proved in certain respects to have had more foresight than some other people. But in answer to the specific and relevant point put by my hon. Friend, it is the view of all who have studied the question that, whatever might be the Chancellor's policy on Entertainments Duty, which it would clearly be impossible for me to discuss, legislation of the type already on the Statute Book, which we are amending by this Bill, would still be required to provide working capital for British film production.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes also said that perhaps too much

  451
  credit has been given to the Corporation for certain things which have happened simply when the Corporation have been there. He mentioned, in particular, the reduction in costs. I am happy to inform him that the National Film Finance Corporation agrees with that and has no desire whatsoever to be considered the sole cause of the improvement which has taken place. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton that it has certainly played its part.
  The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), the hon. Member for Cheetham and other hon. Members have raised questions about the position of Sir Michael Balcon. I want to say at once that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley pointed out, Sir Michael does not advise on the granting of loans; he advises on technical matters. I know that may not completely meet the point which the hon. Member for Cheetham has in mind, but I want that to be clear at the outset.
  In all seriousness, if the Corporation is to have first-rate advice on highly technical matters, it must have that advice from someone engaged in the industry. Otherwise the advice will simply not be obtainable. The hon. Member for Cheetham and others are entitled to demand that, if this happens, there shall be no concealment of it and it shall be openly stated. That is precisely what happened before the first loan was made.
  In fairness to Sir Michael Balcon, I want to read paragraph 13 of the1952 Annual Report, which said:
  "Amongst the borrowers Ealing Studios Ltd. appears for the first time this year. Because of Sir Michael Balcon's dual position as a director of that company and as honorary adviser to the Corporation, this loan, unlike all others, was specifically referred to, and approved by, the Board of Trade. The Corporation thought it right to secure official confirmation of its own strong view that this loan need not affect in any way Sir Michael's position as adviser. The services he renders are far too valuable to be unnecessarily sacrificed."
  The hon. Member for Cheetham may not be satisfied with that, but I am sure he will say that, as that is expressly stated in the Report, it completely exonerates Sir Michael Balcon. My right hon. Friend is perfectly prepared to accept full responsibility for that decision, and I believe that
  452
  the decision is one which the House as a whole approves.
  Perhaps it would be convenient for me now to deal with what I believe to be the chief point made by the hon. Member for Cheetham in his not inconsiderable speech. He used some very strong language about Clause 2, and said, in effect, "Can you imagine any prudent lender acting as is suggested in Clause 2 (1)?"He ridiculed the idea that a prudent lender would do anything of the kind. But I must point out to him and to the House that this is a power which any ordinary lender would have without statute. The only reason we need put it in the Measure is that the National Film Finance Corporation is a statutory Corporation. I am certain that in his professional practice the hon. Member would not tell a lender that it should always be his policy to wind up a company which owed him money and not to adopt any alternative remedy. That would be fantastic.
  Mr. H. Lever rose—
  Mr. Strauss:Although I cannot rival the hon. Member in loquacity, I am entitled to make my point. He has not a monopoly of the time of the House. No ordinary lender would require legislation to give him this power. The hon. Member was wrong in suggesting that this gave notice in advance to any borrower that he had only to say that he wanted to produce some more films and then, however solvent he might be, he could look forward, with this Measure on the Statute Book, to being excused his debt. That is the most preposterous nonsense.
  Mr. Lever: The hon. and learned Gentleman is completely avoiding answering the point I made. The President of the Board of Trade said it was the action of a normal prudent creditor to abate his debt in the manner provided here, not on grounds of inability to pay but on the grounds that the production of films would be harmfully affected. In other words I said no ordinary creditor would abate his debt except on the ground of inability to pay; he would not abate it because the debtor's productive capacity would thereby be harmed.
  Mr. Strauss: Perhaps, if the hon. Member had made his point a little more

  453
  briefly, I should have got it better, but I think I have got it substantially correctly. The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstood my right hon. Friend. What my right hon. Friend said, and what the right hon. Gentleman opposite agrees with, is that, when this Corporation has a debt outstanding, it should not have as its sole remedy winding up the borrower.
  Mr. Lever: That is not what the Clause says.
  Mr. Strauss: I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We can say, on looking at this Clause, that one can imagine it being operated by lunatics to produce lunatic results, but there are very few Measures about which that could not be said. When we look at what is actually in the Clause and what are the safeguards, I suggest that the purpose of the Clause is perfectly proper. It is that there should be in the hands of the National Film Finance Corporation some alternative method of recovering a debt without liquidating the borrowing company, which, incidentally, would not enable it to recover the whole of its debt.
  The hon. Member asked me certain other questions. I do not know if I have got them all, but I will try to answer some of them. One of these questions was: Is this three-year extension of the borrowing powers intended to be final? I commend this Bill as right today, and I advise the House to give it a Second Reading, because I say that it is right to extend these powers for three years, but the hon. Gentleman knows as well as anybody else that that would not be binding on any future Parliament, or even on this Parliament should it think differently on another occasion. I hope that we shall be realists and see how this thing works out.
  Then the hon. Gentleman asked whether the Finance Corporation had statutory powers to lend money otherwise than in the bona fide expectation of fully recovering it. I must ask him to look at the principal Act, and, if he will do so, he will see that Section 1 (1, b) lays down what its purpose is. Leaving out unessential words, it lays down that they shall make—
  "…loans to be employed in financing the production or distribution of cinematograph films to persons who, in the judgment of the
  454
  Corporation, while having reasonable expectations of being able to arrange for the production or distribution of cinematograph films on a commercially successful basis, are not for the time being in a position otherwise to obtain adequate financial facilities for the purpose on reasonable terms from an appropriate source."
  In answering that question, I am not going to try to improve on the language of the Act, which governs this matter. I could refer the hon. Gentleman to many other Sections of the Act, and particularly Section 2.
  Mr. Swingler: The language of the Act, as the hon. Gentleman has now given it to us, is in striking contradiction to the practice of the Corporation, because it suggests that the money is to go to people who have some prospect of producing films that will be commercially successful. The Corporation has proved that it knows it is lending money to people whom it knows cannot possibly be commercially successful, and there is a very serious contradiction between the practice of the Corporation and the language of the Act, which gives rise to some of these questions, which I think the hon. Gentleman should answer.
  Mr. Strauss: I think the industry is such that it is easier to be long-sighted over a series of films than over an individual film, but, unless the Corporation had made a real effort to pay attention to the language of the Act, it would certainly have lost very much more money than it has done. The greater part of its loss was on this single loan to the British Lion Film Corporation.
  Mr. H. Lever:Is the hon. and learned Gentleman going to answer my question? I have asked him whether the Corporation has the power to make loans otherwise than bona fide expecting to get them back? Is that legal or not legal? The answer is just "Yes" or "No," and not the recital of all these things.
  Mr. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman is once again objecting, after his own unexampled garrulity, to a Minister replying in his own way. He has asked me to define what the Corporation can do, and I say that that is laid down in an Act of Parliament to which the hon. Gentleman did not think fit to refer. I am not going to endeavour to improve upon the language of an Act of Parliament, which is part of the statute law

  455
  of this country. The hon. Gentleman then asked me a question. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman asks "Are they acting lawfully or unlawfully?" I say that if we thought they were acting unlawfully we should of course take the necessary steps to stop them.
  I think the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and other hon. Gentlemen made a mistake when they talked about the Corporation losing when a film made no money and not sharing the profit if it succeeded. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to the original Act, and indeed to the practice of the Corporation as revealed in the Annual Reports, he will know that in making a loan they frequently make it a term of that loan that they shall share in the profits. In fact, in one of the Annual Reports they devoted some paragraphs to answering the allegation that they were taking too great a share of the profits.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) had, I think, more quarrel with what he thought the inadequacy of what the Corporation states in the Report than with anything it was either doing or not doing. I do not believe he would have much quarrel with that comment. He said that the Corporation might have made it clearer in its Annual Report just what it was doing, and hoped that in future Annual Reports it will tell us more. I am sure that is a point which it will consider. It is a little difficult to judge just how much to say in an Annual Report without wearying the reader who wishes to get the essential facts and I do not think its task was easy. One has to take a fair view. When its last Report was debated in another place, Members of all parties paid tribute to its clarity. That is said without prejudice to what my hon. Friend has said, which I am certain will be brought to the notice of the Corporation and will be considered by it.
  The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) dealt with a matter which Mr. Speaker last year held to be out of order and which had really nothing to do with the subject either of the principal Act or of any amendment of it, namely, the Crown Film Unit. Whatever the merits of that controversy they do not arise to-
  456
  day, and all I would say to the hon. Member for Deptford is that many of us on both sides of the House share his admiration for English documentary films. I would make it quite clear that there is nothing to prevent the producer of a documentary film from applying to the Corporation for a loan. Indeed, one very eminent documentary film is the Everest film on which the Corporation advanced the whole of the money. I think it is worth observing that there is no reason at all why these films which enjoy the admiration of both sides of the House should not receive help from this Corporation.
  The right hon. Member for Colne Valley who wound up for the Opposition, quite accurately stated the two things which this Bill accomplishes. It extends the borrowing powers for three years; it does not, as has been said quite inaccurately by a number of hon. Members, throw a lot of new money down the drain. It does nothing of the sort. The amount that they are entitled to borrow is in no way affected by this amending Bill. The period during which they lend is extended, and that, as I know, has the approval of all sections of the House.
  The second object is to enable the best arrangements to be made with a company which it is not advisable to wind up, but which owes the National Film Finance Corporation substantial sums. Let me make one thing clear, which I do not think is clear to the sole opponent of this Bill. The only way in which any public money could be lost would be under the operation of Subsection (2) of Clause 2. The hon. Member for Cheetham assumes that if there were any action under Subsection (1), that must almost automatically result in a remission under Subsection (2).
  Action might be taken under Subsection (1) which would have no consequence under Subsection (2). It is only right, I think, that under Subsection (1) the Board of Trade, as the Department of State directly concerned with the National Film Finance Corporation, should be the Department to give approval. But it is also quite clear that before any public money is written off under Subsection (2), such writing off should have Treasury approval. Those are the grounds for the way in which the Clause is drafted.

  457
  I think I have answered the various points raised, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Legh.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILM PRODUCTION (SPECIAL LOANS) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  [MR. HOPKIN MORRIS IN THE CHAIR]
  Resolved:
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the period during which loans and advances may be made under the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Acts, 1949 to 1952, to authorise the National Film Finance Corporation to enter into special arrangements with respect to certain loans, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) any increase attributable to the pro visions of the said Act of the present Session extending the said period from five years to eight years in the sums which under or by virtue of the said Act of 1949 are to be or may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, raised by borrowing, remitted or paid into the Exchequer;

  (b) the remission in whole or in part, where any such arrangements have been entered into with respect to a loan, of payments by the said Corporation to the Board of Trade, being payments of amounts in or towards repayment of any advance made by the Board under section four of the said Act of 1949 and used for the purposes of that loan or payments of interest on any sums for the time being outstanding in respect of any such advance.—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (BENEFIT) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act, 1951, by applying it to diseases in respect of which compensation was payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, and by making provision for the payment of benefit for partial disablement, and for purposes incidental thereto, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of
  458
  moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the expenses of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance or any other Government department which are so payable under section sixty of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, as applied by virtue of subsection (1) of section four of the said Act of 1951.
  Resolution agreed to.

  POST-WAR CREDITS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Legh.]
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. M. Follick: This question I am raising tonight is very complicated, and I beg a little indulgence from the Chair, because I know that we must not bring the question of legislation into an Adjournment speech. This vexed question of post-war credits is a matter that should have been readjusted years ago. I am not putting on the Conservatives the entire blame for not having already introduced legislation to alter the present system of paying out these post-war credits. I think that we ought to have done it ourselves, when in power.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member, himself, began by referring to the right rule. I think he must observe it.
  Mr. Follick: I am most profoundly sorry, but I did give a little warning that such might happen in the course of my speech, and I craved your indulgence, Sir.
  I am sure that there is, throughout the country, great resentment at the fraudulent way in which post-war credits are being administered.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: They are not being administered.
  Mr. Follick: I think it is a frightful shame, and a slur on the workings of this House, that people who are desperately in need of the money that rightly belongs to them should not be considered, while other people who have no need of this supplementary money should have it almost forced upon them. It is laid down: in the law that a man has to attain the age of 65 years, and a woman 60 years, before getting the benefit of repayment of post-war credits.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The hon. Member talks about a "benefit." It is not a benefit. It is an entitlement, and that, I think, is the better word to use.
  Mr. Follick: It might be a better word legally, but the person who gets that money gets the benefit of it. What I am protesting against is their not getting the benefit of it, although they are entitled to it.
  When I reached the age of 65 I was paid my post-war credits without any trouble and without the slightest questioning. I did not need them. When I got them, what did I do? I paid them back—I put them in the bank, which is the same thing as paying them back.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Not quite.
  Mr. Follick: I understand that the maximum that any individual can receive by way of post-war credits is about £300.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: It is £325.
  Mr. Follick: To one person £300 may be very little, yet to another person £10 or £15 or £20 may mean all the difference between ending his life in a decent way or in a poverty-stricken way. The Tories feel quite as strongly about these post-war credits as we do on these benches. I remember the trouble there was at Margate about them, when harsher words were used than I am using this evening.
  As a Member of Parliament, I have received appealing letters, as have hon. Members opposite. I remember one that I had from a person dying of cancer, who had a very few months to live. We on these benches were in power then. I wrote to the Treasury, but they could do nothing about it because of the law, and the money could not be paid. Just think of the difference in comfort that £10, £20 or £30 might have made for that person in the last months of his life. After all, the money belonged to him. But nothing could be done for this man. I afterwards received a letter from the family saying that he had died in a miserable way.
  There are other cases of people who are in desperate need. I remember one case of a man who was brought up before the magistrate and had the option of going to prison or paying a fine. He came to me and asked if he could have
  460
  his post-war credits with which to pay the fine.
  Mr. Houghton:Is my hon. Friend suggesting that post-war credits should be used to subsidise sin?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not quite certain what the hon. Member's argument is directed to. Is he directing his argument to the suggestion that in certain specific cases post-war credits should be paid, or that the total amount should be paid? I understand that the position is this. Specific classes cannot be paid without legislation, but the total sum can be dealt with administratively. That being the case, the hon. Gentleman cannot on the Adjournment argue for the payment of post-war credits to specific classes.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): It may be of assistance to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I indicate that the only step possible in this direction without legislation is what you have indicated—a complete payment of all outstanding credits, which can be effected under the original legislation by Treasury order. Any other payment on a selective basis would require legislation.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In that case, the hon. Member must direct his argument on the Adjournment to the total sum.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Pay the lot.
  Mr. Follick: If that is the only manner in which I can make this protest, then I must obey the Chair, and say that it is the total sum with which I am concerned. The total sum after the war was, in round figures, £800 million out of which, roughly speaking, £185 million has been repaid. The total amount paid back up to 1953, including the years during the war, has been £214 million. That leaves nearly £600 million—
  Mr. Houghton: It leaves £572 million.
  Mr. Follick: I said "nearly"—to pay back. These repayments have been gradually falling off each year. I shall not take the first two years—1946–47 and 1947–48—because they included previous years. In 1948–49 the repayments amounted to £19 million; in 1949–50, to £17 million; in 1950–51, to £169 million; in 1951–52, to £16·2 million, and in

  461
  1952–53, to £16 million. There has been a gradual fall yearly, from £19 million to £16 million.
  I contend that in considering these repayments we should not take too much notice of a fixed limit of 65 years of age. We should be more inclined to take notice of need. How are we to do so?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker:Order. The hon. Member is now referring to a specific class of people, and that would require legislation. He can deal with the total amount, but no other.
  Mr. Follick:I am now speaking about the repayment of the total amount. I am not speaking of the repayments in any one year.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker:The question of specific need would not then arise.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: We are all in need.
  Mr. Follick: We are all agreed—
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I said, "We are all in need."
  Mr. Follick:—that something should be done on those lines to help the needy—even if it means paying back the whole amount—and not to help the people who are not in need. We have the National Assistance Board, which could tell us whether or not people are in need, so that we could make full use of legislation, and find legislative means by which this can be carried out.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker:Order. The hon. Member is again advocating legislation. He must keep off any argument which involves legislation.
  Mr. Follick:I am suggesting legislation which already exists. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have told me that they would like to intervene in this debate. We all have the feeling that something is wrong in withholding this sum, even the complete sum, not to speak of smaller amounts—because I must not speak of them.
  I should like to read two or three lines from a leading article in a newspaper today, mentioning a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his representative here will understand that what the Chancellor has said must be true.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: My hon. Friend has now destroyed his case.
  Mr. Follick: I am not referring to what we think, but what the Financial Secretary thinks. The leading article says:
  "There remain to add a level of production now higher than at any time since the war, the substantial recovery of our gold and dollar reserves, the improvement in the balance of payments…"
  That has all happened in the last year. If we are so well off and solvent, surely we can at least think of those poor people who are not only not solvent but are desperately in need of some help.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: I hope that my language in dealing with this matter will be a little more temperate than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick). I hope, also, that I can keep within the rules of order on a matter which, from experience, we know is a very troublesome one to deal with on the Adjournment.
  I am sure that the House will realise how the original conception of post-war credits has painfully misfired in the years since the war. It was, we believe, the conception of the late Lord Keynes, who was advising the Government on economic matters during the war. There is an interesting account of what was in the mind of Lord Keynes in Mr. Roy Harrod's biography of him, and with the permission of the House I should like to read an extract from Mr. Harrod's biography of the late Lord Keynes. It says:
  "Reflecting upon the normal course of inflation it occurred to him that what really happened was that the capitalist class enriched itself by the rise of prices and emerged from the war better off by the amount of the increase in the National Debt to which they were enabled by the inflation to subscribe.
  His plan of compulsory saving would secure that a substantial part of the deficit was financed not by inflation borrowing but a levy upon wage packets in return for an undertaking to pay later. Thus, it would be the wage earners and not the profit takers who would emerge from the war as the main holders, in the form of deferred pay claims, of the newly created National Debt."
  It is true that these proposals did create a much larger credit for the great mass of the wage earners of the day than they

  463
  did for the rentier class or the well-to-do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough said, the maximum holding of post-war credits is about £300. I ought, I suppose, to declare an interest, because my holding is the maximum of £325, and if the existing rules continue it will be 10 years before I am paid out. The system adopted of repaying post-war credits has been by reference to the attainment of a certain age.
  This is at variance with a promise made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced post-war credits for the first time in his Budget Speech of 7th April, 1941. The late Sir Kingsley Wood said:
  "I am proposing, therefore, that the extra tax which any individual will pay by reason of the reduction in the personal allowances and earned income allowance will be offset after the war by a credit which will then be given"—
  which will then be given—
  "in his favour in the Post Office Savings Bank."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1941; Vol. 370, c. 1329.]
  That was the promise made at the time the post-war credits were introduced, and which were accompanied by a very severe increase in direct taxation; but for reasons which have been fully explained to this House by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, partly the desire to avoid stimulating the inflationary movement, partly on account of the difficulty of raising in addition taxation or in borrowing any additional resources to repay such a huge amount, they could not do more than is being done now.
  A number of suggestions have been made for accelerating the repayment and for extending the conditions upon which repayment may be made, such ideas as a progressive reduction in the age at which repayment should be made or payment to widows and next-of-kin or payment in cases of long illness.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: All these suggestions, surely, would require legislation.
  Mr. Houghton: I was about to say not only that I reject these on their merits, but that they would be out of order in this debate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am not suggesting any of these things; I am, in fact, saying that each one of them, apart from requiring legislation, has inherent defects, anomalies and injustices,
  464
  quite apart from the difficulties of administration which perhaps I should not mention because, in my trade union capacity, I represent the people who have to repay the post-war credits, whether on a large scale or on a small scale.
  I suggest that there is only one satisfactory thing to do about post-war credits—not to repay them all but to credit the credits into an account in the Post Office savings bank, as the author of post-war credits said would be done, or into savings certificates, at the option of the holder. I believe that, otherwise, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be under constant pressure and that the farce of post-war credits will be more strongly criticised as the years go by.
  Already, post-war credits have gone into the currency of music hall jokes. They are not treated seriously on the music hall stage, but they are treated very seriously on the platform and in the body of the halls of the Conservative Party conference, and not all the blandishments, persuasive eloquence and grasp of the case which we know the Financial Secretary to have succeeded in stemming the tide of criticism and resentment at his own party conference.
  It may be argued that if a forced loan, which post-war credits were, is converted into a voluntary loan, the withdrawals might be on such a scale as to weaken the financial stability of the country, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to cover the withdrawals either by additional taxation or by additional borrowing. I think that in taking this bold step of converting a compulsory loan into an ordinary voluntary loan the Chancellor would have to impress upon people that if they rushed for repayment serious measures would have to be taken to offset the financial consequences. I believe that the public would respond.
  Those who had money to lend, the better-off people, who had money in their pockets or in their banks, or were making profits out of the war—those who could lend voluntarily—have the right to withdraw the full amount, whatever it is, which they lent to the Government in the war. They can leave it to whom they like. They can even leave it to charity. But if we leave our post-war credits to charity, there is no provision, at the moment, for them ever to be repaid

  465
  The people who were not among this more fortunate class—the war workers, the wage earners—who were asked to give the maximum production, were asked at the same time to make the maximum financial sacrifice by deduction of Income Tax from their wages; and they are not allowed freedom of use of their money, whereas everybody else is.
  Let me say, in passing, that there is nothing more salutary than taking tax out of a wage packet. It does not matter whether there is distress at home, it does not matter whether there is illness or domestic hardship, it does not matter whether one is passing through some temporary or even permanent financial crisis—that money is taken out of the wage packet whether one likes it or not.
  The great mass of the well-to-do taxpayers are not in that unfortunate position. They pay under Schedule D, and anyone who pays tax under Schedule D knows that he can have, if he wants it, or if he takes it, considerable time in which to pay. Therefore, those who have the biggest stake in post-war credits today are those who suffered a compulsory loan by deduction from their wage packets.
  I believe that this is the only way to end the present unsatisfactory position of post-war credits. Do anything else—reduce the age limit progressively, try to meet hard cases—and administrative difficulties immediately arise. Are we to have a tribunal to decide the degree of hardship upon which post-war credits are to be repaid? Are we to trouble the whole community by asking people to produce their birth certificates before they can get repayment? We can at least say at present that when post-war credits are paid out at the retirement ages there is automatic proof of age in 90 per cent. of the cases, because at that time proof of age has to be given to the Ministry of National Insurance, and Government Departments, being what they are, exchange information.
  Any age much lower than retirement age would require independent and separate proof of age. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will be able this time to do a little more than just stonewall on this issue. I had the privilege to take part in an earlier debate on this subject on the Adjournment, instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley);
  466
  but we got nowhere. I know that Adjournment debates are perhaps not the occasions for statements of major policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and we can only say this: if the Financial Secretary cannot do better this time than he did last time we shall be bound to leave him to the mercies of the Conservative Party conference.
  9.13 p.m.
  Sir Edward Boyle: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) saying what a good thing it was to cease taxing wage packets and I hope he will remember, when addressing his constituents in Sowerby that the present Government have reduced the taxation of some 14 million wage packets. I will come in a moment to the suggestion of turning forced loans into voluntary loans and also to the Margate conference.
  I think that it is only right when we are considering this question that we should first take into account the very difficult position which each Government has faced since the war over post-war credits. The hon. Member for Sowerby very rightly quoted from Mr. Harrod's "Life of Keynes." I suspect that there were other points in Keynes' mind. I think that one of the assumptions upon which a great deal of his war-time advice was based was that, after the war, in one or two years we might get back to unemployment, and that it would be very useful for whatever Government was in power to keep this spending money in reserve.
  I think that one thing which vitiated Lord Keynes' economic thinking in his later years was his failure to realise that the balance of payments difficulties would constitute our prime economic problem after the war. We have had no employment difficulties since the war. I do not want to make a party point of this, but no less a Socialist than G. D. H. Cole once said that the party opposite never had to take steps to increase employment when the Socialist Party were in office.
  The principal problem since the war has been our balance of payments problem and, therefore, the whole trend of our economic policy has had to be very different from that which Lord Keynes conceived in the 1940s, when we were still at war. The post-war credits have left

  467
  each Government with a very difficult situation.
  The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) mentioned that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was always right. I have the greatest respect for the judgment of my right hon. Friend. I think he has the gift of accurate forecasting, and of being right very much more often than most people. But if, next year, he were to repay £572 million of post-war credits, my judgment in him would be a little bit shaken; and I am not happy even about the suggestion of turning a forced loan into a voluntary loan.
  I do not want to go into detail about the present economic position, but I do not think that many people would dispute that the present level of consumption at home is just about as high as the country could afford—some would say that it is rather higher than we can afford. I do not think many would dispute that we could hardly afford to take steps which would very much step up the level of consumption at home. Certainly, if £572 million worth of post-war credits were to be repaid in the next Budget that would certainly step up consumption at home quite considerably.
  Mr. Follick: Would the hon. Member concede that I mentioned £572 million only to be in order? What I suggested was that the needy should be paid, but that was out of order.
  Sir E. Boyle: There were moments in the hon. Member's speech when I was rather reminded of the famous sentence in "Alice in Wonderland":
  "Everybody has won, and everybody shall have prizes."
  The hon. Member wanted to indicate that he wished certain specific classes of people to win, but he could only keep himself in order by saying that everybody should win.
  To return to the question of a voluntary loan, I am not quite as optimistic as the hon. Member that an appeal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the effect that he would like. I am not trying to make a party point, but am looking at the thing realistically. Since the war there has been a steep rise in prices, and especially in the period after the opening of the war in Korea, not so very long ago. People simply do
  468
  not have the confidence that if they leave their savings in the Post Office, those savings, in a few years' time, will be worth anything like as much as they are worth today. One of the penalties we have to pay for the steady fall in the value of the £ since the war is that people would not be so ready to respond to an appeal of that kind.
  Mr. Houghton:Surely the hon. Member knows that not only are millions of people leaving their money in the Post Office, but that millions of people are still putting their money into it.
  Sir E. Boyle: I quite agree. Nevertheless, I still think that if we were to do as the hon. Member suggests and try to turn this forced loan into a voluntary loan, people's fears as to the value of money in the future would be a factor which militated against its success. Much as I respect the persuasive powers both of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, I think that that would be taking too big a risk.
  I am not making the mistake of asking my hon. Friend to anticipate his right hon. Friend's Budget statement, but it seems fairly clear that in the next Budget we must think a great deal about investment, both at home and abroad. It is unrealistic to expect my right hon. Friend to take any steps which would result in a large increase in consumption.
  Just a word about Margate. The discussion at Margate was a very good one. I was one of the scrutineers in the count afterwards, and a very exciting job it was. My hon. Friend made a speech as persuasive as any he has made on the Finance Bill in the House. When I heard him trying to persuade his friends at Margate about post-war credits, I thought he was putting up the sort of performance that he used to put up two years ago when he tried to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) that the Excess Profits Levy was not quite such a bad thing after all. Even though, despite his efforts, my hon. Friend was not successful at Margate, the fact that the majority was a very narrow one was a tribute to his talents.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member said that he took an intimate part in the ballot at the conference. Can he explain why it was a ballot vote?
  Sir E. Boyle:That is not something of which the House normally takes cognizance. It is not too easy to count hands with two halls involved at the same time. There is nothing sinister about that.
  I want to end on this note. We are in a difficult position today. On the one hand, post-war credits are an obligation which has to be met. The "Economist" made a useful point in an article a week or two ago when it pointed out that unless this post-war credits obligation is met we shall never be able to use a method of this kind again.
  On the other hand, it is unrealistic not to take into account the economic position of the country today. I do not think that many people would dispute that in our financial policy for the immediate future we must be thinking of industry rather than of increasing consumption. It is because I am afraid that the proposals suggested by the hon. Member for Sowerby would lead to a fairly big increase in consumption that I cannot agree with him, given the economic circumstances of the country as they are at present.
  9.21 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Smith: I find myself in the very difficult position of agreeing with much that the hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) said, though I cannot let him get away with the idea that a balance of payments difficulty is a post-war phenomenon. It is nothing of the sort. In the three years before 1939 this country had a substantial balance of payments deficit on overseas accounts. The then Tory Government did nothing about it, because in those days we were able to run down the overseas investments accumulated by our Victorian forefathers.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Handsworth on two major counts, much as I dislike doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick), who has performed a public service by raising this matter, relied mainly on humane considerations. That, however, is not much good, for we cannot make that a major factor in a discussion of this subject. I agree with the hon. Member for Handsworth that to pay out all this money at once might lead to difficulty, and, therefore, I will give the Financial Secretary an idea of how to do it and he
  470
  will be very grateful to me for the suggestion. It is a much better system than that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), because if this money were straight away paid out in cash unequivocally, there would be inflation.
  If we did what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby suggested, there would still be inflation, because all sorts of people would cash these credits. I want the Financial Secretary to give very serious consideration to my suggestion about this, because there is no reason why he should not do what my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough wants him to do. The existence of these post-war credits has the effect of making the working-class wage earner entirely sceptical about the whole business of savings, and I feel that we have got to have a serious saving campaign in the years immediately ahead.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Handsworth that we have to restrict consumption at home, or at any rate we have toprevent it from rising. We must do that for all sorts of reasons which I will not go into now, although I suppose I could and still keep within the rules of order. In the next few years this country has to give away to our Colonies a lot of productive equipment so that they may raise their standards of living. That is one of the prices we have to pay for peace. We cannot meet colonial discontent with pattern bombing and the suppression of constitutions. We have to give a lot away on overseas account to our Colonies. We have to give unrequited exports by way of capital goods to enable them to raise their standard of living to something like our own.
  I am not promising my working-class supporters that if we get a Labour Government at the next Election—as we will—everything is going to be easy, because it is not. We must have savings in this country.
  I wonder whether the Financial Secretary has looked at a little book in the Library, Barclays Bank Monthly Review for November, 1953. There is a grim article in that issue. I am a Socialist and have advocated Socialism for many years, but I do not rejoice in the imminent breakdown in capitalism if it means that the people who put me into this House are going to starve.

  471
  The current issue of Barclays Bank Monthly Review points out that in the last five years, 1948 to 1952, personal saving has accounted for about only 3 per cent. of all new investment in this country. That is pretty grim. Personal savings are at a low ebb, which means that the capitalist system is on the way out unless somebody does something about it pretty quickly. Much as I want capitalism to go, I do not want it to do so until I have a new system ready to put in its place. We have to encourage saving in this country, and the greatest evil of the continuance of post-war credits in their present condition is that there is a wholehearted mistrust in working-class minds throughout the country of the entire financial set-up, the entire business of saving, the entire business of money.
  I am not pleading for social credit, I am staying within the framework of orthodox finance. The time has come when we have to induce people to spend lesson consumption, particularly the luxurious forms of consumption of which many of the Labour supporters are rather fond. We must have some saving in this country, but we shall not get it while this ghost of post-war credits is grinning down all the time on the scene of the meeting where the savings campaign speaker is pleading his case. We just will not get it.
  Another reason we have to pay these post-war credits off now is that there is something about them which is sinister, which is enough to make anybody cynical of the whole bag of tricks. I refer to the following circumstance. I am 64. I am due to be paid out on 31st January, 1955. Supposing something happened to me meanwhile, my dear wife, who would then be my widow, would actually be due to be paid out sooner than I would since she will be 60 next year. Supposing, however, that the two of us were killed in an aircraft crash or a railway smash, my heir is my daughter. She would not be able to have my post-war credit until the year 1983. Supposing, however, my daughter were to "go west" in 1982, my oldest grandchild would be the heir to my post-war credit and she, poor girl, could not inherit it until the year 2009.
  This is too silly to be true, but it makes working-class people not merely suspicious
  472
  and resentful but completely contemptuous of the whole bag of tricks. The time has come when the Financial Secretary would be doing a good turn to the capitalist system, in which he believes and I do not, and he would be doing a good turn to the precarious economy of this country if he paid off all post-war credits. I feel that the system suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby would not do because people cannot be trusted with the initiative in these matters. Yet, without any legislation, there is something which the Financial Secretary could do easily if he would. It would make rather a lot of work for the members of the trade union over which my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby presides—
  Mr. Houghton: We would do our best.
  Mr. Smith: The Financial Secretary could do it next week without legislation. It would not mean inflation, and the people who voted for him would say that the Tory Goverment had done a good thing. All he has to do is to issue Treasury bills. They do not need to be for only one month or two or three, and there is no reason why they should not be for x months. The hon. Gentleman has only to fill in the number of months applicable to the case of the recipient of the Treasury bill. My own would be for £130-odd payable on 31st January, 1955. The only conceivable objection to the idea I am putting forward is that it would make a lot of clerical work, but no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby would meet that.
  If we had Treasury bills dated at the appropriate birthday of the recipient, the suspicions of the people who returned my hon. Friends and me to the House would be allayed. They would then have a document conveying interest to them at, I suppose, 2⅜ per cent. per annum. That is the rate of interest on the three-months Treasury bill and there is no reason why it should not be the rate of interest on the x-years Treasury bill. It would be very easy. It would be purely administrative. There would be no inflation with it, and confidence would be restored to the minds of the people. If the hon. Gentleman will do this, his party can have all the credit. It would do the country a lot of good.
  9.31 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I was interested in the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) because of the light it threw on the mechanics of the Conservative Party. At Margate, we had the great example of the Conservative Party revolting against its leadership, a movement with which I, as a rank and file member of the Labour Party, cordially agree.
  I wish to speak tonight on behalf of the completely disillusioned Tory working man who, after having given a democratic and overwhelming mandate to the Conservative Party on the subject of post-war credits, finds that the matter is raised on the first possible occasion not by a Conservative hon. Member but by my hon. Friend the Member for Lough-borough (Mr. Follick). If the platform had been defeated in the case of a Labour Party conference under the Labour Government, Labour hon. Members would have used the first available opportunity to bring pressure on their own Government to carry out the party's democratic mandate.
  Mr. Houghton: Where are the Conservative hon. Members?
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, where are they? Tomorrow, Conservative working men will want to know why only six Conservative Members of Parliament attended this momentous debate to carry out the instructions given by the rank and file to the Conservative Party. There is not one Conservative hon. Member from Scotland present.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: There is one hon. Member for Worcestershire here, and that is what matters.
  Mr. Hughes: I should like some further information from Conservative Party Members who are present about how the mandate was given by the rank and file. I was completely dissatisfied by the explanation given by the hon. Member for Handsworth. He is one of the few hon. Members opposite who speak with authority as economists. I presume that that was the reason why he was appointed a scrutineer at the Conservative Party conference. It needed somebody with a knowledge of Keynesian economics to
  474
  count the votes at the Conservative conference.
  Sir E. Boyle: I merely happened to be at the end of the row nearest the room where the votes were being counted.
  Mr. Hughes: That involves us in a further mystery. I asked the hon. Member to give us a little enlightenment as to why a ballot needed to be taken on the issue. His remarkable explanation was that they could not count the hands. So Conservative Party scrutineers cannot even count.
  Sir E. Boyle: It was because the voting in both rooms was so close.
  Mr. Hughes:If the Conservative Party cannot provide scrutineers who can count 2,000 votes, we cannot expect anything very definite from it in solving our economic problems.
  Mr. Houghton:If my hon. Friend will permit me, in fairness to the Conservative Party conference and the scrutineers, I think we ought to admit that at the last T.U.C. we lost 1,700,000 votes.
  Mr. Speaker: And in fairness to the rules of the House, I must say there seems to be no Ministerial responsibility for the matter which the hon Gentleman is now discussing.
  Mr. Follick:On a point of order. Is this an Adjournment debate on post-war credits, on which I have asked for money to be paid to needy people, or is it a debate on the Margate conference? I thought it was a debate about money being paid to needy people.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Hughes:Unfortunately, there is some Ministerial responsibility on this matter. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, do not bother to read the reports of Conservative Party conferences, but I do, and I wish to inform you that the hon. Gentleman who replied from the platform on behalf of the Conservative Party was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Now, we have another mystery—whether that Minister has any responsibility.
  I think that a serious attempt should be made by the Minister to clear up this matter. What does he intend to do to

  475
  appease his rank and file? What does he intend to do to yield to the clamant demand that is coming from the working men of the Conservative Party that these post-war credits shall be paid? If it is said that the Minister has no responsibility in this matter, I am tempted to agree, but I ask him to give us a more satisfactory answer than he gave to the Conservative Party conference at Margate.
  9.37 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: Everybody who has lent money, of course, likes to be repaid, quite regardless of the purpose for which the money was used or whether the person who has to repay can pay without inflicting very great hardship on other people. As one who was not a member of the Government which borrowed the money—I think very few hon. Members sitting here tonight were here in 1942, 1943 or 1944 when the money was borrowed—it is not difficult for me to say that the money has been spent and is not there.
  It has been spent upon conducting a war and in paying for it, or part of it, because future generations will have to pay for the rest, and any picture which suggests that this Government or any other Government is sitting upon £572 million and refusing to pay out to those who think it is time that it was paid out is an entirely false picture. The money has gone up in smoke, gone away in tanks, gone to the bottom of the sea in ships and in other methods that were very necessary at that time.
  Mr. Houghton:The hon. Gentleman will probably agree that voluntary savings at that time went exactly the same way?
  Mr. Doughty: Oh, no; I do not agree for one single moment that that was what was happening. It was taken at the time on the assumption and understanding that, sometime post-war, it would be repaid. Savings were put in on the understanding and with the guarantee that they would be repaid upon demand, which is a very big difference indeed.
  The only matter which is being discussed in this debate is whether a Treasury order should be issued that this money should now be repaid. I should like to know from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if such an order
  476
  were made, by how much the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to say next Budget day it was necessary to increase taxation in order that that Treasury order should be fulfilled. I make no guess, but at least a shilling would have to go upon the Income Tax of all the rest of the people. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Why not? Because the prosperity of this country and the prosperity of the people who live in it depends upon holding down, and if possible reducing, taxation, and, unless that can be done, we shall lose orders in the markets of the world and unemployment will start all over again.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to mislead the House. The amount £572 million would not equal at the present rate the yield of 1s. in the £ on the Income Tax but but approximately 4s. in the £.
  Mr. Doughty:I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Follick:The hon. Gentleman was not in when I began my speech, and Mr. Deputy-Speaker ruled out certain observations that I made. My idea was not to pay out £572 million but to give some satisfaction to many needy people.
  Mr. Doughty: I was in the House not only when the hon. Member opened his speech but for some time before. I heard him say that, and I heard Mr. Deputy-Speaker rule him out of order. Despite a second attempt to bring back by a devious method the same argument, he was again ruled out of order by Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member into those wholly wrong paths into which he allowed himself to go until he was called to order.
  Not only would that evil of excessive taxation be inflicted upon this country if such a task were undertaken, but the perils of inflation which we are now holding down to the utmost of our capability would be loosed upon the whole fabric of this country. What would happen if 572 million pounds notes were printed and distributed right throughout this country? Would there not be a scream about the inflationary effect that they would have? Would there not be a rise in prices? The proposals to which I have listened from the other side of the House amount to absolutely no solution of the problem.

  477
  What is the suggestion? That instead of paying the money out directly in cash we pay it out through the Post Office. It matters not what course we take for that purpose. If we say that instead of paying it through the post we pay it through the Post Office, it makes no difference at all. If we say that some people might leave it in the Post Office, I reply that it is just those people with the least feeling of patriotism who would be the first to draw it out.
  If we choose Treasury bills, what is to happen to them? Are we to take them and discount them? I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has such an unfortunate view of the mortality rate in his family. I only hope that he will last the few more months that are required, and we shall be happy to see him here, if there is not a General Election in the meantime, enjoying the luxury of his post-war credits. He is entitled to it.
  We must always remember that this country carries a load of debt around its neck. The rate and method of repayment of these credits have been calculated, and I do not think it is quite so depressing an arithmetical and geometrical progression as the hon. Gentleman made out. So far as this country can afford, this debt—it is a debt and not money that is being withheld—is being repaid. Any other system would only result in inflation and excessive taxation with all its evil and its consequences of rising prices and unemployment.
  Hard as it may be on those who have a genuine and honest difficulty, and while one fully appreciates their feelings as expressed at Margate, we must recognise the hard fact that £572 million cannot be handed out indiscriminately by this Government or by any other Government at the present time with any hope of maintaining lower taxation and a fall in the rising costs of living.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. John McKay: I have listened with great interest to this discussion. When it began I thought that it was going to be confined to a rather narrow field of thought, but, as it has continued, it has become wider and wider. I wondered what was the point of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick)
  478
  in putting down this subject for the Adjournment when he wanted the whole matter discussed. The discussion has been so wide that it has taken into consideration the question of the balance of payments, the question of the returning of this mighty sum of money to those to whom it is owed in this way and that, and also the fact that we are in such an economic predicament today that the great need for the moment is to start a tremendous campaign for saving money.
  The big ideas which have been engendered by this debate appear to me to be rather off the point. The hon. Member for Loughborough said he hoped that hon. Members would try to impress the Treasury with the real problem that exists and with the real feelings of the people in the country about this matter. One can call it a debt, a loan, or what one likes, but the point is that this money is owing to the people.
  The big problem just after the war ended was how the country could pay off this debt. Naturally, the Government had to experiment in this direction, and they did so on a very limited scale. They tied down the repayment of post-war credits to men of 65 and to women of 60. People were very patient for a few years because they realised the difficulties and the anomalies that existed in regard to this problem. But the sad experience of a large number of hon. Members has brought the conviction that whatever the difficulties may be—and no doubt there are many—and however great the anomalies that would arise may be, there is a tremendous amount of feeling in the country on this matter.
  I want to impress upon the Treasury that this is a problem which can be modified. The original method can be amended, and how to do that is really the point of this discussion. I believe that the technical position is that we should consider the problem in its totality. Some amendment is required to meet the needs of the people to whom the money is owing. The only reason I have spoken upon the matter is to try to impress upon the Treasury, and the rest of the House that the time has now arrived when it should be realised that, whatever difficulties may exist, this is a debt owing to the people, which, though limited in its application, is creating very many anomalies and hardships in individual cases. The

  479
  time has come when any Government, if they are at all anxious to meet the expressed will and desires of the people, should make a real effort, during the ensuing months, to see what can be done.
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member used the expression "any Government." I hope he has read "Challenge to Britain." There is nothing in that about repaying post-war credits.
  Mr. McKay: I expected that the hon. Member had sufficient experience to know that one does not put everything into the challenge. Everything is not put into a programme. Necessities and problems arise, and new thoughts form. As time goes on various Governments change their attitude and practice as new things, and thoughts, and arrangements emerge.
  9.51 p.m.
  Mr. Stan Awbery: So that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should clearly understand the human problem that lies behind the question of post-war credits, he ought to go into the homes of some of our working people and see how they are endeavouring to manage with the wage that they are getting, but running into debt while, at the same time, money is owing to them by this Government.
  This is not like many debts. An hon. Member said a few moments ago that the debt that was contracted compulsorily does not pay interest like most debts. Therefore, the contributor under the post-war credit system has lost possibly 3 or 4 per cent. for 12 years, and if, at the present time the cost of living is 10 or 15 per cent. more than it was when the money was invested, then his £100 would be worth £85 to £90.
  Mr. Houghton:Perhaps my hon. Friend would permit me to say that, at 3 per cent. interest, there would be lost £184 million.
  Mr. Awbery: I am not concerned with the great economic problems which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will throw at us presently, but with the human side. I received a letter only this morning from a person who holds post-war credits. He said he had been ill for some time, is unable to work, and will be unable to work at all for the rest of his
  480
  life. He is running into debt and the Government are holding post-war credits belonging to him. He asks me whether I can press the Government to pay out his post-war credits so that he can clear himself now, instead of waiting until he is 65.
  An hon. Member said that if he, himself, should die before he reaches 65 years, the money will fall to his wife; if she is not old enough to receive it it will go to his children, and thus it can go on from generation to generation.
  The Financial Secretary may want to know how it is proposed to start repayment. I want to do it in a gradual way, and he can do it in a gradual way, by repaying first those people who are unable to work.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand the position to be that it would require legislation to benefit any particular category of persons. The only subject which can be discussed on the Adjournment, in this connection, is paying back all the post-war credits, because that can be done without legislation.
  Mr. Awbery: I want to point out that in delaying payment of post-war credits we are breaking faith with the people who made this contribution.
  Sir W. Darling Sir W. Darling (Edinburgh, South) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Awbery: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but yesterday we had an example of the Government breaking faith with the officers on the question of pensions. Now we are breaking faith with the people who gave their money during the stress and strain of the war to help this country out of its difficulty, and the time has now come when they should be repaid.
  Sir W. Darling: I suggest that the Government are not breaking faith. The bargain that was made was that these sums of money which were withheld during the war would be repaid to men at the age of 65 and women at the age of 60. What bargain has been broken?
  Mr. Awbery: I accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman that it was agreed that this money should be paid back when the Government are in a position to do so. But let us put ourselves in the

  481
  position of a man who holds post-war credits and is ill. He cannot get his post-war credits, and we say to the Government that they should pay them out because they have the money. If the Government can spend £3,500 million on armaments in three years, why cannot they pay out to post-war credit holders the money that is due to them?
  Mr. Follick:Would my hon. Friend agree that if this money were paid out, a lot of it, especially in the case of well-to-do people, would go back into the bank and the Government would still have the use of it, while the remainder would go to needy people who require it?
  Mr. Awbery: That would help the position of the country considerably. In many cases, if post-war credits were paid out the money would merely be transferred from one account to another.
  People who write to me almost daily about post-war credits understand very little about the great economic problems that confront the country. They do not know a great deal about the Budget, but they know a good deal about the budget which they have to balance every Friday night. I ask the Financial Secretary to transfer himself, in imagination, from the Front Bench and from the Treasury into the kitchen of a working man who owns post-war credits, and to consider what he would think of the position when he found, on a Friday night, that he was running into debt and the Government owed him money. We urge the Government to give serious consideration to the problems of such people.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr John Arbuthnot: The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) said that he approaches this problem from the human angle, and I am certain that all hon. Members on both sides of the House who urge upon the Government that something should be done, for the holders of post-war credits approach it precisely from that angle. I myself have a number of constituents who are drawing National Assistance and who, at the same time, own post-war credits which they are unable to encash.
  I have a suggestion which I should like to put to the Government for their consideration. I believe that this problem could be overcome if the post-war credits
  482
  were endorsed with the date on which the present holder became 60 in the case of a woman and 65 in the case of a man, and that a promise should be made that these post-war credits would be repaid at that date, quite regardless of who the holder of the post-war credits happened to be at that time. If that were done, those post-war credit documents would then become negotiable, and the people on National Assistance would be able to encash them for their current market value. This would mean in effect that these people in difficult circumstances would have an asset which they would be able to spend.
  It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]
  Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Member's idea require legislation? I do not know if the endorsement of these certificates to render them negotiable securities would require legislation. I imagine it would.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should not like to make a dogmatic statement on the matter. I should be inclined to think that it would, but without further examination I should not like to say that that would definitely be so.
  Mr. Speaker: I shall give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am very much obliged. All I suggest is that the Government should consider the idea that I am putting forward. It has been suggested that my proposal would be inflationary, but I do not think that it would, because, just as some previous holders of post-war credits would find themselves in funds because they had sold those post-war credits, by the same token the people who had bought the post-war credits would find themselves with money frozen to the same amount.
  I suggest that a proposal of that kind would go a long way towards meeting the problem of those people who are hard up, without being in any way inflationary. That would be of considerable assistance, but I am told that it would cost a certain amount of money. That is perfectly true. The estimates are that

  483
  there would be something in the nature of an additional payment to the tune of about £2 million a year, over the years, and an initial extra payment of £7 million would be required if we were to take into account those people who had died before reaching the age to encash their post-war credits.
  I personally should confine this proposal to the present holders of post-war credits. It would be perfectly fair to do so. The initial payment of £17 million would not then be at issue, and the problem facing the Government could be solved for a matter of £2 million a year, which, bearing in mind the enormous advantage that it would be to many people in very difficult circumstances, is a burden that we should certainly shoulder.
  10.3 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Usborne: I came into the House not with the intention of speaking in the debate but because the question of post-war credits is of great interest to all Members of Parliament. I have intervened—and I shall be very brief in doing so—very largely as a result of the extraordinarily interesting speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith). I urge very strongly that his suggestion should be supported.
  I am particularly glad that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) has disposed of that rather ridiculous criticism which was being ventilated in his normal fashion—with abuse—by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), because he did not understand it. It has now been pointed out, perfectly clearly, that if a Treasury bill, appropriately post-dated, was sold by one person, it must be bought by somebody else, and the mere fact of it being negotiable would not produce inflation. It would be inflationary only to the extent that in due course, on the appropriate date, it could be cashed, and that money would then add to the inflationary pool
  The hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) seemed to attack the general proposition on the grounds that although Lord Keynes was brought in in support by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), anything which
  484
  Lord Keynes proposed could be dismissed, because what Lord Keynes said had proved to be wrong, since his real anxiety was about a depression which has not yet arrived. The hon. Baronet—speaking as one economist about another—said that what Lord Keynes ought to have been anxious about was the problem of the balance of trade and the consequent financial problem. I also read that same book, the biography of the late Lord Keynes by Harrod, and I got the impression that Lord Keynes was vividly aware of this problem. The only mistake in fact that he made was in assuming that the instrument of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund would be able to solve it. Towards the end of his life—
  Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. Are we allowed to discuss all of the Keynesian theories?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood the hon. Member to be developing the Keynesian theories in connection with post-war credits.
  Mr. Usborne: I was merely developing, very briefly, a very small facet of them. If the hon. Member thinks that that is all of the Keynesian theories I think he had better keep quiet.
  Mr. Nabarro: I know more about them than the hon. Gentleman ever will.
  Mr. Usborne: I was not attempting to answer the hon. Member. I think it is a waste of time to try. I was trying to deal genuinely and seriously with an appropriate speech and an appropriate point ably made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Hands worth who is, unfortunately, not here at the moment, probably for a very excellent reason. I am sure he would have stayed if he could, and that he has not left us out of any discourtesy.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How does my hon. Friend know?
  Mr. Usborne: I think that all the points made on this side of the House are valid, and in so far as any criticism has been thrown at us we could easily answer it. I would make this point. The hon. Baronet the Member for Edinburgh. South (Sir W. Darling) argued—
  Sir W. Darling: No hon. Baronet sits for that constituency. There has been no promotion.
  Mr. Usborne: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was carrying matters a little too far. However, the hon. Gentleman was making the point in an interjection that no faith was being broken because these post-war credits had always been associated with a given age for repayment, and that is not true.
  Originally, when the money was taken off the citizens, it was understood—clearly understood—that it would be paid back as soon as might be. Everyone realised that that might be a few years after the war, but that then they would get it back. It was only in 1946, when it became clear that the situation was not unfolding as it had been envisaged that it would, that we had to put the age factor into the scales.
  Sir W. Darling: "We"? In 1946, there was a Labour Government.
  Mr. Usborne: The British Government in 1946, yes.
  Mr. Nabarro: The Socialist Government.
  Mr. Usborne: The real, underlying reason for post-war credits, the whole system of the loan, that was clearly understood by everyone, was that they would be a wonderful monetary instrument to use in the recession that was naturally expected to follow the war—naturally expected, but that, curiously, has not arrived.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Because of the Labour Government.
  Mr. Usborne: Because of the Labour Government, yes.
  The long and the short of it is that this scheme proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South does need very careful consideration. I want to underline this fact, that working people, ordinary people, do fed now that they have been very badly treated indeed in relation to post-war credits. They were quite convinced that they lent the money on short-term and that as soon as might be it would be given back. Now, by one means or another, one Government after another think of excuses by which apparently it will never get paid at all.
  486
  The point has been made in this debate that we do need savings and that unless we are honest with our people we cannot get people to believe in the honesty of the methods of saving. That is enormously cogent, and should be taken into consideration. A possible way to deal with the matter is by the issue of some scheme on the lines of a Treasury bill which would be dated and could be negotiated, which could be sold by those who are in need and bought by those who do not want the money at the moment.
  This is a desparately important matter, much more important than most people think. Unless we do something about it very soon indeed we can never hope to persuade people to save in that or any other way because they will not trust the financial, banking mechanism of this country. Once bitten, twice shy.
  10.11 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): In accordance with custom, I suppose in the first place I should declare a personal interest, although it is a personal interest which, under the present law, is somewhat remote. I am also sorry to say that it is not quite as large a personal interest as that which the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) disclosed.
  I appreciate that this is a subject which rouses genuine and sincere feelings and that it is of legitimate and proper interest to a great many people in this country. Probably all hon. Members in their personal capacity from time to time experience moments of exasperation at contemplating a piece of paper containing certain figures with which they can do nothing useful at present. That is a very human and understandable feeling which it is undoubtedly the duty of all Governments to take into account.
  There are, of course, two major difficulties in discussing this interesting and important topic on the Motion for the Adjournment. In the first place, there are the rules of order, which apparently compelled the hon. Member for Lough-borough (Mr. Follick) to advocate with his accustomed force and dexterity a proposal which he has indicated he does not want to be carried out—to advocate it in order that he might incidentally advocate proposals clearly out of order which he would like to see carried out.

  487
  That must inevitably constitute a very unsatisfactory method both for other hon. Members and for the hon. Member to whom it falls to reply from this Box to a discussion on a matter of this interest and importance. I must therefore ask hon. Members to appreciate that I am under precisely the same difficulties of the rules of order as have interfered in greater or lesser degree, in accordance with their adroitness in dealing with the rules of order, with hon. Members who have spoken.
  Mr. Follick rose—
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am afraid I cannot give way. The hon. Member took much longer than the time which I have left.
  The second point is that any proposal would inevitably be a budgetary matter. A decision to make available either the very large sum of money which the hon. Member for Loughborough has formally sought to be released or the smaller sum which I contemplate he had in mind would be essentially a matter to be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with his Budget proposals. These are inevitably, therefore, matters about which it would be very difficult for me to say anything definite at this stage of the year.
  I hope we shall not cloud these discussions, as I thought at times the hon. Member for Loughborough and the hon. Member for Wall send (Mr. McKay) did, by seeking to introduce purely emotional and partisan considerations. The hon. Member for Loughborough used the word "fraudulent" and the hon. Member for Wallsend, as I understood him, expressed somewhat similar sentiments on the subject of policy in this matter.
  Mr. Follick: The hon. Member's own people did.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My own people are much better mannered. The hon. Member for Loughborough must recall this: if there is any force in that contention, the charge would lie more fully against right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who not only initiated the policy in operation under the existing law for payments at 65 and 60 but maintained it for some five years. I am not making any suggestion that their policy in that respect
  488
  was fraudulent or dishonest, but I am entitled to say that it is not relevant, true or helpful to make a similar suggestion when precisely the same policy is carried out by my right hon. Friend and myself. I hope we can discuss this matter as one of reason and importance without trying to cloud it with prejudicial and contentious adjectives which do not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite, who supported the late Administration with more or less fidelity.
  Mr. Follick:On a point of order. I did point out that we were quite as much to blame in this matter.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I take it from that intervention that the hon. Gentleman's views are that the late Administration was fraudulent. That is not a matter for me to argue, and it may assist a calmer contemplation of this matter if I briefly review the facts.
  These post-war credits were created under the Finance Act. 1941, and were created in place of the amounts of tax relief which were lost by the taxpayer by reason of the reduction in the personal allowances. A single person's allowance was reduced from £100 to £80, a married man's allowance from £170 to £140, earned income and age relief from one-sixth to one-tenth and the exemption limit from £120 to £110. The sums which we are discussing this evening arise in respect of the tax paid as a result of the reduction of these allowances which would not have been payable had these reductions not taken place.
  Of the original £800 million—the hon. Member for Loughborough was not quite right as to the latest figures—£208 million has actually been paid out. A further £20 million was set off against Income Tax arrears under an arrangement made by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, leaving the figure, as the hon. Member for Sowerby correctly stated, of £572 million as the outstanding credit.
  I have listened very carefully to this debate and I do not think that any hon. Member has seriously advocated the immediate payment out of the whole sum

  489
  of £572million. I think that I can take it that in substance if not in form there was substantial agreement on that.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: No.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will seek to analyse that in a moment. I think that most hon. Members will appreciate that the payment out of so large a sum in one instalment would quite clearly carry with it, not only very substantial and serious inflationary consequences, but in an effort to finance our payments or alternatively to counter-balance in some degree that inflationary pressure there would have to be an increase in taxation. That is the background of this matter.
  This is the moral of the problem. If the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), who in this, as in so many matters, is unlike so many of his hon. Friends, is really advocating that, I would ask him to think for a moment about the implications of the situation. The implications, I understand, are these. If it was, on his own showing, impossible for the late Government during six years to discharge their obligations—because I am sure he accepts my view that they were honourable people desirous of discharging national obligations if they could, and therefore the fact that they did not pay during the six years was because in their view it was impossible—and he thinks that within two years our financial policy has been so manifestly successful as to enable us to undertake this immense load. I hope that he will tell the electors of Brixton how successful has been the financial policy of the Government which from time to time he criticises.
  That is really the implication of the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he suggests that it is now possible and reasonable for us to do in one step what the late Government, in my view in all the circumstances quite rightly, found themselves unable to do.
  Mr. David Logan: Is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to tell us how they can get it?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman would not take up a number of precious seconds, it might increase my chances of doing so.
  There is the problem. I cannot, for very clear reasons, go into the various
  490
  alternative proposals to that of the hon. Member for Loughborough which have been put forward, for the reason that they would involve legislation and that it therefore is not possible for me to comment upon them. I think, however, that I should not be straying beyond the rules of order and incurring Mr. Speaker's displeasure if I invited the attention of the House to the written answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on 10th November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison), who had suggested one of these expedients. My right hon. Friend said:
  "This and other suggestions for the payment of post-war credits will be considered when I am framing my Budget proposals, but I cannot, of course, say what the result of this consideration will be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 10th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 27.]
  That makes it perfectly clear that my right hon. Friend has undertaken to consider the various proposals, which have been put forward from all quarters of the House, to see whether by means of adopting them or any variation of them it is possible to make progress in this matter.
  I fully agree with what was so well said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) in his quotation from the "Economist" that this is an obligation to be met, and that any suggestion that it was not accepted as an obligation to be met by any Government would have most serious repercussions throughout the financial field. Both the "Economist" and the hon. Baronet were saying a very sensible thing, which cannot be said too often in this context, and I fully associate myself with what they say.
  Equally in the consideration which my right hon. Friend has said he will give to this subject, of course he will not—and here I reply to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery)—ignore the human side of this problem, which he has very much in mind, and perhaps particularly in this context. Although I do not agree with a good deal of what the hon. Member for Bristol, Central said, he was in many ways on to a very good point in bringing this matter down to its human implications, and there is much force in what he said.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) ventilated a series of

  491
  very interesting proposals, which he has also been good enough to put forward on previous occasions. For the reasons I have already given, it clearly is not possible for me to say more than that those very interesting proposals deserve consideration, and, I am sure, will receive it. Obviously—my hon. Friend would be surprised if this evening I were to say anything else—I cannot comment further upon those proposals but they were certainly put forward with great clarity and gave grounds for a most interesting discussion.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) treated us to a long possible vista of domestic catastrophe, which, I am sure it is the prayer of allhon. Member on both sides will not come to pass in his case. The grounds that he gave us for hoping for his survival over the next few months—his survival in the flesh if not as an hon. Member of the House—certainly reinforce our wishes for his good health. In his very amusing way the hon. Member touched on one of the difficulties of the system as it at present operates, in the fact that under the present regulations, misfortunes of death before the particular ages so fixed can result in postponement of the payment of the credit for a considerable period.
  The hon. Member, with whom I do not always agree, was undoubtedly on an extremely important aspect of the situation. I remind him and the House, however, that that aspect was not created by any proposal for which this Government are responsible. It is the consequence of the original provision made by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, under which these payments are made, and made only, on attaining the ages of 65 for a man or 60 for a woman.
  I am not in any sense trying to shunt off responsibility for such alterations as may be found possible, but I think, in view of part of the tone of the hon. Member's speech, that I am entitled to suggest that if this be an anomaly and an outrage upon commonsense, then it was an anomaly and an outrage upon commonsense created by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland. As far as I remember, it was not criticised by the hon. Member at the time,
  492
  though I will give him the credit for having been very free with his criticism of the financial policy of all Governments, whether of his own party or on the other side of the House. [Interruption.]
  The question has arisen of these Treasury bills, which the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton has been kind enough to remind me of in what he regarded no doubt as sotto voce. We all make that kind of mistake from time to time, and sometimes in a somewhat embarrassing way. There again, there is a proposal of interest not, of course, without cost, and it falls for consideration whether this matter would be dealt with more satisfactorily by expending such funds as may become available on the payment of interest on existing credits, rather than making these funds available for accelerating the final pay-off of the credits.
  I am not expressing any dogmatic opinion at the moment. I am asking hon. Members to remember that to use the money in that way for the payment of interest means that there is proportionately less money on any hypothesis available for the final paying off of the credits. Therefore, perhaps there is an even balance, according to one's own point of view, as to which is the wiser and more equitable step to take.
  I am not seeking to dismiss any such proposal out of hand this evening. I think probably I should be anticipating legislation if I did, and in any event this is the time of the year which does not permit me to indulge in any very precise forecast of what it may be possible for my right hon. Friend to do when he gives this matter the consideration which he has promised to give in connection with his Budget proposals.
  Finally, I can add this. Most, if not all, of the speeches in this debate have been designed as contributions to the consideration of a matter which has been of concern to previous Governments, as I am perfectly certain it is to this Government. We shall certainly take full advantage of the views that have been expressed, and which are now recorded with habitual fidelity by the Official Report. We shall give the fullest weight to them on their merits, and those designed to be helpful will be given the full consideration that helpful suggestions deserve.

  493
  It is perhaps the merit of a debate upon the Adjournment that it enables views to be expressed in one way or another, subject always to the limitations of the rules of order, which, though they may not necessarily appear to have had an immediate effect, nonetheless are available for my right hon. Friend and for the Government to consider at leisure when framing their proposals.
  I can give the assurance that all the views and proposals put forward will receive that consideration in the period of the year on which we are entering. I cannot forecast, of course what will be the result and it would be very wrong of me to do so. Certainly at this time of
  494
  the year in which financial proposals are considered, these matters will be before my right hon. Friend. Therefore, this debate comes very properly in point of time, and, despite the difficulties with which the hon. Member for Lough-borough was faced and which on the whole he successfully overcame, I am sure the debate has been a great help.
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Ten o'Clock.

TRANSPORT
  R.A.C. and A.C.U. Training Scheme
  R.A.C. and A.C.U. Training Scheme
  Passenger Aircraft (Fatalities)
  Passenger Aircraft (Fatalities)
ROADS
  Improvements
  Improvements
  London Airport (Signposting)
  London Airport (Signposting)
  A.803 and A.80 Junction, Longcroft
  A.803 and A.80 Junction, Longcroft
  ICELAND FISHERIES DISPUTE
  ICELAND FISHERIES DISPUTE
  TRIESTE (SITUATION)
  TRIESTE (SITUATION)
  BRITISH COUNCIL (COLONIAL ADVISERS)
  BRITISH COUNCIL (COLONIAL ADVISERS)
  FOUR-POWER CONFERENCE (U.S.S.R.)
  FOUR-POWER CONFERENCE (U.S.S.R.)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Decontrol (Savings)
  Decontrol (Savings)
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughter of Horses Committee (Recommendations)
  Slaughter of Horses Committee (Recommendations)
  Home-Grown Barley
  Home-Grown Barley
  Oil and Fat Imports
  Oil and Fat Imports
  Condemned Meat (Conditions of Sale)
  Condemned Meat (Conditions of Sale)
  Colonies (Long-Term Contracts)
  Colonies (Long-Term Contracts)
  MeatRation (Decrease)
  MeatRation (Decrease)
  Canned Fish
  Canned Fish
  Sugar Derationing (Overseas Purchases)
  Sugar Derationing (Overseas Purchases)
EAST AFRICA
  Land, Tanganyika (Cropping)
  Land, Tanganyika (Cropping)
  African Education, Kenya
  African Education, Kenya
WEST AFRICA
  Gold Coast (Constitution)
  Gold Coast (Constitution)
  Seditious Literature (Arrests)
  Seditious Literature (Arrests)
MALAYA
  Rubber Industry
  Rubber Industry
  Terrorists' Bodies (Photographing)
  Terrorists' Bodies (Photographing)
  Financial Assistance
  Financial Assistance
  Malay Regiment Battalions (Increase)
  Malay Regiment Battalions (Increase)
NYASALAND
  Tear Smoke Grenades (Use)
  Tear Smoke Grenades (Use)
  Chief's Wife (Custody)
  Chief's Wife (Custody)
HONG KONG
  Legislative Council Seats (Petition)
  Legislative Council Seats (Petition)
  Exports to China
  Exports to China
SOMALILAND
  Tribal Chiefs (Selection)
  Tribal Chiefs (Selection)
  Somalis (Arrests)
  Somalis (Arrests)
  Haji Ali Koshen
  Haji Ali Koshen
  LIMASOL (DESTROYED WHISKY)
  LIMASOL (DESTROYED WHISKY)
BRITISH GUIANA
  Trade Unions (Affiliations)
  Trade Unions (Affiliations)
  Sugar Industry
  Sugar Industry
  Life Expectation
  Life Expectation
  Capital Development Schemes
  Capital Development Schemes
  Bauxite Exports
  Bauxite Exports
  Imports and Exports
  Imports and Exports
  Dollar (Purchasing Power)
  Dollar (Purchasing Power)
  Commission
  Commission
  RUBBER STUDY GROUP, LONDON (REPORT)
  RUBBER STUDY GROUP, LONDON (REPORT)
  U.S.S.R. AND CHINA (BRITISH SHIPS)
  U.S.S.R. AND CHINA (BRITISH SHIPS)
  ROYAL NAVY (SINGAPORE POLICE)
  ROYAL NAVY (SINGAPORE POLICE)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Wales
  Wales
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
POST OFFICE
  Cards and Letters (Postage Rates)
  Cards and Letters (Postage Rates)
  Canal Street, Renfrew
  Canal Street, Renfrew
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Commercial Television
  Commercial Television
  Television Transmitter, Northern Ireland
  Television Transmitter, Northern Ireland
  Bands I, II and III
  Bands I, II and III
  New Television Corporation (Channels)
  New Television Corporation (Channels)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Formation Flying
  Formation Flying
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Practice Bombs, Berners Heath
  Practice Bombs, Berners Heath
  Greenham Common Aerodrome
  Greenham Common Aerodrome
  Bombing Range, Saltfleet
  Bombing Range, Saltfleet
AGRICULTURE
  Irish Horses (Slaughter)
  Irish Horses (Slaughter)
  Output Calculations
  Output Calculations
  Forestry
  Forestry
  METEOROLOGICAL BALLOONS (RADAR REPORTS)
  METEOROLOGICAL BALLOONS (RADAR REPORTS)
HOUSING
  Blackley
  Blackley
  Newbury, Bradfield and Hungerford (Allocations)
  Newbury, Bradfield and Hungerford (Allocations)
  HOME-GROWN TIMBER MARKETS (IMPORTS)
  HOME-GROWN TIMBER MARKETS (IMPORTS)
  COLOMBO PLAN TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION SCHEME (EXPENDITURE)
  COLOMBO PLAN TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION SCHEME (EXPENDITURE)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform the House that it has been agreed through the usual channels that we meet at two o'clock to-morrow as we have a great number of speakers to-day and a certain number to-morrow, and I am sure that noble Lords do not want to stay too late here to-morrow night.

  TELEVISION POLICY
  2.36 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM rose to move to resolve, That this House, whilst recognising the desirability of an alternative Television Programme, regrets that it cannot approve of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government as outlined in the Memorandum on Television Policy (Cmd. 9005). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, some experience of the controversy in which we are going to embroil ourselves to-day has taught me that it is a subject about which people have thought deeply and feel deeply. But there is one subject on which I feel sure that I speak for the whole House this afternoon—that is, the feeling of regret, which I am certain is universal among us, that my noble friend Lord Halifax has been prevented by indisposition from moving in person this Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper. I am sure that I am not being extravagant when I say that, in your Lordships' House and in the country, there can be few figures more respected and beloved than the noble Earl; and his presence here to-day, whatever views we may ultimately take about the topic under discussion, would have enriched and exalted our deliberations. I know that all will join with me in regretting his absence this afternoon. This House, with its customary chivalry, will also feel with me, I know, when I ask for its indulgence at this moment, the mantle of Elijah falling rather big about
  512
  my shoulders, and will forgive any defect in the speaker, remembering the authority and prestige of the noble Earl whose Motion we are to debate.
  The Motion endeavours to fix a point of agreement and to define a matter of difference. There is one matter about which everyone will be in complete agreement: our national recovery, happily, is of such an extent, and the technical development of our television services so far advanced, that the time has come for us to enjoy an alternative television programme. The freedom of the knob, which so long has been only a freedom to switch off, is now, as soon as technically possible, to be enlarged to a freedom to listen to something different. That is a matter upon which, whatever disputes we may have, I feel certain this House is in entire and wholehearted agreement. It is also a matter for congratulation to the country that its economic resources and its technical power are sufficient to achieve this purpose. But the matter about which there is dispute, and it is as well to define it accurately, is this: now that we are to have one (and I think for some years no more than one) alternative programme, how best are we to achieve that object? What is the administrative arrangement which will give the people the best possible alternative television programme, which is what I am sure they both desire and deserve? It is upon that topic that we have to discuss this Motion.
  There are, of course, many alternatives to the White Paper, and I take it that those noble Lords who disagree with it will support the Motion, though not necessarily for the same reasons. I count among my prominent supporters the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In his last speech on this subject, he said this (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 176, Col. 1447):
  "I sincerely hope that…there will be sponsored television in this country. I believe that it will work for the good. I personally also hope that in time it will lead to sponsored radio—but that lies in the future and is a purely personal opinion."
  But the present White Paper, Memorandum on Television Policy, prefers what is described as "a basic principle,"
  "that there should be no 'sponsoring' and that responsibility for what goes out on the air shall rest on the operator of the station, and not on the advertiser."

  513
  I imagine, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, will accept the necessity for an alternative television programme but will regret that he cannot give support to the proposals outlined in the Memorandum on Television Policy.
  It is also noteworthy that we are hearing a little less nowadays about "trusting the people": not because we trust the people less, but because it has at last been discerned that the people themselves desire to have some legislative protection against unreasonable exploitation of their home circles. Instead of trusting the people, the While Paper seems pre-occupied rather with the zariba of fortifications now surrounding this palladium of liberty which has been introduced into our midst to protect it against its own self. I am sure that noble Lords who believe in untrammelled trust for the people will support this Resolution and condemn the White Paper. I do it, however, from a somewhat different viewpoint. I sincerely believe that the alternative programme will be the best programme—and by "the best," I do not mean to lay down what other people ought to like or dislike: I mean the best from the point of view of what the people themselves want—if it is under the control of the B.B.C. and administered as a public service.
  I would go further than that. If it should at any time be proved—which I do not conceive, and of which I see and have seen not the smallest tittle of evidence—that in order to provide a supplementary revenue it was necessary to introduce any advertising at all, I should still prefer that advertising to be administered, as it can be under the Charter of the B.B.C., through the B.B.C., and I should be opposed in all circumstances to the provision of an alternative programme which derived its revenue solely from advertisement. The B.B.C. wants the alternative programme—of that there is no doubt. There is equally no doubt that the Government have rejected the desire of the B.B.C. for the alternative programme, not because they cannot provide it, or even because they cannot provide it at a reasonable cost. The television White Paper which is under discussion has made it plain that the desire of the B.B.C. to administer the alternative programme is rejected on a question of principle, the principle being that the
  514
  Government assert that at this moment of time it is desirable "to introduce an element of competition" into our broadcasting arrangements.
  The first thing I want to say about that is that it is idle to pretend that such an introduction does not constitute a revolution in our broadcasting policy. I know the Postmaster General wants to say that he loves the B.B.C. dearly, admires it greatly and desires to leave it unaltered. But it simply will not do to deceive ourselves about this. For thirty years it has been the deliberate policy of this country to run its broadcasting service with the B.B.C. as the sole broadcasting instrument, and now it is proposed to alter that principle. As long ago as 1924 the Sykes Committee reported:
  "We attach great importance to the maintenance of a high standard of broadcast programmes, with continuous efforts to secure improvement, and we think that advertisements would lower the standard."
  That was the view of the first committee. Whilst I am not pretending that that Committee committed itself for ever and a day to the principle of what is, I think, miscalled monopoly, that was its unequivocal opinion of advertisement. In 1925 the Crawford Committee said:
  "It is agreed that the United States system of free and uncontrolled transmission and reception is unsuited to this country, and that broadcasting must accordingly remain a monopoly"—
  in other words, that the whole organisation must be controlled by a single authority. That was the view of the Crawford Committee. Although, again, there may be qualifications, that was its unequivocal and its accepted recommendation—a recommendation, I must add, accepted by successive Conservative Governments in a period of almost unchallenged power.
  In 1935, the Ullswater Committee, the last Committee appointed before the war, reported:
  "The possible admission of direct advertisements in the ordinary broadcast service was discussed by the Sykes Committee and rejected. The conclusion was approved and has remained in force, being embodied in the Corporation's licence. We in our turn form the same conclusion, and are most anxious that the intellectual and ethical integrity that the broadcast system in this country has attained should be preserved."
  That Committee went on to say that in the pioneering stage of television, from which we have now emerged, it might be

  515
  desirable to allow direct sponsorship; but the Conservative Postmaster General of that day deliberately and expresssly rejected that proposal. The Conservative Cabinet decided—and I quote from the White Paper (Command 5207) of 1936:
  "The Government propose that sponsored programmes as well as direct advertisements"—
  that is, both kinds of commercial television—
  "should be excluded."
  The Beveridge Committee, which was instructed more recently to decide upon the terms of the B.B.C.'s Charter, by a large majority, with, I think, only one exception, reported in favour of the continuance of the public service. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, in his place to-day, and I think I am not misrepresenting him when I say that the whole cast of his mind and the minds of his colleagues (if I may call them so, because I should share the same view) was in favour, as my own is, of free enterprise, competition and the absence of an exclusive right. None the less, after examining this matter at length, the Beveridge Committee decided in favour of what is called monopoly. And yet the Government, without, so far as I can see, any attempt to justify the intellectual background against which their decision has been made, have decided to throw overboard the whole experience of thirty years, and all the work of all the Committees that have investigated this subject; and, for reasons which are imperfectly disclosed, they have decided that the time has now come when the whole principle of British broadcasting should be overthrown and that an element of competition should be introduced into television.
  This debate takes its place in the context of the great debate in our national affairs between the two rival principles upon which goods and services can be supplied—the principle of public service, sometimes called monopoly, and the principle of free enterprise and competition. Hitherto, broadcasting has been out of that controversy. It has been beyond the range of Party politics because both Parties have accepted the principle that broadcasting should be an exclusive public service. To my mind, it is a great disaster that it has now been thrown
  516
  into the cockpit of Party politics by the present Government's decision to introduce an element of competition. I say it is a disaster because—make no mistake about it—in every case, where possible, the machinery of democracy, of which our broadcasting is a vital and indispensable part, should be outside the range of ordinary controversial Party politics.
  If that were the only objection, I should still find it a matter for grave consideration whether, on that point alone, the Government's White Paper and decision ought not to be rejected. It is idle to pretend that a public service which ceases to be an exclusive public service is not being fundamentally attacked. I have objected to the word "monopoly," and I still object to it. I think we have learned enough about this controversy in the quarter of a century in which it has been raging to know that we cannot secure acceptance by mouthing catchwords on one side or the other. The supporters of the public service principle are driven to recognise more and more that there are subjects which are essentially the preserve of private enterprise. The supporters of private enterprise—and this is an example, because all that has been done has been done by Conservative Governments and Parliaments—have recognised more and more that there are certain services which are better not bound by competition. Although the whole essence of Party politics rages round the question where the frontier should be drawn, it is no longer possible to utter catchwords like "monopoly" or "profit" and think that you have settled the debate; still less, if I may say so respectfully to one for whom I have the deepest possible regard, to quote eloquently from the public servant of a tyranny, John Milton, and think that you have concluded a matter in favour of freedom by so doing.
  How would the Postmaster General like it if a powerful case were made about the dangers of the monopoly in distributing the post? How serious, it might be said, is the possibility, not with the Post Office in its present hands but in the hands of some totalitarian Government, that offensive matter might be censored or suppressed in the post? How would he like it if it were suggested that the time had come when, in the interests of freedom, a number of blue

  517
  pillar boxes ought to be erected in the centres of population, financed by advertisements on their outsides, with postmen of rival categories marching up and down the street, in order to give the Post Office a little healthy competition? You destroy the principle of public service, without securing the advantages of private enterprise, by trying to create competition between a public service and something else which is not a public service.
  In my sleepless hours the other night, when I was wondering what I could say to convince your Lordships to-day, I thought I found myself in the camp of Israel, when their assembly was debating the suitability of erecting a golden calf in addition to the established Church of the time. The Government of the day was in favour of the proposal on the ground that the calf was only a little one. They said: "Of course, we all admire Jehovah and think Jehovah did a very good job of work in getting us out of the land of Egypt; but a little golden calf will provide just that element of healthy competition." The Postmaster General of that day made a splendid speech in which he described it as a typical Israelitish compromise between monotheism on the one hand and polytheism on the other—which secured resounding cheers. The Lord Chancellor of the day was profoundly disturbed that those who defended the exclusive prerogatives of the Establishment should adopt a "holier than thou" attitude. His view, quoting prophetically from a future English writer, was that a great and puissant nation would arise as if from deep slumber, with a little healthy competition in the matter of religion.
  There is nobody who supports compromise more sincerely than I do. In the range of human relations, in the clash of human desires, in the conflict between human personalities and interests, it is part of the gospel of Christian charity which we have inherited from our forbears. But inside the realm of some questions of principle, compromise is not so much a typically British or admirable thing as a sort of intellectual smog—something which is a passport to chaos and confusion and a convenient cloak for complete muddle-headednesss. That is precisely why the White Paper—although I accept at once the view that it con-
  518
  stitutes a sincere attempt on the part of the Government to meet criticism—is, in practice, not only not an advance but in some ways a retrogression on what has gone before. You cannot or should not try to create one public corporation in competition with another public corporation. That is to get the worst of private enterprise and the worst of public service. It is difficult in this world to get the best of both dispensations. It is fatally easy to fall between two stools; and the White Paper is a retrogression because it falls between two stools. It is not a purebred animal at all; it is a mule with which we have been presented—a dangerous and unworkable animal, a ludicrous and inglorious hybrid, a creature proverbially without pride of ancestry, and devoid of any hope of legitimate posterity. In the name of freedom, the Government have decided to create a Mistress of the Robes to Miranda, and they have selected Caliban for the post. And when, at last, in the name of freedom, he has emerged from his slimy cavern, they have not been pleased with his appearance at all, which has given rise to the darkest suspicions with regard to his proclivities. So, in fear of these, they have loaded him with fetters, again in the name of freedom, with the result, as I apprehend, that Caliban will either prove an inefficacious servant, or else, wearying of servitude, knock off his gyves and pursue his natural inclinations without inhibition or effective hindrance. I may be wrong, but it may well be that the Corporation, with their satellite programme companies, have in truth had their baser instincts carefully and successfully removed, like the keepers of some peculiar seraglio. But if that be so, I apprehend that, by the same token, they will find themselves unable to discharge their proper functions.
  So much for compromise. Where do we get on broadcasting? I want to outline what I conceive to be the desiderata of an alternative programme, and I want to inquire which of the two rival systems is more likely to provide these desiderata. What are these desiderata? Coverage—the area covered by the programmes—an effective difference in programmes so that, when you turn the knob you do not hear another version of the same thing; variety (I use the word in its general sense), range, comprehensiveness, balance,

  519
  something for the children, adequate religious and political broadcasting—these are the desiderata of an alternative programme as I see it. Which of these two alternative methods of arrangement is more likely to achieve them? With regard to coverage, is it generally realised that at this very moment, or at any rate until comparatively recently, despite all the disadvantages of the war and the long and tearful progress towards recovery which followed, this nation, with its tiny resources, starting much later, still covers with its television network 85 per cent. of the country, while the United States, that great and prosperous community, still has 40 per cent. uncovered? Of course it is possible to hear eight or nine different programmes from New York, where those great centres of population are competed for by the advertising companies; but, unhappily, it does not pay to carry television into the countryside, and so the country is starved.
  I believe that in television we have an instrument which, in the long run, and possibly even alone, might be of sufficient power and interest to stop the drift of our population to the towns. I think it is impossible to overestimate the power of this thing. Is it to be said that a Conservative Administration is going to hand over half that potential instrument to a system which, almost by definition, will be less likely to carry television to the country than to the great centres of population? I cannot doubt the answer to that. What about range and comprehensiveness? I do not think that everybody wants to listen all the time. A person who is trying to give the people what they want will try to give a programme which, over a period of weeks or months, will give to everybody something which really interests them. All of us, my Lords, are members of some tiny minority or other: some collect stamps, or skate; others are gardeners, or race pigeons, or like to go to football matches. We all want something on the radio over a period which will satisfy us. It may be that quite a small number of people will listen to our particular programme, but everyone will listen in over the month; and it is not good enough to say that a philosophy of broadcasting which aims at keeping the maximum number
  520
  of people listening all the time is a popular form of broadcasting, something which is either democratic or fulfilling the popular desire.
  It is not, of course, because we have any quarrel with advertising, or think there is anything wrong with advertising, that we suggest that a philosophy of broadcasting by advertisers is wrong. It is not because we have any desire to insult the responsible commercial interests involved that we say that it will lead to the lowest common denominator. It is because they are aiming at the wrong thing by definition; they are competing for the maximum audience all the time, instead of giving all the people what they want during some of the time. And here I come to the radical difference between advertising, by newspaper and advertising by broadcasting. Advertisements in newspapers have two salient characteristics. First they are extended in space; second, the newspaper selected is selected because it sells on its own merits. Advertisements by broadcast differ in both these essential respects. They are extended in time and not in space. They are seen in every home and the time selected is selected not only to the extent that the broadcast service attracts the viewer on its own merits, but also to the extent that it puts the viewer, at the moment the advertisement is presented, into a proper frame of mind to buy.
  I hope that I may be forgiven if I make reference to what your Lordships will perhaps think is a somewhat foolish television programme, in which I myself have appeared. It is a programme called In the News, a highly controversial political programme. The viewers seem to like it a great deal—some people would say because it resembles knockabout, although I do not take that view; but they like it, and at the end of the programme—and this is part of the reason for its success—they go on talking and arguing amongst themselves about what has been said and the issues involved. This is good television, but the viewers are not in a suitable frame of mind to buy toothpaste, and I doubt whether the advertiser of toothpaste would want to select that moment to sell his commodity.
  Take the case of religious broadcasting. Nobody is going to accuse the advertiser of being against religion in any

  521
  way. But suppose that a moving religious service or a beautiful and moving piece of classical music is put on the air—and programmes of this sort attract an enormous listening public, for the public taste in these things is vastly better than many people think. They will listen and view, but none the less they will not be in a frame of mind, at the moment when the last bars are sounding, or the last "Amen" is being pronounced, to buy some cure for some imaginary disease. The advertiser is not getting his money's worth—and so there is no particular reason why he should provide that kind of programme. There is every reason why a public service should provide it. So much for range, comprehensiveness and balance to the programme.
  How about the children? The people in my house who get most out of television are certainly my children, and may I say at once that, at any rate in my opinion, some of the B.B.C.'s programmes for children are absolutely enchanting and of the highest possible order. Sometimes the smaller the child the better the programme—Andy Pandy, for instance, at four o'clock in the afternoon. My children do not buy the toothpaste in my family and I am afraid the parents do not always listen to the children's programmes: they are not intended for them. What sort of a deal are my children going to get on the alternative television programme which is produced by revenue derived solely from advertising? I question whether they will get a very good deal or as good a deal as they get under an alternative programme provided by public service.
  I know that we are told that the programmes will be in the hands of the programme companies and will be rigidly controlled by the nationalised corporation which, under the White Paper of this Conservative Government, owns the means of production, distribution and exchange. But will they? Suppose that the scheme does not pay. Suppose the advertisers come to their masters and say, "Of course, we do not want to influence your programme in the least. We are not allowed to, but it so happens that, if you put on all this classical muse and all this stuff for Lord Hailsham's children, we cannot sell anything; and, although we should not like to influence your programme in the least, we are going to tell you frankly that we cannot
  522
  afford to place advertisements unless you alter its character radically." What is going to happen then? I think I know what is going to happen. They will "cave in." Of course it is possible that the Government will then become alive to their mistake and come back to Parliament and say that their policy has failed, that the thing must be handed over to the B.B.C., that it is no longer running at a profit. But if that is what is going to happen, I should rather start that way.
  That leads me to one or two reflections on the question of the economics of this scheme. I concede that sponsored television might pay. I have some reason for believing that it would not, but I concede that it might, or at any rate that it might for a short time. But is it generally appreciated that commercial television of the type that is to be introduced has never been successfully tried in any country in the world, and that there is no evidence whatever that it will pay its way as it goes along? Now, £500,000 of public money is to be invested in this scheme in order to enable advertisers to make a private profit. I have nothing against a private profit for advertisers, but it is a queer example of classical finance, coming from a Conservative Government. What guarantee have we that this scheme will be commercially successful? There are certain things which may be said, I think, without cavil. The factories of this country are giving, on the whole, full employment and are producing to capacity. The Government are urging a further increase in our export drive—that is, that we want to sell things abroad. There is no particular sign that any mass market at home awaits advertisement over the whole range of consumable commodities. Where is the money coming from? Who is going to provide it? What effect is all this extra expenditure of economic effort on advertisement going to have on the inflationary spiral?
  I know one responsible economist at least who maintains that the effect will be so serious that it may be necessary to have an increased surplus on the Budget, which is unlikely to prove satisfactory to the Conservative supporters in all its implications. At any rate, what guarantee have we, what reason have we to suppose, that all this is economically sound? It is certain, of course, that the existing

  523
  B.B.C. service will cost more for the same service. The only form of competition which can exist between a public corporation and private advertisement is competition for the artistes—and I suppose that here I ought to declare an interest. My interest is in favour of the White Paper, because I am sometimes paid for my broadcast performances, and I feel no doubt that, if the policy outlined in the White Paper is achieved, broadcast performances will command a higher rate of reward. But what will the public get out of that? I am certain that they will have to pay for it, and I ask the Postmaster General to deal specifically with this point: Is it not a fact that, if the White Paper is put into operation, the immediate effect upon the B.B.C. will be to compel them to put up the price of licences for their existing service? Why not allow them to put the price of a small increase in licence, together with the 15 per cent. taken from them so recently, into the charges for an alternative programme run as a public service? What is the argument against it?
  I have, I fear, wearied your Lordships, and I will close with one or two simple remarks. I said that it was a disaster that this had been drawn into the cockpit of Party controversy. Must it remain there? I understand—and the noble and learned Earl who sits opposite me will confirm or deny it—that there are no Labour Party Whips on in this debate. I understand that the Liberal Party have no Whips on in this debate. Why is it considered essential to make this a matter on which the Government Whips are placed? The House of Lords surely is a place where, without any loss of prestige or moral stature, a Government can afford to say: "The Whips are off. You can follow your own consciences"—as, no doubt, we shall in any event. Surely, there is nothing to be lost by such a course? Personally, I should also recommend it, if my words carried any weight, in another place in a matter of this kind. There is ample precedent for so doing. In 1948 the Government of the day had a most definite view, which they put forward, in the course of the Criminal Justice Bill, on the subject of capital punishment. But the matter was expressly left to a free vote.
  There was one figure in my fantasy about the Camp of Israel who played a
  524
  predominant part but whose speech I was unable to forecast. It was the figure of Aaron, the beloved and respected person who, in the absence of Moses went in another place and commanded the battalions of the Government. I wonder what Aaron is going to say here? Is he going to keep the Party Whips on, after all that he has told us about the functions of the Second Chamber? I hope not. I suspect that Aaron has a somewhat uneasy conscience about this matter, and felt that the golden calf was not all that it was "cracked up" to be. I hope if, at the end of this debate, he finds that some of his suspicions may have proved only too correct, he will report it to Moses at Mount Sinai and hope that he may not have to break any of the Tablets of Stone on the way down.
  There is just one other thing I should like to say. Are we not all a little too afraid of uplift? I have been broadcasting fairly regularly now for ten years, broadcasting for the B.B.C. because they are, in fact, the only organ who broadcast. Never once have they tried to interfere with my highly controversial opinions. They have, it is true, imposed some sort of code of controversial conduct. They have tried to stop people attacking others behind their backs—with the result that the standard of controversy on the B.B.C. is not only freer but also higher than in almost any other forum in the country. It is far higher than in the Press, not in the least higher than in your Lordships' House; but there are other places where the standard is not quite so high as on the B.B.C. The B.B.C. have, I genuinely believe as a result of ten years' experience, no other bias. But must we be afraid of bias as regards things about which the enormous majority of the people of this country are genuinely convinced? Can Christian civilisation abandon the pulpit altogether? Must it for ever have no message, but leave the place of preaching only to those with a financial interest to serve?
  We are fighting for our lives in the present generation, no less than during the period of the war. During the period of the war, when in Europe men had to suffer the peril of death to hear the truth, there was a voice of freedom to which attention was universally paid. It was the Voice of Britain and it was the voice

  525
  of Britain's public service broadcasts. Are we now to condemn this as a dangerous monopoly, as a weapon which we tremble to use in peace as in war? Are objective truth, objective justice, objective standards of duty and of conduct so utterly unworthy of advertisement that we must hand over to purely commercial interests the greatest instrument for good that has been devised since the printing press? We cannot avoid preaching a standard of conduct by all that we do and all that we say in this life. If we say nothing it is because we believe nothing. I sincerely believe that this democracy, this system of Government to which we are for one reason or another, for good or for ill, committed, for all its virtues is to some extent a race against time. Can education keep pace with responsibility? In the B.B.C., and in television, above all things, we have an instrument which will enable democracy to win that race in a canter. Must we abandon that weapon, or at least half of it, to the shifting chances and changes of commercial advantage? I beg to move.
  Moved, to resolve, That this House, whilst recognising the desirability of an alternative Television Programme, regrets that it cannot approve of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government as outlined in the Memorandum on Television Policy (Cmd. 9005).—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  3.22 p.m.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, may I start by associating myself with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and I think in so doing I am speaking for the whole House, in saying how disappointed we are that the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, cannot be here to-day. No doubt he is deeply disappointed himself, but I hope he knows that that disappointment is shared by everyone in this House, no matter what his opinion. As the noble Viscount who has just spoken said, whenever the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, contributes to our debates he enriches them, and undoubtedly this debate on a subject about which he feels so deeply will be very much the poorer for his absence.
  I have no doubt all your Lordships were just as interested as was I in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. At one time I was taking out my pencil and paper in order to make
  526
  notes on the subject and looking forward to congratulating him on his moderation. I was looking forward also to being able to congratulate him on his conversion to the principle of competition. The trouble with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is that he always starts off with the best of resolutions and the first part of his speech is generally very wise and moderate. Then his blood rises a bit and his emotions take control, and he completely lets the cat out of the bag. So, in the rest of his speech he thoroughly threw over all idea of an alternative programme—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Every word, every argument that he uttered, chiefly based on the opinions of Committees of many, many years ago, was for the principle of monopoly and for nothing else. I noted down certain words he used: "the element of competition is a disaster." What about this Motion:
  "Moved, to resolve, That this House, whilst recognising the desirability of an alternative Television Programme.…"?
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  EARL DE LA WARR: Noble Lords over there may say, "Hear, hear!," but I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, if he really feels deeply what he said, would find it very hard to say, "Hear, hear!" to the terms of this Motion. On this subject there are many points which are still open for discussion, but there is one point on which the Government is quite firm, and that is that there should be competition in the providing of an alternative television programme. It was a great disappointment to me personally, and I am sure to many other noble Lords in this House, that this apparent bridge, slender though it might seem to be, has been completely broken down by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.
  Before I pass on to outline and discuss our proposals, may I deal with one further point made by the noble Viscount? He asked that the Government should have no Whip. Coming from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and his colleagues, that really is a most extraordinary proposal. What is a Whip? A Whip is a lead on matters of importance from the Government to its supporters. It is only necessary to look at the

  527
  Benches in your Lordships' House to see how important your Lordships feel this subject to be. The noble Viscount mentioned that neither the Labour Party nor the Liberal Party in this House had issued a Whip. But what about his own group? During the last week or two, as one has moved about the passages of this House, as one has looked into the corners of the Library and the Dining Room, one has seen little, anxious groups, I will not say of elderly Peers, all colloguing together, propaganding, lobbying. We have been circularised with papers: "Britain unites to demand competitive B.B.C."—" Britain unites against competitive B.B.C."—that is the production of the noble Viscount. As the poor, battered Minister, trying to swim around in all this unity, I must say I wish there was a little more unity in the picture. But to suggest that there has been no attack, no whipping in favour of this Motion, is, I must say, speaking with great moderation, pure hypocrisy. Naturally, when there is organisation and lobbying of this character, the Government must see to it that it at least asks—and no one in his senses would venture to do more than ask your Lordships to do anything—that its supporters should support it.
  We can agree with the noble Viscount when he said there are few subjects which have excited so much argument during the last two years. What has struck me throughout those discussions has been the deep sincerity on both sides. Some of the feelings that have been expressed are based on great experience and deep thought. But, let us be quite frank with ourselves, some are based on a certain amount of prejudice. I cannot help repeating to your Lordships an account of something that I could not help overhearing the other day—aconversation between two noble Lords. One said, "I have regretfully come to the conclusion that I shall have to vote against the Government on this issue." When he was asked whether he had a television set, he said no, he had not. Then he was asked what he thought of the programmes that he had seen, and he had to admit that he had never actually seen a television programme. He was then asked what he thought of the Government White Paper, and he answered, "Well, old boy, I'm afraid I must admit
  528
  that I have not yet had time to read the White Paper." My Lords, it was an interesting but, needless to say, not entirely typical example of our opponents.
  In dealing with this subject, our aim has been not merely to achieve a compromise between two strongly opposing views—obviously, that is desirable in itself—but, much more important, and what really matters, to establish a positive approach to what is admittedly an extremely difficult problem, that of, on the one hand, providing a competitive television programme, and, on the other, maintaining the high standard of broadcasting that exists in this country. We have hoped, in doing this, to provide yet another demonstration of what this country is so supremely good at—namely, achieving liberty without licence. Our opponents believe that this is not possible. Here is the real point of conflict. They believe that liberty must mean licence. On our success in proving that they are wrong, at any rate in regard to this country (and we are not discussing America or any other country) we must be judged; and that is the challenge that we very gladly accept.
  The noble Viscount who has just spoken thought to depreciate the Government's appreciation of the B.B.C. I refuse to give way to the noble Viscount in my admiration for the B.B.C. It may be an excellent point in his debating speech that he should say that we fail to appreciate it. That is not so, and the best proof of our attitude is that as soon as the economic position made it possible it was this Government that did away with the last Government's ban on their extension. At the present moment we are actually discussing with the B.B.C. increased revenue. I say this because it would be a great tragedy for this country if this new policy were embarked upon in a spirit of hostility to, or even lack of appreciation of, the B.B.C.
  I now turn for a moment to our White Paper. The advantage of a White Paper is that the Government set out their principles and their objectives, but of course the Government are free to consider Parliament's views before they actually prepare definite and detailed legislation—and even then, Bills are subject to discussion and amendment. This is what Parliament is for. Now what are the main principles contained in our White Paper? I put them under four headings. The first,

  529
  to which I have already referred, is that there must not only be an alternative television programme, but that that alternative television programme must be provided by minds other than those of the B.B.C.—and that means both that it must be by private enterprise and that it will be paid for by advertisement.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, asked: What will happen if these companies cannot make it pay? Well, as these are privately financed companies, that is their affair; it is really only in the case of Government concerns, such as the groundnuts scheme and so on, where the taxpayer has to "carry the baby." At that moment, I thought the noble Viscount was going on to say that he was prepared to face the possibility of a Corporation if it were financed by licence and not by advertisement. Frankly, I am not at all clear about what he really feels on this point. But let me assume for a moment that he and other noble Lords would accept such a scheme. The difficulty of that scheme is undoubtedly that it would mean a licence to be paid for by all viewers of television, at the rate of at least £5. It would be a considerable period before the whole country could be covered, and during that period many millions of people in the country would be paying an increased licence fee for a second programme which in fact they were not getting.
  My Lords, principle No. 1 is competition. Principle No. 2 arises from the use of the word "competition," and that means that new programmes will be alternative to and not a substitute for existing programmes—which means, of course, that the B.B.C. continues in its present form. Our third principle is that the controlling body (or as we now intend to call it, the public corporation, because they are the same), which was in fact promised in our original White Paper, will own and operate the transmitting stations and will be responsible for maintaining the standard of the programmes. They will hire facilities or contract with programme companies, on terms and conditions and for periods laid down on behalf of the Postmaster-General; and, as may well happen, if different companies are allowed to operate on one station, then it will be for the public corporation to ensure the
  530
  proper planning and balance of programmes. I want to underline that point. Our fourth principle is, no sponsoring. That means that programme makers would hire time to advertisers, either for short advertisements, commonly known as "spot," or else documentaries; but at all times there would be a clear line of distinction between what is presented as advertisement and what is presented as programme, and programme makers, and not the advertisers, would be solely responsible for their programmes at all times. Needless to say, at no time would interruption of programmes be permitted.
  As I have mentioned, these last three principles—the continuation of the B.B.C. as it is, the controlling body armed with the ownership of the transmitting stations, and no sponsoring—are our three main safeguards. I am quite prepared to admit that any one of them taken alone might be considered to be inadequate, but I would say that, taken together, they are a formidable trio. Incidentally, in a moment I will deal with the noble Viscount's point that they are so formidable as to inhibit the efficient operation of the scheme. Now I must confess to having had a certain sympathy with those who had misgivings on this matter before we made clear these principles, and before we made clear the nature of our proposals, but it is not easy to understand what all the worry is about now, considering the extent to which the Government—and we say this with no sense of shame but rather with a sense of pride—have taken their views into account in drawing up this plan; I think rightly so.
  I have tried to summarise in my own mind some of the difficulties that seem to be in the minds of those opposing the scheme. I had hoped that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would tell us what really is worrying him. So far as I can remember, not one single clear objection to the working of our scheme was laid before the House by him in the course of his speech. Of course, there are those who are afraid of television altogether—who look upon it as a great new terrifying force. We cannot help them. Television has come to stay. No one ever helps a difficult problem by playing King Canute, and certainly the Government have no intention of doing that. Then there are those who genuinely feel that they know best what is good for us.

  531
  They do not challenge the freedom of literature, drama, art or the Press, because they are completely established—too well established for them. But when there is a new medium they speak out what they feel. They are very high-minded, very sincere—but so were Cromwell and his Puritans. These people probably feel that they could run our lives extremely well. But I do not think the British people have the slightest intention of living like that, and I can assure your Lordships that the present Government have not the slightest intention of asking them to do so.
  Then there are those who insist on comparing our system with that now operating in the United States. They fail to remember that the United States have nothing like the B.B.C. running the main broadcasting system of the country. They do not tell us that the United States have not a controlling body which owns the transmitting station that will transmit the competitive programmes, as will the new Corporation. What the United States have is sponsoring, which means that the advertisers themselves produce the programmes; and, in fact, interrupt them continually with their advertisements. Above all let us remember another great distinction affecting the British and the American systems. That is the difference between the mentality of British advertisers and the mentality of American advertisers, and the difference between British and American taste. I am not saying that one is better than the other; I am saying merely that they are different. I believe that that is an imponderable which may well be the most important difference of all. To these people, I would say that it is hard to conceive of conditions more divergent, both in principle and practice, than those under which the system now operating in American broadcasting is carried out and those which we are proposing to establish in this country for television.
  Again, there are those—and Lord Hailsham is certainly one of them—who tell us, on the one hand, that our control is so rigid that it will be impossible to make a success of the scheme. I have frequently read statements to the effect that it will "give us the worst of both worlds"—that is a favourite phrase. But some people tell us, on the other hand, that our control will be ineffective. In
  532
  a merely debating speech it would be quite easy to say that those two arguments so completely cancel one another out that we can leave them to deal with each other. But I believe that a great number of your Lordships are seriously concerned about this matter. Therefore, I think it is better to assume, for the purpose of argument, that one or other of those contradictions holds the field, and to try to answer them both.
  Let me first deal with those who say that the severity of our controls is such as to give us the worst of both worlds. Only lawbreakers are afraid of the police. Certainly, the advertisers themselves are not afraid of our controls, and they intend to establish their own system of self-discipline, as they have done already in other spheres—in every other sphere, in fact, in which they operate. I am assured by those interests that they consider non-sponsoring to be better advertising practice in this country than sponsoring would be. The reason I would give for that view is that sponsoring would be so unpopular in this country that it would be bad advertising. But it is for the advertisers to give their own reasons. They do not want to be concerned with the programmes, because they are not equipped for it. They are advertising firms, not programme-producing companies; and certainly they do not want to invest in the programme-producing companies to obtain control. In fact, it is against their own rules that they should have any considerable investment in any such medium. Unless any of us likes to assert that he knows more about advertising than do the advertisers themselves, there is nothing in these proposals that should endanger the financial success of this scheme by making it unacceptable to the commercial world.
  Now let me turn to the other point—namely, that the controls will be ineffective. In looking at this point, I hope we are not going to assume, as Lord Hailsham seems to have assumed, that all traders, all industrialists, all advertisers, want to debase programmes. There is no evidence whatever that they have been a debasing influence with the Press. We all readily admit that some newspapers have a higher standard than others. But no one has ever said that differing standards are due to the advertisers. Incidentally, I wonder whether some noble Lord in what I may call the

  533
  "anti-Government group" would be good enough to define what they mean by the word "debase" used in this connection—it is a word that has been much used. Is it a crime to be light? If it is, then the B.B.C. are certainly guilty of a crime for having a special Light programme for sound. Is it a crime to give the public what they like? If so, why do the B.B.C.—in my view they do it rightly—spend so much time and energy on listener research? Giving the public what they want seems to be a crime, in the eyes of some people.
  I was not clear what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, says on this because, as was the case with so many of his remarks, there seemed to be a considerable contradiction in what he said. As I say, in the view of some people, giving the public what they want seems to be a crime and it is one which the new companies are expected to commit. How is this different from what the B.B.C. now professedly set out to do? Is this what noble Lords who are afraid of the Government scheme mean by the word "debasing"? If not what do they mean? Personally, I continue to be extremely sceptical about this fear of the influence of advertisers. To begin with, if advertisers wanted to influence programmes are we quite sure they could be united? If, in fact they are all united in the desire to debase, why do The Times and the Manchester Guardian, with small circulations and maintaining high standards of journalism, get any advertisements at all? Why do the Ford Foundation in America think it pays them to spend so much of their resources on giving classical music? I know that the noble Viscount says that the Press is not a fair medium of comparison. But why? The Press has other revenue, the noble Viscount says. Of course, we all know that, but if its other revenue cannot keep the Press alive, what of it? Although I do not profess to be an expert on this, and I may well be contradicted—and if I can be, I hope that noble Lords will do so—I should have thought it would be fairly safe to assert that no paper, or practically no paper in this country, could live for any sensible period without advertisements. I believe it is true that before the war well over 50 per cent. of average Press revenue came from advertisements. If you depend on something for your life, your dependence is complete. But in spite
  534
  of this Press dependence on advertisers, the Press of this country have not been influenced in their standards by advertisements. And if noble Lords think they have been, then I sincerely trust they will give us some very good reason for thinking so.
  Why should the new television programme be so influenced? Let me go one step further, and for a moment assume that I am completely and utterly wrong in all that I am saying. Let us assume that advertisers will be able to agree completely on what they want to press for, and to agree that they want to lower and debase the programmes. Then what happens? The Corporation or controlling body, whatever you like to call it, is responsible to the Postmaster General; and he, in turn, is responsible to Parliament for the standard of the programmes. The programme-producing companies rent the facilities from the public Corporation on a contract, and in that contract is a clause saying that the contract can be terminated if they offend against certain standards, If that happens, obviously the first step will be that they will receive a warning, and almost certainly at the same time—it all depends on the nature of the offence—the Corporation will exercise their power to demand the production of scripts before a programme is put before the public. If the offence continues, the Corporation either can grant no renewal of the contract at the end of this period or, if the offence is grave enough, actually terminate the contract. I put it to your Lordships, therefore, that even if I am utterly wrong on this question of Press influence, these safeguards are completely watertight. The fact that many of us do believe that they will not often be needed, and can be kept in the background (I say this particularly for the benefit of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham) is neither here nor there. If the noble Viscount's distrust of everyone is justified, the safeguards are there, and they are watertight.
  I do not believe that this machinery will actually work like that. I believe that close relations will spring up between the Corporation and the programme companies. There will be continual informal discussions between them about the balance and type of programme, in the

  535
  first instance, and, if they are not very grave, discussions of complaints, too. That is how things happen in this country, and it generally works pretty well. I would apply three words to this sort of control—strong, wide and flexible. I speak with a great disbelief in too many rules and regulations, which on the one hand can be extremely hampering and, on the other, permit a clever man to evade them. Therefore, I stress the words "wide and flexible." In this matter of dealing with standards it is important that the Corporation should have the power of ensuring the spirit as well as the letter of the law, of insisting on good standards and well-balanced programmes as well as on the elimination of indecency and horror.
  Above and beyond these safeguards we have the supreme safeguard of all—the decency of the British people, in which the Government believe, and in which, frankly, I cannot see how our opponents can believe. May I close by appealing to noble Lords who are against the scheme that if they cannot think a little less of their own superiority, then at least to have a little more faith in their fellow countrymen? British traders and industrialists are not all unscrupulous or irresponsible; nor are British advertisers. They have standards and traditions of their own and their own methods of self-discipline. Every one of your Lordships who belongs to any trade, industry or profession in this country already knows that very well. What about the British public, too? Must we assume that the best appeal to the British people is salaciousness, horror and indecency? For the purpose of that argument, the programmes would have to be lighter than the programmes of the B.B.C.
  There are many theatres left in London and in the provinces. They are not all specialising in strip-tease—although to hear some noble Lords speak one would think they were. The concert halls in this country, the Old Vic, Sadler's Wells and the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden, when ballet is being staged, are the most difficult theatres to get into. And what has been the greatest and most popular broadcast event since the B.B.C. came into existence—the Coronation? Are we all so very low-minded? What if places of lighter entertainment are doing well?
  536
  Are we seriously going to say from now onwards that our entertainment has to be limited to what is approved by elderly and superior persons? We are an adult nation, and Her Majesty's Government do not believe that we need approach this question in daily fear of licence. We have our self-discipline. We have our police, too, but that does not mean we are a police-run State. The British people are allowed to vote for themselves—and some of us think that they did not exercise their right too unwisely a little while ago. But surely we can trust the British public to choose between one television programme and another.
  It is true that the Government scheme we have laid before your Lordships in this White Paper has strong controls—in my view quite rightly—but we hope and believe that these controls can be kept in the background because of the decency and good sense of our people. I think that everyone who intends to vote for this Motion must face the fact that it is based on distrust, distrust of those engaged in trade and in commerce, and distrust of the British people themselves. For that reason, I ask your Lordships to reject it. If your Lordships reject this Motion, as I am sure you will, I can assure you, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that everything that is said in this debate will be considered very seriously before Her Majesty's Government lay legislation before Parliament.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, before the noble Earl finally resumes his seat, I think there is something he would want to correct. At the beginning he quoted me as saying that competition was a disaster, and said that he had taken it down at the time. I think if he reads his notes more carefully he will find that I said there were occasions when "compromise" was a disaster, not "competition."
  EARL DE LA WARR: I would gladly apologise to the noble Viscount if I thought I had made a mistake. I am sure I have not. However, I will apologise to the noble Viscount if, on looking at Hansard to-morrow, I find that I am wrong.
  4.0 p.m.
  LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE: My Lords, I am glad of this opportunity of speaking in your Lordships' House

  537
  on a subject very near to my heart, after an enforced silence of five years as Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation. May I be allowed to preface my remarks by saying two things which are perhaps unusual from one on these Benches? In the first place, the Chairman of the B.B C., and especially the Chairman, has always to be rigidly non-Party—that I believe to be a good principle. When I became Chairman of the B.B.C. my noble friend Lord Woolton told me that he was going to watch everything done by the B.B.C. with an eagle eye, and would let me know if I went wrong. During the whole five years I was there I had only one very gentle criticism from him, and I am sure he will agree that, not only during my Chairmanship but in my earlier days and since I retired, the B.B.C. has kept remarkably clear of Party politics. Personally, I became accustomed at the B.B.C. to trying to deal with its work in a non-Party manner, and I shall try hard to do so this afternoon. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that it is a disaster that the B.B.C., through no fault of its own, has become involved in a Party squabble.
  The second thing I should like to say by way of personal explanation is that, again, in spite of my sitting in this part of the House, I have no prejudice whatever against private enterprise and competition in the proper place. I have for forty years been head of a group of highly technical and highly competitive engineering firms, and the staff, under the stimulus of competition and profit, has increased in those years from 400 to 7,000. I believe we owe that largely to the competitive system under which we worked. I am convinced that competition is invaluable, in the proper place. The point I have to consider is whether the B.B.C. is the proper place for a competitive profit-making system. After I had been serving for a year in the B.B.C. and had got to know something about it, the next thing I did was to try to see the competitive system where it can be seen at its best—that is, undoubtedly, in the United States. The Postmaster General has, quite naturally, suggested that we cannot learn much from the United States in this matter. I can only beg, humbly but firmly, to differ from him in that regard. I spent a good many weeks in the United States and in Canada, and when I came
  538
  back I had been completely convinced of the evil of the commercial system in broadcasting. If I may quote, I wrote:
  "And I hold with the utmost conviction that if we do not want a disastrous lowering of the standards of broadcasting in this country we should avoid sponsored broadcasting like the plague."
  That conviction has, by several years of additional experience, become steadily stronger. In my view, broadcasting is one of the worst places for the competitive system.
  I should now like to attempt to deal with the two great issues before us: first, the issue of monopoly versus competition; and secondly, that of commercial versus public service. I would emphasise that those two issues are completely separate, and I hope they can be kept separate in future, because it is widely believed now, through intermingling in that sense, that if there is to be competition with the B.B.C., it must be commercial competition; although the Postmaster General did point out that that was not necessary, and, in fact, there are certain other countries where there is competition between public service corporations, about which I will say a word later. I want to say very little about monopoly; the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has already dealt with it; the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, is here; and no doubt it will be covered by many speakers more competent than I. However, I do want to say one thing about it—namely, that I do not believe monopoly to be a moral issue, like the question of commercial broadcasting. If there should be two or more competing public service corporations, I know of no reason why the standard of the broadcasting should be reduced. I have studied broadcasting in Switzerland, where there are six separate and largely competing organisations, each almost completely indepenient—there is no national programme in Switzerland. I talked to many of their people, and their aims are to maintain cultural standards just as well as the B.B.C. does. In Holland, there are four different national organisations, which do, to a certain extent, compete. I venture to suggest to noble Lords opposite that, if they should be considering competition of this sort, it would be well worth while to look at what is done in Switzerland and Holland,

  539
  So far as I know, they are the only two countries where there is competition between public service organisations.
  In this case, I think it is not a matter of principle, but a matter of expediency, whether several organisations would be effective, and whether they would cost more, if it is to be considered as a means of revenue. With great respect, I should like to say to the Postmaster General, who suggested that it would involve a fee of £5, that my recollection is that when Sir Ian Jacob announced his ten-year programme, including an alternative television programme, he suggested that a fee of £3 would cover it, if there were no serious inflation. The licences in this country are cheaper than those of any other country, and a good many countries, with a similar density of sets, have a licence which costs double our own. Therefore, some raising of the cost of a licence is perfectly practicable.
  Coming to the question of the great moral issue, as I regard it, of commercial broadcasting, I think all noble Lords know what commercial broadcasting means: it means that a profit-making concern draws the whole of its revenue from advertisements and is, in justice to its shareholders, forced to seek the maximum return and, therefore, the maximum audience to every single broadcast. That certainly has some lowering effect on programmes. I hope the Postmaster General will listen to the following extract I want to read about American programmes, which are commercial programmes; and I beg him not to dismiss this because he thinks the Americans are naturally worse people than we are. I do not think he can mean that. The sole difference is that they have a different system. Nobody suggests that the popular Press in America is any more sensational than the popular Press in this country—I think that is agreed. This is a quotation from an article written by Mr. R. M. Hutchins, then Chancellor of the University of Chicago, in the B.B.C. Quarterly in 1949:
  "Even a perfect educational system…would have a hard time setting up an effective cultural opposition to the storm of trash and propaganda that now beats upon the American from birth…the radio industry disclaim any obligation to improve the people's taste. Actually, they know very well that they are
  540
  degrading it. We have, therefore, one of the greatest instruments of enlightenment and one of the greatest triumphs of the human mind employed almost exclusively to debase those whom it might enlighten and ennoble…American radio is a disgrace."
  I repeat that that is written by Mr. Hutchins, the distinguished ex-Chancellor of the University of Chicago.
  EARL WINTERTON: As one who has himself taken part in television in America, may I ask the noble Lord a question? By this quotation he is making a most serious charge against many of us, including British subjects, who have taken part in television. Does he really agree with the extract that he has just read—that the whole system degrades the American people?
  LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE: I hope that I was not making a charge against the American people. I have a great respect for them, and I constantly go over there to learn all kinds of things. I believe that the day on which America went badly wrong—one of the most unfortunate days in Western democracy—was the day on which, thirty years ago, America decided to go in for sponsored broadcasting. The extract I have read gives the view of one very distinguished American on its effect. It is not a reflection on the American people, but on the system, and without any doubt whatever it would have exactly the same effect in this country.
  May I give one other example from America? A great many of the programmes in America are made by advertising agents. It has been said that Americans would consider that any advertising agent who had any motive beyond the profit of the sponsor would be crazy. He would certainly be out of business in a very short time. The original White Paper eighteen months ago proposed sponsored broadcasting. As noble Lords know, that produced a most remarkable and widespread protest from almost the whole of the educational and religious worlds. In the new White Paper, published eighteen months afterwards, the Government have disavowed sponsored broadcasting. I think the words are that "as a basic principle there will be no sponsored broadcasting." There are two possible groups of people who produce commercial broadcasts, advertisers or advertising agents (when they do it, it is

  541
  called sponsored broadcasting) and station owners or station renters, and when they do it the best name would seem to be "unsponsored broadcasting." The Government, having dropped sponsored broadcasting—and I should like to congratulate them on their courage on giving up their original proposal which met with such a storm of opposition—have now adopted unsponsored broadcasting, and the programmes are to be made by the owners of the stations. I wonder what difference the Postmaster General or the Government thinks that that is going to make to the programmes. The programmes are still made by profit-making companies for the purpose of satisfying their shareholders. That is their duty. It cannot make a shadow of difference whether they happen to be the people who are engaged in advertising or the people who are engaged in making a profit in running the station; the programmes will be identical.
  May I say a word on behalf of the advertiser? It looks as if the Government think that the advertisers are wicked people and that station owners are virtuous people. I am quite sure that is not the view of the Government, but, if not, why change over from advertiser to station owner? Many advertisers are of the highest class of people in business. With apologies to the Postmaster General, I must again turn to America. In America the programmes are made either by advertisers or advertising agents, or else they are made by networks, or by the heads of stations—station owners or station renters. I do not know what the proportion is, but a, large number of them are made by station owners or station renters. Is there any evidence whatever that programmes are better if they are made by station owners? One of the largest advertisers on the air in America is Unilever, and they produce some of the best programmes in America in the shape of a half-hour radio play. On the other hand, some of the small station owners produce the worst possible programmes. Here is what another former President of Yale, Doctor Angell, who was for many years adviser to one of the largest American networks, stated. He said that the local stations are usually owned by hard-boiled business men who are unashamedly out for all the profit they can
  542
  get. That is the view of another American President of Yale, and I do not think anybody can dispute that to be perfectly true.
  It is not only in America, because what about Canada? There has recently been a Royal Commission on Broadcasting, the Chairman of which was Mr. Vincent Massey, the present Governor-General. The report says the following:
  "We were particularly impressed by the fact that few of the representatives of private stations recognised any public responsibility beyond the provision of acceptable entertainment…we have observed that some of the wealthiest of the private stations have the lowest standard in programmes and show serious neglect of their obligations as parts of the national system."
  I wish the Postmaster General would listen to that, because that is what will occur here. May I repeat, for the benefit of the Postmaster General, that the Canadian Royal Commission said:
  "…and show serious neglect of their obligations as parts of the national system."
  It seems to me perfectly clear, both in theory and in practice—wherever there is a practice to be studied, which is mainly in the United States and Canada—that there is no reason whatever to expect any higher standard of taste or programmes from the station owner than from the advertiser. It seems to me that that is incontrovertible.
  Now we come to the new precaution which the Government have added in the second White Paper—the public corporation. That sounds very attractive to people who believe in public service broadcasting, and many people have the idea that this is a compromise which will be something like the B.B.C.—that the programmes will produce adequate standards of taste. I will try to show that there is not the least possibility of the public corporation doing anything of the kind. It has certain duties in erecting and letting stations, selecting the programmes and the advertisements, but its main duty is to act as censor to ensure adequate standards of broadcasting. It has powers to revoke licences and actually ask to see scripts in advance, which sounds to me a most remarkable thing. I find this difficult to understand. The programme company are to have independent powers to produce programmes. The public corporation are to have independence in the handling of programmes, and the Government are optimistic

  543
  enough to hope that there will be continuing friendly and constructive contacts between the corporation and the companies. All I can say is that the Postmaster General is optimistic, and I leave people more experienced than myself to consider whether that is likely to happen. I quote a phrase commonly used in America: "Standards are produced by those who produce the programme. He who controls the pocket book controls the broadcast."
  Again I come back to America, because it happens that the set-up in America is to-day almost identical with the set-up which the Government propose for this country. There is, first of all, broadcasting both by station owners on an immense scale and by advertisers. The only difference in the new scheme is that the Government have eliminated, or hope they have eliminated, the advertisers. The Americans have set up a Corporation—the Federal Communications Committee. This Committee, better known as the F.C.C., have as their object the raising of standards. The F.C.C. have to work against the opposition of an extremely powerful lobby, the National Association of Broadcasters. When I was there some years ago the F.C.C. was much poorer than it is now; the income in that period was 750,000 dollars a year. The Director of the National Association of Broadcasters had a salary five times as big as that of the Chairman of the F.C.C. This lobby was altogether too able for the F.C.C.; and the F.C.C. struggled along almost hopelessly. Recently in America they have had a crime wave on the air, then they had a gambling wave. The F.C.C. has protested violently but has not been able to do anything at all. One of the dangers in sponsored broadcasting is that you will get a lobby of this sort. That is one of the dangerous and undesirable results of commercial broadcasting. It happens not only in America: there are powerful lobbies on a small scale in Canada and elsewhere. I beg the Government, before they place their trust in this new version of the F.C.C., to send competent people to the United States to see how far this public corporation there has been successful, so that they will know what can be done by the Corporation here.
  I should like to say a few words about other countries. Last year I attended the
  544
  conference of Dominion broadcasting concerns, held in this country. I met all the broadcasting leaders of the Dominions, and they told me unanimously that the B.B.C. was an invaluable model for their broadcasts and was an important influence for good in their countries. Everyone said that. They said also, again unanimously, that the introduction of commercial television on the lines proposed would certainly mean lowering the standards of broadcasting. I beg that the Government will really consider this well and get in touch with some of the Commonwealth broadcasting corporations. With regard to European democracies, practically all have a monopoly of broadcasting similar to that of the B.B.C. There are only three countries which have sponsored programmes: Luxembourg, Monaco and Andorra. Otherwise, as I say, all European democracies have a monopoly similar to that of the B.B.C. With the exception of the three countries I have named, all the democracies of Europe have refused to have anything to do with sponsored broadcasts and they will have nothing to do with it to-day. We have set Europe the magnificent example provided by the B.B.C. in broadcasting. Do we wish to follow the examples of Luxembourg, Monaco and Andorra, who were the first European countries to allow a substantial proportion of broadcasting to be carried out for private profit?
  I hope the Government will not adopt the idea of these unsponsored broadcasts—what some people call "a wolf in sheep's clothing." I am sure the educational world will in time protest just as strongly against White Paper No. 2 as they did against White Paper No. 1. I have already been in touch with certain Vice-Chancellors and especially with the Chairman of the Vice-Chancellors, Dr. Maurice Bowra, the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University; and I see that the Vice-Chancellors of Liverpool and Manchester object to White Paper No. 2 as much as they did to No. 1. I note with pleasure that the Chancellors of the Universities of Liverpool and Manchester are on the Front Bench opposite me. They are no doubt aware of the views of their Vice-Chancellors and of the fact that 95 to 100 per cent. of the staffs of these Universities are just as much

  545
  against commercial broadcasting as are their Vice-Chancellors. I appeal to them, especially in view of their knowledge of education, to use their very powerful influence to oppose the introduction of broadcasting of a competitive non-sponsored kind, and, above all, not to allow commercial broadcasting to be introduced. Finally, may I be allowed to read to your Lordships a few words from two of the greatest educationists in this country. Dr. Gilbert Murray says:
  "I dread the introduction of a new non-rational instrument for guiding public opinion. The newspapers with the largest circulation are a terrible warning.…"
  Sir Richard Livingstone says:
  "One of the most serious and difficult problems of the country is to raise the general quality of its civilisation. The schools do their best. But outside the schools are plenty of forces working in exactly the opposite direction. It would be a disaster if broadcasting assisted these powerful influences instead of in some measure counteracting them."
  4.28 p.m.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, we have listened with great interest to a speech from a former Chairman of the B.B.C. It certainly ran along the lines we expected, and we scarcely thought the noble Lord would take any other view from the one he has expressed. I regret very much that we have not heard the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, because nothing is more enjoyable, to my mind, than hearing a good speech on a bad case. But we certainly enjoyed the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Some of the points he made with such skill and talent were answered by the Postmaster General, but the Postmaster General scarcely answered the point concerning the Post Office, and the amusing sally the noble Viscount made about the blue post boxes. But the American telephone system, I would remind the noble Viscount, is run by both the State and private enterprise in competition, and there is no better service in the world. I am not advocating a change—not for a moment. I am just reminding him of what does occur there.
  I am sorry that the great Lord Hailsham, due to his constant contacts with the B.B.C., has been seduced from the paths of rectitude. I have very much enjoyed hearing his spirited defence of this and that policy. He is, I know, not only intellectual but ornamental. In
  546
  fact, in many houses up and down the country he is a "pin-up boy." I do not myself indulge in that ornamental activity, but I know he does, because in another place he has confessed to it. What he is, of course, is an artist: nobody will deny that; and I am surprised that as an artist he does not like the installation of competitive media, because, with that, he should get better employment and better rewards. I hope he will not get downhearted about it.
  I think it only right to say where one stands in this matter. I am interested in the trade; I am a director of Electric and Musical Industries Limited. I do not speak for them, and I do not know whether the trade are in favour of one side or the other—I have not made any inquiry—but I am proud of the trade, for it was they who started the British Broadcasting Company before the British Broadcasting Corporation was formed. Not only did they do that, but they chose a man called Mr. Reith (now the great Lord Reith), and that was a considerable contribution to the nation, because he is a very curious character. I will say, with all sincerity, about the noble Lord—andI can pay no man a greater compliment—that the more you know him the more you love him; but he does go about looking rather like the wrath of God. He is one of those people who, first of all, have immense influence, and he is one of those people who have the curious characteristic that I believe they would love to go to the stake for something.
  My next point is about television itself. That was invented by the company of which I am now a director. The great Schoenberg produced television in this country. It was popularly supposed to be Baird, but it was not; his principle was discarded very quickly. Schoenberg is a name which should be known up and down the country. Sometimes it is rather supposed that the Post Office invented it. It was a great tribute to this country that we had a television service going before the last war. I cannot help reminding your Lordships that we had the Derby on that service before the war, but never since.
  I am glad to see that there has been no great dispute about whether this present system is a monopoly or not, because I have a quotation from the great Lord Reith, in which he says that "it was

  547
  the brute force of monopoly which enabled the B.B.C. to become what it was." The opposition to this Paper sounds very important. I want rather to analyse the opposition: we find it is the B.B.C. speaking, and little else. As your Lordships know, the B.B.C. has a General Advisory Council. The function of that Council is to advise the B.B.C. What it thinks it ought to do is to advise us. That is not its function. In the last debate, I drew attention to the fact that Sir William Haley got all his disciples together and instructed them on what they should say and how they should behave in that debate.
  There was, first of all, the great Lord Reith, who is, if anybody, the B.B.C. There was the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who was a member of it. There was the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, who was a member of it; there was the noble Lord, Lord Brand, who was a member of it and also a director of The Times.
  LORD BRAND: May I tell the noble Lord that Sir William Haley never got his disciples together, and that, so far as I am concerned, I speak my own opinions and nobody else's, either the B.B.C.'s or anybody else's, any more than the noble Lord speaks, I suppose, the opinions of E.M.I.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I quite accept that but, when you rub shoulders with a certain set of people, you get those opinions, and the noble Lord, of course, has been associated with the Committee which advises the B.B.C., and he got the same views. On the G.A.C. there is the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley—
  VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: May I just say that I regard the noble Lord's assertions as altogether below the level on which such a debate as this should be maintained. There is no truth whatsoever in the implication that I, for one, have at any time been in any way influenced by anyone connected with the B.B.C. in this matter.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I am glad to hear that. The point I am trying to make is that the noble Viscount was a member of the General Council and, from that point of view, they were so in
  548
  close contact with the B.B.C. that they, in fact, speak for the B.B.C. That is the point I am making.
  VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: And falsely.
  LORD MATHERS: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I ask him whether it is not the custom of this House, when a statement is made correcting another noble Lord, that the noble Lord making the original statement withdraws it and, to act up to the standards of this House, apologises for having made the statement?
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I am always prepared to have a lesson in manners from anybody, but I do not think I offended the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. If I have, I certainly apologise to him, and I certainly withdraw the idea that he was instructed. The point I am trying to make is that he was connected with the B.B.C. and speaks for them.
  VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: I will set the noble Lord's mind at rest by telling him, in supplement to what I have already said, that I have never, to my knowledge, discussed with anyone connected with the government of the B.B.C. any of the matters that are now in debate.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I accept that, of course. There is one exception, though, to those people who have been associated with the B.B.C. and that is Sir Frederick Ogilvie. He was, as your Lordships know, the Director-General. When he left, he issued a pamphlet on what he thought about the B.B.C. in general. In it he says, among other things:
  "This is a monopoly which denies freedom of choice to listeners, it denies freedom of employment to speakers, musicians, writers, actors and all who seek their chance on the air."
  That was from the late Director-General of the B.B.C.
  This debate and this subject have suddenly got a new ally, The Times. The late Director-General of the B.B.C., as your Lordships know, has now become the editor of The Times, and it is curious that in The Times this campaign against the White Paper was started by a letter from some distinguished noble Lords who were at one time connected with the B.B.C. That has started the agitation of which they almost boast, and the National Television Council—
  LORD BRAND: What is the noble Lord's insinuation about this letter—that the signatories of that letter were influenced by somebody else to write it?
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I am not making any such insinuation. All I say is that this agitation was started by a great letter to The Times from some very distinguished people. What I want to be clearly understood is that, although there are great names, great speakers, very distinguished people, associated with the opposition to this White Paper, when we boil it down, it really comes to this: that the people who are speaking are people who have been associated in the past in some way with the B.B.C., and they do not carry, I maintain, the weight that their names normally should. I know quite well that the B.B.C. cannot voice an opinion. They are meant not to have any opinion of their own, but they have plenty of people to speak for them. It may be, indeed, that, just as the Radio Times cannot speak for itself, it gets its fellow The Times to speak for it.
  I am glad that we have not heard to-day a pæan of praise for the B.B.C. for their Coronation performance—I have heard that argument advanced so many times. I am fully prepared to give the greatest credit to the technicians of the B.B.C. for their remarkable performance, but sometimes credit goes too far. I think one ought to remind the world that the B.B.C. did not produce the Coronation; they did not hire the Queen or the Archbishop of Canterbury; nor did they get the Earl Marshal to produce it. I have been interested to notice the attack that was made on America with regard to the gorilla, a most unfortunate affair, but certainly one that occurred without any premeditation, as has been borne out by our Ambassador in the States.
  EARL WINTERTON: Actually it was a chimpanzee.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: But these things can occur. The night before last I was waiting patiently to see our Sovereign leaving in her aeroplane, and for twenty minutes I had to endure a detailed exposition of the entrails of a mosquito. If that had been in America I am sure those responsible would have been accused of bad taste.
  I will not weary your Lordships with technical details as to the disappearance
  550
  of wavebands, which have been taken up by mobile services, taxis and the R.A.F.—that, perhaps, is a matter for a subsequent debate, but it needs attention drawn to it. If I could advise the B.B.C. on something which is wanted, let them concentrate on the production of colour television. That is badly wanted, and if we do not look out, we shall be late. If, however, we want an alternative black and white programme economically and quickly, there is no other way than along the lines of the White Paper. We must not forget, as Sir Robert Renwick reminded us all the other day, the possibility of programmes coming from the other side of the Channel. That may not be a possibility to-day with television, but in a few years' time it is very possible.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: The noble Lord said the Channel. Presumably he meant the Atlantic.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: No, the Channel. Your Lordships will remember some years ago there was a station on the other side called Luxembourg, which was received all over England. It had indeed a galvanising effect upon the B.B.C. because they had to compete against it. Do you want the B.B.C. to be galvanised by an alternative programme across the Channel which will not be under your control at all, because that is what you will get if you do not get busy in your own country?
  EARL WINTERTON: In two years' time.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: The debate we are having to-day is really about this alternative programme. Everybody agrees that we want it, and if we must have it let us face up to what it means from the point of view of finance. I make out that if you were to put it in the hands of the B.B.C. it would require, in order to finance it, a yearly contribution from each licence holder of at least £6. At present, the fee is £2 per year—and 20 per cent. of the people avoid that. What would be the effect if it went up to £6? It would be very great.
  I cannot see what is the basic objection to the proposals, in spite of the speeches we have heard. There is plenty of public control. If there is any criticism I have of the White Paper it is that we almost fall over backwards in control; there is too much of it. The scheme gives

  551
  a rival to the B.B.C. It segregates advertisements from the programmes. Much has been said about the Press to-day and the advertisements in the Press. I have never found myself debauched by them. In the cinema you see your films, but between the films you see slides. Has anybody been greatly upset about that? Nobody screams about it at all, but it goes on in practically every cinema and does not upset us. It is difficult to find what all the fuss is about. Moreover, if a viewer does not like the advertisements, which are all going to be, so to speak, in one block, he can always turn back to the B.B.C.
  I want to draw attention again to the curious collection of people we have against us. One of them is going to follow me—I refer to the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. If I may say a word to him, I should first like to say that I do not find him a bore. He is always interesting, and he is always lively; and the fact that he joins in contentious subjects is all to his credit. I do not believe that he has ever made a dull speech in his life. I should, however, like to say that I look upon him more as an expert in education than in entertainment, and although I would certainly go to any church service that he had organised, I do not know whether I would go to any music-hall entertainment that he had organised. That is where we part company. Is television to be educational wholly, or is it to be entertainment? I shall certainly look forward with interest to what the most reverend Primate says, because not only has he the power of firing canons but he is a "big gun" himself. When you look at this coalition of The Times, their friends, the Archbishop and the Labour Party, it cannot be right; there must be something "phoney" about it.
  Just one further quotation from Sir Frederick Ogilvie. At the end he says:
  "The only possible losers"—
  that is, if the monopoly were abolished—
  "would be the various Governments of the day—Labour, Tory, Coalition or whatnot. Governments are thoroughly suited by the Charter as it stands. What better could any Government wish for than to have at the end of the street a powerful efficient instrument which has all the appearance of independence but which by the existing provisions of the Charter and licence it can control at will."
  552
  I do indeed congratulate the Government that they have not fallen into the temptation of sticking to the monopoly and putting that entirely under their wing. As for the Labour Party, they are always against monopoly unless they can control the monopoly themselves. That, of course, is humorous, and I suppose that it is unconscious humour. I have always been told that the difference between homo sapiens and the lower mammals is that the former alone had a sense of humour. The Labour Party have a long way to go.
  4.49 p.m.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am afraid I shall add nothing to the hilarity of these proceedings, but I shall be well content if I add a little to the light and to the relevance of this discussion. We are all agreed that television is an instrument of immense influence upon the social life and habits and thoughts of our people. In fact the ultimate effects of it are not now known and cannot now be forecast. I think we should be grateful to the Government for making it quite clear in the White Paper that complete freedom (such freedom as the Press, for good or ill, now possesses) is out of the question in relation to television.
  The White Paper proposals are the product of one political Party and are naturally opposed by the other political Party or one of the other political Parties. That is not an important thing. The really important thing is that on this matter, whose importance is not political in the narrow sense at all but, in the widest sense, social, general opinion is sharply divided throughout the country and is at least very uneasy. The White Paper ends by saying that the Government feels that this solution
  "is one which will commend itself, at this stage of television development, to the majority of the people of this country."
  But in this matter what is needed is not a narrow majority decision, certainly not a Party majority decision, but a conclusion that will satisfy the great majority of the nation and be something like an agreed solution. My own hope is that as a result of this debate the Government may be able to recognise, first, that their proposals are by no means the only ones, secondly, that there may be better

  553
  ones, thirdly, that the real object to be sought is an agreed solution, and fourthly, that until that search has been made and has failed there should be no invoking of the Party machine.
  Let me add at this point that in what I go on to say I am not speaking as though there were only one attitude which a Christian or a Churchman could take. I am glad that on this occasion, as on others, there will be a speech in the opposite sense from another member of the Episcopal Bench, This is one of the many matters in which, starting from common principles, Christians may come to different conclusions as to how those principles should be applied for the general well-being. But it is a fact, and I record it, that a great deal of Christian opinion is opposed to these proposals, or is at least extremely uneasy about them, and the same is true of a great deal of educational opinion throughout the country. May I make my position perfectly clear? Neither I nor those educationists to whom I have spoken are in any way influenced by underground work by the B.B.C. We are completely free in our judgment.
  I wish to raise three decisive questions, by which I mean a series of three, each of which should be answered in a reasoned order before going on to the next. The first is this: How far is it wise at this time to put a great deal more of our national money and other resources into intensifying the output and accelerating the development of television? Everybody seems to assume that we can cheerfully afford the luxury of a competing and very expensive television system. But can we? In the first White Paper the Government said this:
  "Some element of competition might be introduced when the calls on capital resources at present needed for purposes of greater national importance make this feasible,"
  thus declaring that there are matters of greater national importance than television. One would judge from the general air of discussion that television was really the most important thing there was. The second White Paper quotes these words about capital resources but never refers to them again. Is it left to be taker for granted, without any argument, that the purposes of greater national importance are in fact so well supplied with capital resources that those resources can now
  554
  be diverted to the lesser purpose of competitive television?
  I need not repeat how expensive the thing is going to be. The B.B.C. must in any case either increase its licence fee or get back from the Treasury the odd 15 per cent. to go on and do its present job effectively. It will want far more money if it has to stand up to this intense competition. At the same time, the competitive system is going to demand not only a Treasury loan to start, but an annual income which its advocates put at 20 per cent. or even 50 per cent. more than the annual revenue of the B.B.C. television system. And all this money, my Lords, in one way or another, through the licence or through the advertising companies, comes out of the national purse and out of the citizens' pockets. There are other even more serious capital demands. A very heavy drain will be placed upon manpower, absorbing to this end a vast deal of the thought, ability, imagination, nervous energy, and physical strength of armies of men and women. Are we wise to divert so much of that kind of national resource to this particular end?
  Secondly under this head, apart from the cost, is it wise at this stage to supply the nation with more television in bulk? More there will certainly be under these proposals. It is true that the Postmaster General will specify maximum and minimum hours for broadcasting each day, but the programme companies will want money, and their money must come from the advertisers; and the more time they can give to the advertisers the more money they will get. On what principle can the Postmaster General say, "No, you shall have two hours, but not three hours," or "three hours but not four"? How can he resist this pressure for more time in order to accommodate more advertisers and gain more money? The B.B.C. has very wisely begun slowly and limited its hours of television, knowing that there was not yet the experience, the skill, the supply of suitable talent, to justify more time. Now, more television will not in the least mean better television. It will certainly mean, I do not say an increase in debased television—that is not the point—but a great increase in the proportion of mediocre television and trivial television, if not bad television, as compared with good television,

  555
  at the various levels, to keep both sets going.
  And time is itself one of our capital resources. May I quote from a journal of advertising, which states with authority that in the United States the average time spent by the average viewer, taking men, women and children and covering morning, afternoon and evening, is four and a half hours per day. Checks over a two-year period show that daily viewing time seems to increase and not decrease as the novelty wears off. I ask: Is it wise to multiply opportunities of spending time in this way at the expense of other possible occupations for reasonable and intelligent persons? So I ask: Do we really need more television? And my answer is, so far: No, we do not. If we rule that out, then we come to the real question: Can we rightly ask for better television? That is a perfectly reasonable demand. By that I mean, not more highbrow television, but better television at every level of all the programmes, improving their standards in their own kind, an increase not necessarily in quantity at all, since quantity is more likely to injure than to help quality. That is the real question, I would suggest, with which we are confronted: How can we improve television, and does it help or hinder that improvement to maintain what is called the B.B.C. monopoly?
  So I come to my second question—and may I here make a distinction I have already made as forcibly as I can? It seems to be assumed that if the B.B.C. monopoly is to be broken it can be broken only by a rival system financed by advertisers. I cannot think that that assumption is in the least correct. There are other ways of breaking that monopoly—indeed, the discussion of this whole matter has been confounded and confused from the start by that very assumption. There has been an unnatural or, at least, an unnecessary alliance between those who want, for cultural or other purposes, to break the B.B.C. monopoly, and those who want, for commercial ends, to use television to increase their own sales; and those two do not, in any sense, belong to one another. So let us take things in their right order, and consider first the cultural means of improving television programmes without
  556
  regard at this stage to the commercial element.
  I believe that there is a very great deal to be said in favour of the B.B.C. monopoly, and much of it has been said already by noble Lords who have spoken. I will not repeat that; I rank myself with those who defend it as a typically British way of doing a thing really well. But I recognise that there is also something to be said for having alternative programmes provided by private enterprise, not vetoed or controlled by the B.B.C., giving viewers possibly a larger and more varied choice of programme, and giving artistes a chance of more than one possible employer. The case for this kind of cultural competition to improve standards is, I think, reasonable, and, for all I know, may be right. What I want to emphasise at this point is that there are more ways than one of providing room for private enterprise programmes free from a B.B.C. veto, and of providing them with studios and transmission facilities. And there are more ways than one of correlating such alternative free enterprise programmes with the system of the B.B.C. so that, without impeding each other, they can be free to do in competition such things as are best done in competition, but are still free to do together the things which are best done together. There are a good many things which, quite obviously, can be better handled jointly than separately.
  The White Paper proposes, with regard to religious television, that the B.B.C. example of a Religious Advisory Committee should be followed. I am perfectly sure that the Churches would insist on that provision. But the Churches would not want two separate Committees doing the same job for two different systems; there is no need for such duplication. So, too, with regard to political television. There is no need for separate means of controlling that; and I should think the same would apply to a great deal of the technical side of transmission. But if, in a general programme, there is to be competition other than the provision by the B.B.C. itself of alternative programmes, then I repeat, there are many different ways of relating it to the B.B.C.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): May I interrupt the most reverend Primate for one moment? What he is

  557
  saying now is extremely interesting to all of us. He says, as I understand it, that there are many alternative methods by which private enterprise competition could be provided, without advertising, and paid for without advertising. Would he elaborate that because I think it is important to all of us?
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am coming to that in a moment; it is the third of my decisive questions. At present, I am simply considering how to get better programmes, and I suggest that there are various means of doing that. The White Paper works on the assumption that the free system must be paid for by advertisers, and its proposals are governed by that assumption. But if that assumption is rejected, if this dependence of cultural enterprise upon commercial self-interest is disallowed, then the problem of better television can be considered on its own merits, without a good deal of the passion that this controversy evokes, with a whole range of possibilities—from an independent Corporation setting up separate programmes, down to a system by which the B.B.C. itself provides studios and transmission on certain stations at certain times for the use of privately sponsored groups and programmes. That is my second question. If we want to improve our programmes, leaving aside the commercial side and this assumption of the tying of freedom to advertising, does not the White Paper need to be re-written?
  So lastly, I come to my third decisive question. If there is to be competitive television, in order to provide better television, how is it to be financed? The White Paper proposes that we shall have two independent systems, one financed by licence fees and the other financed by selling time to advertisers. I hope that I am not wrong here, but this seems to me an astonishingly unbalanced proposal. The viewer pays his fee to the B.B.C., and then gets a rival programme "thrown in" for nothing. The more popular the system for which he does not pay becomes, the wealthier it will become, and therefore the more the viewer will have to pay for the less popular system that he does not want to use so much, order that it may have enough money to compete with the more popular system. Really, that seems to me to be lunacy.
  EARL DE LA WARR: No.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble Earl says that is not true, or it is not sense—I do not know which. Is it not like having to pay for a picture paper without advertisements, in order to be given free a picture paper with advertisements? So far as I can see, that is the proposal. How otherwise can you get your commercial television?
  EARL DE LA WARR: The effect would be exactly the opposite to what the most reverend Primate has said. In fact, anybody who wants commercial television will have to take out licence costing £2. That will help the B.B.C. But I think he is suggesting that if anybody wants to help the B.B.C. they will, in fact, be enhancing the wealth of the competitor.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble Earl has underlined exactly what I said—you have to pay for the picture paper without advertisements, in order to keep that going, in order to be given another picture paper with advertisements for which you do not pay a penny. It seems to me a very odd system. Surely, what is to be desired is that each system should be able to do its best in providing good television without the irrelevance of two quite different financial bases, one extracting money from the viewers entirely, the other extracting money from the advertisers only.
  We are dealing with a matter admittedly of great social importance, and. one entering deeply into the habits, thoughts and imaginations of the vast majority of the nation—and I should like, to make it clear that I am just as fond of the Light Programme as I am of the Third Programme; and whilst I do not often listen to the radio I listen more, often to the Light Programme than I do to the Third. If we introduce competition for the sake of getting better programmes, all the providers of programmes should be equally free to make their best contribution out of the means at their disposal, without irrelevant considerations as to where their money is coming from, and without the distraction of having to please an outside body which has no necessary connection at all with the matter.
  That can be achieved only if both the B.B.C. and such private companies as are licensed draw their revenue from one and

  559
  the same pool, although not necessarily in the same proportions—that is to say, from licence fees. Let the authority divide the pool between them in agreed proportions—so much to the B.B.C. to cover all its television services, all its great responsibilities and any services it gives to its rivals, and so much for the private enterprise group. Then each side will know precisely where it is, and will be able to give its whole mind to the job it has got to do—that is, to provide the best possible television service it can. At once it will be said that the licence fee for such a double programme would be so high that people would not pay it. Personally, I believe in people paying for what amenities they want, and doing without those for which they cannot pay. If they want better television, let the licence fee be raised, whether to enable the B.B.C. alone to do its job well or to enable an element of competitive programmes. If the licence fee for this purpose has to be raised to the terrible sum of £5 per annum, it would be a trivial expense for each family, compared with the average family's expenditure on smoking. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want us to reduce our smoking because that would hit him directly. But in every kind of way this White Paper proposal is going to hit the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So let us encourage people to pay for the television they want, even if it means reducing their smoking.
  Is there any reason for departing from this straightforward method of financing television by making the consumer pay for it when you have arranged for an element of competition? The only argument, so far as I know, for introducing advertisements into the picture is that the money they will provide will be useful, and that it is the easiest way of getting a subsidy of television without people noticing it. If that argument is pressed on me, I would say: well in that case subsidise the whole television service and not half of it. Let the money from advertising go into the general pool to fructify the whole enterprise, instead of this queer dichotomy of a B.B.C. too pure, too highbrow, too dull, or too whatsoever you please, to be contaminated by advertisement revenue and a free enterprise system ex hypothesi to be equal to, or better than, the B.B.C. in all desirable qualities, which
  560
  can draw every penny of its revenue from advertisements and yet not suffer any contamination from that source. Let advertisements be permitted on both systems—on the B.B.C. system and on the system of the free enterprise group. If, as we are told—and if the future does not undermine it—advertisements can be strictly confined to a matter of a few minutes between programmes, the damage would not be all that serious. It would please the advertisers, who would get twice the range of programmes. Furthermore, it might double the revenue, if that is what is needed. It need not be offensive to anyone if the times for advertisements were short and fixed. It would then be easy to avoid them, and there would be room for much ingenuity of taste and discretion in deciding what advertisements on either system should precede the various types of programmes on the B.B.C. and the free enterprise system.
  My Lords, I do not want any advertisement at all. I want a licence fee by which people pay for what they get. But if advertisements do come, let them be a means of subsidising the whole service, for thus they will certainly be kept in their proper places. Instead of a new and untried combination of private enterprise having to deal with advertisers, there would be the whole tradition, experience and authority of the B.B.C. to deal with what would clearly be sometimes a rather ticklish matter. So I suggest that the wisdom or unwisdom of seeking money from advertisements can be detached altogether from the question of better television, and can be considered on its own merits. I doubt whether the Government themselves believe that they have said the last or the best word on this matter. They describe these proposals as a "typically British approach to a new problem." But there are many typically British approaches, and not all of them are equally admirable.
  One typically British approach is to try to combine in one operation the advancement of culture and the increase of commercial sales—to kill the cultural and the commercial bird with one stone. That has been tried many times. It is not a good idea. Another British approach is that of Party warfare, a violent struggle, argument and counter-argument, the Party machine, a Party victory, and a Party defeat. But that is altogether a

  561
  wrong approach to this matter, which should never have been conceived in Party terms or have been allowed to degenerate into Party terms. But it will be the only possible approach now, unless there can be substituted for it another typically British approach; that is, for all those concerned to get together to see whether they cannot find an agreed solution. I believe that once a firm distinction is made between improving television—if necessary by an element of competition—and the quite separate question of whether there is any need to get a subsidiary revenue from advertising for the whole television service, an agreed solution would not be so hard to find. My sole purpose is to plead that even now, rather than debate and division and continuance of Party dealing with the matter, an agreed solution should be looked for.
  5.18 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, I think everyone will agree that we have just been favoured with an extremely interesting speech from the most reverend Primate. I am not sure whether, listening to it like this, I have been fully seized of the meaning of his proposals, but it seemed to me clear that he, at all events—I do not know to what extent he spoke for the other people backing this Motion—did not discard the idea of advertisement coming to the help of television.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: May I make it clear that I was speaking for nobody but myself. I have not even discussed the matter with other people concerned with this debate.
  VISCOUNT HUDSON: Perhaps I put it unfortunately. But I think other Peers who backed this Motion would agree that the most reverend Primate did move a considerable way towards achieving what he spoke of at the end of his speech—namely, an all-Party solution. I would remind your Lordships that the Postmaster General at the end of his speech—at any rate, as understood him—said that everything that was suggested in the course of this debate would be taken into account and an endeavour would be made to work it into the final scheme which is to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament. I should like to try to deal with the objections that have been put forward, in the Press at all events,
  562
  by the opponents of the White Paper. I think that they can be summarised as follows. The opponents believe that television should remain a monopoly, subject to Government control, operated for the public good and free from any commercial element. They believe that otherwise standards will deteriorate. They believe that advertising will be forced upon an unwilling public, and, finally, that if a system such as that adumbrated by the White Paper is adopted, large firms will get an unfair advantage over small firms. If your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments, I shall try to deal with those four objections.
  First, as regards monopoly: television to-day is the only medium for the dissemination of information, opinions and entertainment which is under the control of a single authority producing a single periodical publication, producing a single programme or other form of presentation. In the case of all other methods the public have a wide choice. In the case of sound radio, there are three programmes on the B.B.C., and, if they so wish, the public are always able to tune in to stations abroad. In the case of the Press, bookselling, music halls, concerts and, to a lesser extent, cinemas and film production, the existence of so many competing organisations means that the public, have a wide choice. Not only have the public a wide choice, but writers and artists also have a wide outlet. In the case of politics, there is the same choice because of the existence of three, or possibly four, Parties; and, in the case also of religion, the existence of a number of denominations gives the public a choice.
  The existence of a monopoly in television, which I do not think has been denied by the opponents of the White Paper, in my view pre-supposes the existence of a superior body of persons selected and employed by a single authority appointed by Government, who have the right to decide or to dictate standards of taste for the public as a whole. It involves also the principle that the public should have the choice of accepting or rejecting what these people provide, but if the public do reject what the monopoly provides, they have no alternative and are obliged not to use the medium. In every other way—in books, newspapers, Parties or religion—

  563
  the mere fact of objection to a particular thing does not deprive the individual member of the public of the medium concerned. He has a wide freedom of choice. I believe the public should have what I might call "freedom of the knob" for television.
  The other objection to monopoly is that pressure groups may find it easier to exercise influence over a single authority than they could possibly do where there are many different authorities in control. I suggest that until we come to the stage when we can have only one newspaper, one Party, one publisher, one theatre and one film producer, it is illogical to maintain a monopoly in the case of television. So, if there are to be competitive stations, or alternative stations, I suggest that it is illogical to put them under the authority of the B.B.C. As your Lordships will remember, the B.B.C. emphatically believe in the necessity for a monopoly. In the evidence they gave before the Beveridge Committee, they state (noble Lords will find it on page 196 of the Report of that Committee):
  "The view which the Corporation wishes to put forward with the greatest earnestness it can convey is that it is vital to the public interest that the monopoly of both sound and television broadcasting should be preserved. It is recognised that independence, impartiality, integrity and other absolute requirements of broadcasting are not automatically guaranteed by the existence of a monopoly."
  On page 48 of their Report the Beveridge Committee commented on that, I think, with extraordinary wisdom. Calling attention to the dangers of monopoly, they say:
  "There is the danger finally that when a sense of mission such as animates the B.B.C. is combined with security of office it may grow into a sense of Divine Right."
  In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, we have seen that it did grow into a sense of Divine Right. Evidence of that is to be found in the book written by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, in which he refers to the difficulties he found. He was continually being told that Lord Reith's opinion was all that mattered. That is carried to excelsis in the article the noble Lord wrote in the Observer last Sunday, in which, after a certain number of observations, he commits himself to the statement that an analogy with the Press is
  564
  just silly. I am sorry the noble Lord is not here to-day. He had no arguments, but expected the readers of the Observer to take his ipse dixit as proof of the case, an expectation which I hope will not he followed by your Lordships. That is a clear example of the effect of a monopoly on the person concerned in running it.
  The most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York said the other day that some inventions are so dangerous that they must be controlled lest they be used for the injury of the people. That may possibly be true in the case of atomic energy, but television deals with the human mind. I should have thought that everyone agreed that one of the most dangerous of all things is to try to control thinking. Surely the freedom of thinking, the development of an educated democracy, has been one of the aims of the British people over hundreds of years. Surely our historic freedom to hear, freedom to see and freedom to speak should be extended to new media as they are discovered and developed—in this case to television.
  The second objection that the opponents of the White Paper put forward is that the proposed scheme would result in the control of the programmes by advertisers. I doubt very much whether this is true. The freedom of the British Press and its cheapness to the public are maintained because the bulk of the revenue of the Press is derived from advertisers who freely buy space to use because they think it pays them to do so. I have come to the conclusion that some of the opponents of the White Paper do not want freedom of the Press. I think many of their arguments are based on the fact that they do not like a particular newspaper—many will spring to your Lordships'minds—and they would like to prevent developments which they think wrong in that newspaper by not allowing them to exist in the case of television. I believe that is one of the reasons why they allege that the results of advertising would be to degrade the average programme put forward. The White Paper provides advertisers with an opportunity to buy time in the context of the television programme, just as the Press provides space for the advertisers to buy in the context of their news. And the success of selling advertising, either in newspapers or in programmes, depends

  565
  on the success of the newspapers or the programmes in appealing to the public. Many papers carry advertisements to the extent of £6,000 to £10,000 a day in their columns, but that large sum is contributed by a number of different advertisers. No paper to-day can afford to allow one advertiser to develop a particular line to the exclusion of others; no editor worth his salt to-day would surrender himself to advertisers; and I cannot see any reason to suppose that the controller of programmes under the White Paper would have any lower moral standards or any lesser economic sense.
  A good deal has been said about the evils of commercialism. Well, we are a commercial nation and depend on commerce. It is certain that no manufacturer could continue to make an article unless that article served the public in the long or the short run. In the same way, unless the stations perform a public service by televising acceptable programmes to the public, they will be useless to advertisers, and they will cease to earn the money required to keep them going. Newspapers, equally, do not fail to provide public service in the way of the dissemination of news and the criticism of evil. They perform a public service because they sell advertising space. We hear a good deal about the alleged mass response. But to-day advertisers in newspapers do not only go in for mass response. I am told that there are at present in England only fourteen national newspapers with a circulation of more than one million; but there are some 3,700 other newspapers in existence that depend almost exclusively on advertising. Therefore, it is clear that advertisers do not go only for the mass circulation papers, but find it necessary to advertise in a whole host of other papers.
  Even The Times and the Manchester Guardian advertise. They do not, presumably, advertise only to increase their circulation and their influence. Surely, one of the main objects of their advertisements is, by offering advertisers more circulation, to raise their advertising sales. No one, not even the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, is going to suggest that The Times or the Manchester Guardian adapt their editorial policy to the requirements of their advertising revenue. Even the Radio Times boasts that it is one of the best advertising
  566
  media in the country. Under this scheme, if it is carried out, stations will have to secure all kinds of advertisers if their revenue is to be adequate; and if they are going to secure all kinds of advertisers, they will have to appeal to all kinds of viewers. There is no reason for thinking that under the influence of advertising programmes would be confined to crime, sex, and sensation. Finally, I would remind your Lordships that the Royal Commission on the Press, on page 143 of their Report, said that they had discovered no evidence of concerted pressure by advertisers to induce newspapers to adopt a particular policy.
  The fourth objection that the opponents have is that a system of advertisement would mean that advertisements were thrust on an unwilling public. What happens to-day? Can anybody read a newspaper without also seeing the advertisements? Can anyone travel without seeing poster advertisements, unless he is blind? The only advertisements of which I know that one could take steps to avoid seeing are those in cinemas, shown during the interval, which one presumably could avoid seeing if one closed one's eyes. Similarly, with television, if there were any advertisements one did not desire to see, it is a comparatively simple thing to turn the set off: indeed, in America, such has been the reaction against listening to advertisements that they have introduced an electronic device which turns off the machine when the advertisements are likely to come on. If I may be allowed to say so, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, devoted far too much time in his speech to comparisons with what has happened in America. I have been there and I have seen a little of what goes on, but I see no reason to suppose that what is true of America is true of this country. From talks with many people there, and knowing the country as I have done for many years, I have no reason to suppose that there is any comparison between the public opinions of the two countries, or, for that matter, the tastes of the two, except possibly in musical comedy. Therefore, I do not believe that the horrible picture the noble Lord painted of what is happening in the United States would necessarily follow under the scheme outlined in the White Paper.

  567
  I will not spend time in dealing with other incidental advantages of the competitive system—the advantages from the point of view of the writers and the artistes. There is no reason to suppose that, as a result of their having a better outlook and remuneration, the standard of what is written and shown will not improve as a result of competition. There is the enormous influence on the export trade of the development at home of a large home market. And, so far as unfair competition by large firms is concerned, there is no reason to suppose that television will make any difference to the advantage that they already enjoy in advertising, merely by virtue of their size and their resources. In conclusion, I would say that this White Paper represents merely a possible framework. Eventually, it has to be put into a Bill, and the Bill has to go through both Houses of Parliament. I can see no reason why if, as the most reverend Primate suggested, there is good will on both sides, we should not eventually, in the British tradition, have a workable scheme. People have said that the B.B.C. provides us with a system of broadcasting which is the envy of the whole world. I see no reason why, if this scheme is passed, it should not develop in time into providing this country with a television service which will also be the envy of the world.
  5.38 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I was much struck by the fact that the first words of the noble Viscount who has just spoken, and his concluding words, were in the same sense as the conclusion of the speech of the Postmaster General. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, ended by saying—and it has been emphasised by subsequent speakers—that this scheme is not regarded by the Government as sacrosanct, to be forced through Parliament by the use of Government Whips exactly as it stands; but that they are quite prepared to enter into communications with a view to arriving, if possible, at an acceptable agreement. They could, therefore, even before this White Paper is discussed in another place, perhaps find reason, as a consequence of this debate, to modify their policy. However, I hardly venture to hope that they will go so far as that. In any case, it must be
  568
  clear in their own minds from this debate, so far as it has gone, that the present scheme is not to be regarded by those who opposed the previous White Paper as anything substantially different from the previous proposals.
  My noble friend Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, speaking with great knowledge on this subject, advanced a powerful argument to show that no substantial difference has been made in the proposal merely because the word "sponsoring" has been dropped. He has pointed out that in America the advertisers, the great industrial firms and others, do not themselves, for the most part, choose the programmes. The manufacturers of soap, beer, cigarettes or whatever it may be, do not pretend to be impresarios: they do not choose the singers at concerts, or the variety artistes, or the plays to be performed. That is all done either by the station owners in America, or, as, I believe is more usual, by agents whose profession it is. They hire time on the broadcasting stations from the broadcasting companies, and they sell it to the advertisers, having chosen the artistes or the programme, whatever it may be, which they think will have the greatest selling value. The proposal of this White Paper to put that duty on to the station owners is precisely the same, in effect, as the present system in America. It means that the programmes are determined by their selling value, and must be chosen from that point of view; and, unless they are specially conscientious people with very high principles, on that basis alone. These stations, quite unlike the Press, which is not to be compared for a moment with these proposals, will have no other revenue. In the Press, advertising plays only a minor part, and no permanent part in the actual choice of particular articles in the newspaper.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The point which I think has already been made is this. Though it may be said that in the case of the radio companies the advertisement revenue will be 100 per cent., and though in the case of some of the newspapers the income from advertisement would be 50 or 60 per cent., in either case the company in question would be entirely dependent on advertisements for its survival. In essence it is exactly the same position in both cases.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: That argument has repeatedly been put forward. It is not so at all. Where there is a radio station with no income except that obtained from advertisements, the station has to go to a comparatively small number of people to sell its time. It must satisfy those particular persons that its programme is worthwhile for them to pay for. There is nothing in the least degree comparable in the Press, and whether the Press receives a large percentage of revenue which is essential for its survival or not, does not alter the fact that the system in its working will be entirely different. I shall come back to that in a moment.
  My view is the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, that in principle and in effect the scheme now put forward is no different from that previously put forward; and whether you call the people who choose the programmes station owners, or advertising agents or advertisers means nothing. What matters is where the revenue comes from, and what will be the motive behind the choice of programme. But it is not only the question of the choice of programme. What about the advertisements themselves? I shall come in a few moments to that question, which again is one of great importance, and to the question of who is to choose the class of advertisement that is to be propagated from these radio stations. In the observations I shall address to the House I shall not enter into any general considerations of monopoly or liberty, or any questions that have now been so fully debated, but will limit myself to points which I do not think have been raised before and which I believe will tend to elucidate the actual meaning, purpose and effect of the White Paper which is now before the House: what it is intended to accomplish by its various provisions; what the results are likely to be in relation to the public, to our cultural development, to the B.B.C. and in other ways.
  I gave the Postmaster General notice that I should raise three questions, but he was good enough to inform me that they would be answered by the noble and leaned Lord on the Woolsack who will now be replying as next Government speaker. My first question is with regard to these programme companies. How many will there be, in the first instance, at all events? It might be different if
  570
  we were to have very high frequency broadcasting, where many channels are available. How many of these programme companies will there be using the whole national system of broadcasting from the centre, and how many will there be in the regions with only a local radius? Will there be more than one at the centre? Will there be more than one in any one region? That is an important question when we come to the matter of monopoly.
  Secondly, how many applications have been made for these licences? Is it the case, as has been stated publicly on behalf of the advertisers' association, that the number is now nearly 100? On what principle will selection be made of the comparatively small number of stations to be licensed, and the large number of companies or persons who wish to secure those licences? Who will be the persons who will, in fact, be charged with the management and control of these programme companies and, therefore, of the use of the stations? Will they be the same men as the great advertising agents? Or, if they are not the same men, are they not likely to be closely associated with them, possibly financially or personally? Is there any real difference between the promoters of the programme companies and the great advertising contractors?
  The finance of this system is a matter about which nothing has been said to-day, but it is one to which I would earnestly invite the attention of your Lordships. Public finance, I know, is not within our scope; this it a matter more likely to attract close attention in another place. Nevertheless, I am sure your Lordships will be interested when you come to examine what are the financial proposals here. There are two societies of advertisers: one, the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, and the other the Institute of Incorporated Practitioners in Advertising. These are two powerful representative and reputable bodies, and they have issued two pamphlets, ably written and very informative. I quote some facts from one of them, entitled Memorandum: the Viewer and the Advertiser. The facts are of great interest, and they show that large sums are involved in this question. The pamphlet says:
  "Estimates of the amount spent in Britain to-day on advertising in national and provincial newspapers, magazines, cinema, radio and out-door advertising is something between £80 million and £90 million a year."

  571
  That is a large sum. Whether that adds to the strength of our national economy, in view of all the other claims upon our resources for social improvement, defence and many other matters, is a question into which I do not wish to enter now. The other fact I would quote from this Memorandum is this—I quote textually:
  "Advertisers and their advertising agents are convinced that competitive television on the right basis will prove to be a very powerful selling force, and therefore our considered opinion is that it will be possible to have between £5 million and £10 million a year made available to competitive television when it reaches, say, 75 per cent. of the population."
  Well, my Lords, it is proposed in the White Paper to establish this system by charter, lasting for a period of ten years. If the licences are for ten years and if the total revenue is going to be between £5 million and £10 a year, that means we are handling to-day a question with a total sum involved of between £50 million and £100 million over that period.
  EARL DE LA WARR: The licences, of course, will be issued to the public corporation that own the transmitting stations. They will then make contracts of quite a different character with the programme companies.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: For what period?
  EARL DE LA WARR: That is the sort of point we should like to hear discussed in this debate. Whether the period would be a year, or two, three or four years, I do not know. But it is a matter which will have to be settled between the issue of the White Paper and the introduction of any legislation.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Whether it is one period or another, there will be this sum of £5 million to £10 million a year for this period of years which will be in question, and which will be handled by these programme companies. If they are to be so remunerative as they seem to be, they will be very fortunate people who, at the start, will what the Stock Exchange calls "get in on the ground floor" and who will control the spending of these vast resources. How are they to be chosen? This is a very important and difficult problem for the Government to solve; and we are entitled to have some information as to who would be these "happy few."
  572
  Before this White Paper was published, it was supposed that the commercial interests who were to play a part in it would at all events provide a competitive service by themselves building the stations and providing the equipment. They would provide the capital, either by forming companies and issuing shares, or by bank loans or in some other way. That, I imagine, was the universal supposition. But we find in the White Paper that that is not so at all. We find that the public corporation is to own the stations and to operate them. Paragraph 16 says:
  "The Corporation would require adequate finance to pay for its stations, studio equipment and running expenses. Capital would be provided by advances from the Treasury…"—
  that is to say, from the British taxpayer. Now, the Postmaster General said in his speech that the companies would provide all these stations and equipment and so forth at their own risk. But they are running no risk. All that they undertake to do is to repay the Treasury over a period of years, from revenue, the loans that have been made for these various purposes. And the Postmaster General said that if they were unsuccessful—he posed two alternatives: either that they were unsuccessful or that they were successful—nobody would be worse off than themselves: it would be their own loss. But what would their losses consist of?—not buildings, equipment, or even studio equipment. Possibly there would be scenery and costumes for the performance. That is all they would lose. The rest would belong to Her Majesty's Treasury, who would have to sell the stations to the B.B.C. for whatever they would fetch.
  The noble Earl also said, with regard to the control of programmes, that it would involve close and friendly co-operation between the two parties, the Public Corporation on the one hand and the station companies on the other. But would that extend also not only to the choice of programmes but to the choice of things to advertise? We do not know about that. I will take a specific case. The two associations of advertisers have been good enough to put forward not only their own scheme, a few months ago—which is precisely the scheme which has now been presented in the White Paper: there may be some small details in which they differ but I have not discovered them—but also four pages of

  573
  draft regulations for the consideration of the Government with a view to their being included in the licences.
  They would exclude a great many things from being advertised at all. It is an admirable list. But, for example, they do not say anything about football pools, and that is a very important consideration. They say that no tipsters' advertisements are to be included and no speculative financial advertisements. But suppose that in the course of these friendly and confidential communications between these two parties the manager of one of the stations said: "I have had an offer of £10,000 or £20,000 from the local football pool for a five minutes' advertisement showing the advantages and benefits of football pools," would that be ruled out or not? Suppose the Corporation said: "We don't like that and we would not have it," and the manager of the station then said: "The viability of my station depends on my receiving this large sum year by year, and I must insist upon it," what would happen in that event? Who will have the last word? It looks as though the people who provide the revenue are, very likely to have it.
  To the great surprise of everyone, this Public Corporation in London is to operate all the stations: not only to own and lease them to the companies but actually to operate them, to provide all the technical staff and also the running expenses and the studio equipment. One authority will have to provide the programme and the other authority all the rest. Your Lordships may imagine the position when, perhaps, an actor says: "Methinks I hear approaching sounds of horses." If there is then a very long and awkward pause, that would not be the responsibility of the station owner: it would be the responsibility of the Public Corporation, since it is a matter of part of the studio equipment. Such a situation might be liable to give rise to a considerable amount of friction which certainly does not occur in the case of the B.B.C.
  I am not going to argue on the question of monopoly, as the Postmaster General is the most rigid monopolist of all. I held that post myself for three or four years, forty ears ago, and I was as ruthless as he would be to-day against anyone who should dare to
  574
  infringe that particular public monopoly. There are monopolies and monopolies. There are those that are run as public utility services in the public interest, which is quite a different thing from a monopoly which is run by private enterprise for somebody's profit. I submit to your Lordships—I do not know what the answer of the Lord Chancellor will be—that the number of these companies would not be large. Nationally it would be only one and locally it would be one, so long as there are so few channels available. So you would have, therefore, a new monopoly, partly local and partly national, set up beside the existing monopoly. That, again, is a great difference between the B.B.C. and the Press, because anybody can start a new newspaper but no one can start new television or radio stations because of the natural monopoly that is imposed by the limitation of the number of channels.
  The Memorandum by the advertisers that I quoted previously contains this paragraph on that point:
  "Granting of Licences: our only interest under this heading is to suggest, with great respect, that care should be taken to ensure that the total revenue likely to be available for competitive purposes is not dissipated over too many competitive stations serving the same public."
  A monopoly is a great evil when it is somebody else's monopoly, but an excellent thing for oneself! The last words of the paragraph are:
  "At the outset, there must be a very strict limitation in the number of licences."
  "Set the people free!" I do not think that the idea of the advertisers is at all in accordance with that slogan. There will almost certainly be a monopoly within every local station, and how will that affect the people of the locality? How will it affect the traders? When this proposal comes out into the open and is considered by the nation as a whole, this is one aspect which will receive the closest possible attention throughout the whole country and amongst all classes of the community, for, as we ail know, in our present economic situation there is a struggle for life by the medium and the small traders against the multiple stores and the great departmental stores. Also, there is a great struggle going on amongst the trades people in the small towns and villages in the neighbourhood of a great

  575
  city with the shopping centre of that city made so easily accessible by the motor bus.
  But what is to happen with regard to these? If you examine the White Paper carefully, you will find that it says that one of the activities of the programme company locally will be to issue shoppers' guides. This is not the proposal of the advertisers—I am not quoting the advertisers' Memorandum, I am quoting the Government White Paper. The shoppers' guides are to specify the particular firms and the particular goods that are being advertised.
  A NOBLE LORD: The "Co-op."
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The question is, who can afford to pay for advertisements of that kind in the local television station? Only the largest firms. It will be exceedingly valuable—
  EARL DE LA WARR: Why?
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The selling power will be enormous. We are now approaching Christmas. The Christmas sales, which often make all the difference between a profit and a loss in the year's trading, are beginning. Imagine some town, wherever it may be—say, Liverpool—with a local programme company running the television station provided by the Government, paid for by the Government, maintained by the Government, operated through a Government Corporation and advertising at Christmas time the particular list of favoured firms who pay them a very large fee. What will the public think of that? All the advertisers will say is: "The small man will be catered for equally. No discrimination will be made. He will be allowed to pay. We shall get £1,000 for ten minutes from this group of shop-owners and we shall receive £100 for one minute from the small man."
  LORD TEYNHAM: May I interrupt for a moment? In the United States the small advertisers frequently combine together to get a programme. That is frequently done.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: But will that be effective? You have a great advertiser, with two or three shops in the town,
  576
  buying several minutes of time, and a number of small men combining together and obtaining perhaps half that time. What effect will that have upon the public mind? It reminds me of a saying of, I believe, Anatole France, who said:
  "The law in its majestic impartiality punishes both the rich and the poor if they beg in the streets."
  It is a case very much akin to that.
  I think that the Government will find, if this system is brought into operation by Christmas next year, that there will be a feeling of bitter indignation on the part of the medium and the small traders wherever these competitive television stations are established. They will say: "We have to stand up to the competition of these big men, these enormous firms, with millions of capital and income behind them." No one, I suggest, will be able to stop that competition. "Oh," they will say, "it is really rather hard this Christmas. Our trade has been spoilt by these most effective advertisements in television which tens of millions of people are seeing. As a consequence we are entirely outclassed and our year's profit may have turned into a loss. Worst of all, this is done at the expense of the British Treasury. It is they who built the station, it is they who operate it, it is they who have licensed these programmes which are gradually ruining us."
  The financial aspect of this matter deserves very serious consideration. This movement comes forward under the banner of a great crusade for liberty, with the battle cry, "Set the people free." I have no doubt that members of the Government and those Members of Parliament who are in favour of this scheme, and a great number of people all over the country, perfectly sincere and high-minded, feel that that is so and are fighting in that cause. But, behind and underneath this, there is a movement which is carrying on its propaganda and is engaged in what is substantially a vast financial gamble. The stake is small because all the initial investment is provided for them by the Treasury. The profits may be, and I believe will be, enormous, and great fortunes may be at stake at this moment.
  Lastly, what will be the effect upon the B.B.C.? A great deal has been said on this point. I do not claim to be able to

  577
  judge the programmes of the B.B.C. in television, and I would not presume to give an opinion, but I am entirely with the B.B.C. in desiring an alternative, competitive programme. For a considerable number of years, I have been a member of the General Advisory Council of the B.B.C. I am sorry I was momentarily absent from the House when the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, had something to say about the General Advisory Council, for I should have joined in the protests which I understand were made by other noble Lords who have been members of that Council. I, as a member of the General Advisory Council, have never received any propagandist material or advances or seductions from the B.B.C., but I have received a great deal of information I know all that is going on inside the B.B.C. from that point of view. That information enables me to know that for a long time past the B.B.C. have been only too anxious to have a second, alternative and competing programme, and if it had not been for the action of the Government in taking away the 15 per cent. (now to be 14 per cent.) of the whole of their revenue, which has been given them by the public for a specific purpose, and if it had not been for the restrictions on capital expenditure, they would have established this second programme long since.
  I will not trouble your Lordships with what I had to say about programmes but I will come to an end. Television, by common consent, is an exceedingly powerful influence and likely to become a more and more powerful influence in moulding our civilisation of the future. It is much too important for it, or for any part of it, to be regarded as a mere by-product of the British advertising industry. Some of your Lordships who may have passed through the hall at Broadcasting House will remember seeing on the wall there, printed in large letters in a commanding position, a brief inscription, put there by the Governors when the building was opened twenty years ago. It is in monumental Latin. I will not strain the Latinity of your Lordships, or my own, by giving it in its original terms, but will give you the translation which has been included in an earlier publication of the B.B.C. It is as follows:
  "The Governors dedicate the building to Almighty God with this Prayer: 'That good
  578
  seed sown may bring forth a good harvest, that all things hostile to peace or purity may be banished from this house, and that the people, inclining their ear to whatsoever things are beautiful and honest and of good report, may tread the path of wisdom and uprightness'."
  Those ideals have been faithfully pursued all these years by this great institution, with the thanks of the nation and the praise of the world. Let us not now undermine it from its very foundations.
  6.12 p.m.
  LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, your Lordships have obviously listened with your usual enjoyment to the speech of the noble Viscount. On the occasions when I have the honour to attend these debates I always look forward with immense pleasure to hearing the noble Viscount. Some years ago I used to sit at his feet and accept his guidance on many an awkward political problem. I must confess, however, that there was one aspect of his speech to-day which left me a little, shall I say, in the air. He dealt with a number of comparatively less important points, such as who would own the stations, what would be the effect upon our economy of increased advertising expenditure and what would be the terms of the licence and so on; but I thought (if he will forgive me for saying so) he skated rather lightly over what is to many of us the paramount question which is at issue in discussing this Motion.
  The noble Viscount said that he would not enter into points of monopoly, liberty and so on. I thought that came, if I may say so, a little strangely from the Leader of the Party sitting on his Benches. He appeared to think that the test of the validity of a monopoly was whether or not it was owned and controlled by private enterprise or a public corporation. I venture to suggest, with great deference, that that is not at all the test that a great many of us had in mind. I need give only one example of a famous monopoly against which he and I, I think, shouted in unison, and that was the British Gazette. That was a monopoly which was not owned by private enterprise, but many of us thought at the time that it was a pretty devastating example of a monopoly. I did, however, welcome what the noble Viscount said when he urged Her Majesty's Government to be flexible, and to be willing to consider

  579
  certain general or detailed modifications in the proposals embodied in the White Paper.
  I intend to oppose this Motion on grounds which I hope to be allowed to state briefly to your Lordships, but I should like the spokesman of Her Majesty's Government to make it clear, if he concurs in my view about this, that a vote against the Motion does not necessarily commit noble Lords to more than a very general support of the proposals in the White Paper. I do not know whether that has yet been said from the Front Bench, but I feel that it would greatly ease my vote, for what it is worth, if it leaves me free to make certain suggestions when the legislative proposals come before the House. For some years ending in 1948 I had the honour to be Chairman of the Television Advisory Committee. That Committee was composed of myself (the only lay member) as Chairman and the principal civil servants of the departments concerned, together with the Director-General and the Controller of Engineering Services of the B.B.C. Whilst it would, of course, be improper—and I certainly do not intend to infringe that salutary rule—for me to disclose any of the proceedings of that Committee, in view of the onerous service—I think I can say public service—that I endeavoured to do for some years, I think some of your Lordships might understand that I should not like to give a silent vote on this occasion.
  The first reason why I am opposed to this Motion is that, with the best will in the world, I cannot take for granted all the extravagant claims that are made, in this House and elsewhere, for the technical, administrative and moral supremacy of the B.B.C. over all other systems. I do not agree that the B.B.C. is the envy of the world. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, who frequently visits the United States, will bear me out that there is frequent and widespread biting criticism of the B.B.C. programmes in the American papers; and if he will be good enough to refresh his memory of some parts of the Beveridge Report I think he will find that that is not an exaggerated statement. In particular I appeal for more generosity and detachment, and, I might add, knowledge,
  580
  in comparing the B.B.C. with the United States system. Much of the criticism of the United States programmes has been made by people who have either never heard them or who have been there for only an extremely short time. I think there is nothing more absurd than for a temporary visitor to a foreign country to set himself up as an arbiter elegatiarum about something which is, after all, largely a matter of taste, public or private.
  Of course the American commercial programmes at times sound highly objectionable to listeners from this side, but they are not so objectionable to American ears. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, in the monumental Report which he gave us, was, I thought, extremely clear in his summary of his authoritative inquiry into the popularity of American programmes. He printed what is probably the most authoritative investigation into that subject that has ever been made in the United States. It is true that it is only in the nature of a highly controlled and organised Gallup Poll, and I know that your Lordships have two views about the reliability of such methods; but after all, they are the best available. There it was shown that out of every 100 listeners, 23 actually liked the advertisements in the programmes, 41 had no objection to them, and only 7 wished to have them taken off the air. I should think that that would be quite a good result for almost any feature of the B.B.C. programmes, if a similar test could be made. Often, the interpretation of the test is the most important part about it, and in this case it was done by the person whom Lord Beveridge describes in his Report as the most eminent authority in this field, a university authority.
  Then it has been said that no one with any knowledge of both systems really approves the American system. That is not the case; it is simply untrue, and, I venture to suggest, misleading. There was a gentleman who was Controller of Talks in the B.B.C., and who, for some reason unknown to me, left. He now occupies an extremely high position in the United States broadcasting field, and although he has uttered much by way of criticism, his conclusion about the American system is that
  "With all its defects, it is the best system and the best service in the world."

  581
  The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge took particular pains to get a report from one who was recommended to him as an impartial authority, one of the greatest critics of United States broadcasting, Mr. John Crosby, of the New York Herald-Tribune. He wrote quite a long report—I do not intend to repeat it all—and on one of the crucial points which have been discussed in this debate he said:
  "Commercials on our radio are not nearly so offensive to most radio listeners as to you British who are not used to them."
  And of course that is obviously true. I do not see anything particularly amusing in that, as it is quite germane to what we are trying to discuss.
  A further point was made by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, also reinforced by the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, with which I am in entire concurrence: that was that when these advertising methods are brought into the English system they will be largely modified to suit English taste. It is common knowledge that anyone who wishes to launch an advertising campaign in the United States has to employ indigenous or local experts to write the copy, otherwise he would get no results at all. It is not only in the field of broadcasting, but in the field of newspaper advertising, as well as in almost every commercial, cultural, and even sartorial field, that the national tastes are entirely different. I know two or three people, who would be equally well known to a great many Members of your Lordships' House, who, in an American background, at a certain time of the year, can be seen wearing shirt jackets, with pink flamingoes printed or embroidered across the front and back, and mermaids, and so on, or American ties. I go South occasionally in the United States, and as I go I change my tie every few hundred miles until down South it becomes something that I certainly would not "sport" in London, or even in Brighton. I think it is fallacious to contend that when advertising is brought under British auspices it will not be modified to conform to English tastes.
  Another feature of American broadcasting that we are often inclined to overlook is the immense variety and number of American radio and television stations. Some noble Lords have had more experience of some parts of the United States than I have, but I was recently on the Canadian border and without the slightest
  582
  difficulty any day I could receive five television stations. I was so curious about this that I made some inquiry to ascertain how many television broadcasting stations there are in the United States, and I found that there are between 75 and 100. It seems to me, with that immense devotion to what the Americans frequently call the grass roots of enterprise, that if we are to confine this to one fount of opinion and control that would be a reactionary policy.
  As for the cultural value of some of the American broadcasts, we should keep in mind that there are, I think, close on 100, certainly over 80, purely educational broadcasting stations in the United States. There are at least three stations which broadcast nothing but classical music. I am fond of classical music, though I cannot claim any particular skill in its interpretation; but anyone who so desires can at any time, in any part of the United States, with the exception of those extremely remote geographical parts (of which there are more than people generally realise), obtain a programme of classical music. On the question of variety programmes, it is a moot point, at any rate in my mind, whether the B.B.C. variety programmes are any better than those in the United States. At least one member of the noble Viscount's Committee of Inquiry thought—I have not her exact words, but they can be found by anyone who reads the Report—that they touch depths as low as some of those achieved in the United States.
  I, of course, want to make it absolutely clear that if I mention B.B.C. faults it is not to complain, but only to bear out my suggestion that there is something to be said on both sides. If these claims for their supremacy had not been pitched so high I might well have been found here praising the B.B.C., their television and broadcasting programmes—in fact, the whole achievement of the B.B.C. I do not want to put myself among those who regard the B.B.C. as inferior; but because their claims for supremacy, and almost perfection, have been placed so high, thereby confusing what I regard as the paramount issue of monopoly, I humbly feel that it may restore some balance of opinion if some of the faults of the B.B.C. and some of the merits of the American system are recited here.

  583
  Very briefly, I should now like to say just a few words about aspects of the B.B.C. wider than the quality of the programmes. It is common knowledge that in the past the B.B.C. have been reluctant to accept criticism. They regarded the Beveridge Committee almost as their Armageddon. They mobilised all their forces, the 500 members of their advisory committees, and some of the most powerful and influential Members of your Lordships' House, and they prepared evidence to a total of over 600,000 words. That, as some of your Lordships may know, is approximately the length of the Authorised Version of the Bible, and I do not think the country has even yet realised the debt it owes to the Beveridge Committee for the enormous task they had in sifting and presenting an intelligible analysis and summary of that evidence. One thing is certain: the B.B.C. have stubbornly opposed every proposal for change. I said that I would not infringe the strict conventional rule of repeating anything that happened in the Television Advisory Committee during my period as Chairman, and on one point it is not necessary for me to do so—that is the question of whether the film industry should be allowed to transmit programmes, not to the homes but to the cinema screen. The B.B.C. are still stubbornly opposed to that proposal.
  The noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, has just written an extremely fascinating book in which he makes the case for persuasion being a great element of power. Despite the fact that he and, I believe, all his Committee, had these witnesses of the B.B.C. before them for so long, there is no single reservation to this recommendation that the film industry should be allowed to set up a transmission station of its own—and the Government accepted it, rather half-heartedly, I thought, in the statement made. Still the B.B.C. are stubbornly opposed to what I regard as a beneficent move. Therefore, I think it is quite fair to say that they stubbornly oppose change. I wonder whether this determined opposition to change has not something to do with what the noble Lord, Lord Simon, told us about the extreme difficulty he experienced in getting senior officials of the B.B.C., and the Director-
  584
  General, to pay even a hurried visit to the United States.
  I do not know how many of your Lordships have read Lord Simon's book. During the last few months I have had to spend a little time on ships, and I found it of enormous advantage, because I was able to read the noble Lord's book—a most comprehensive, clear and well-documented book, the finest book on this subject (I am not speaking of its partiality or otherwise) that we are ever likely to get. But I should like to give further significant quotations from it. I do so because, having heard the noble Lord's speech, I thought it was a pity that, having written such a magnificent, wide-ranging book, he should come here and make a speech and select out of one or two columns or pages of that wide-ranging, comprehensive book, just two or three quotations from those who see eye to eye with him on the subject of this debate. I am perfectly certain that if noble Lords read the whole book they would get a very different picture from that which Lord Simon of Wythenshawe has given to-day.
  In the preface (I have checked my recollection of this), which I see was written after the rest of the book, the noble Lord postulates a number of questions which surely must pervade our thoughts during this debate—for instance: What are the relations between the Governors and the Director-General? How far is the B.B.C. efficiently administered? Is sufficient effort made to seek information and criticism at home and abroad? There are six or seven of these questions. I am not going to read them all but I want to deal with the latest thoughts of the noble Lord on those crucial questions. He says:
  "In nearly all these cases my present view differs either from the established practice of the B.B.C. or from the views held by many of the senior staff. It was only when I retired, after my term of office was over, to my remote and peaceful cottage in the Landale Valley, to meditate in quiet, that I found my views on some of these matters crystallising on lines different from, and sometimes more critical than, those it had absorbed while working in the B.B.C."
  My Lords, it falls to me to wonder whether the noble Lord, who played such a large part in the preparation and submission of the 600,000 words to the Beveridge Committee, would give the same evidence to-day, after his quiet meditation in the Landale Valley, which I am

  585
  sure we all envy him. But we can see what has happened. These are his third thoughts, and we know that he has come within the compass of the influence of those who wish to defeat this scheme.
  I have only a few more words to say—I appreciate your Lordships' patience in this. I am not forgetful of the fact that the 1952 Charter, with the concurrence of all parties, has erected certain safeguards against some of the dangers of monopoly; and I think they are all to the good I also believe that the present Chairman and Director-General are possibly more open to the consideration of change in the light of development than the B.B.C. has been in the past. But with sincere deference to others who have spoken, I remain of the opinion that monopoly is as unwise in the field of broadcasting as it is in any other field which exercises control over men's minds. I venture to suggest to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that the true test of the validity or otherwise of a monopoly is not whether it is given by private enterprise, but is it a monopoly which exercises control over the fountain of action, over men's minds? It is because that is the case that I have such grave misgivings about the continuation of the monopoly. I should feel that concern if it were in any other sphere. One monopoly newspaper, for example, would be objectionable, and it would not make it any the more comforting to me to know that it was controlled by a public corporation. The same would be true of one State Church—I am not attempting to stretch analogies too far. And the possibility of having one political Party would be a sinister thought. I contend that if there is a powerful instrument of opinion over men's minds, it would be a grave public danger that it should be in one, two or half a dozen hands. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge will say something about this because he found great difficulty in dealing with it. He said:
  "The case for some revision rests on the undeniable dangers of monopoly, of concentration of power."
  My last word, my Lords, is this: that if that danger has not yet become manifest, it is due to our good fortune in the character of the men. It is no part of the case against this Motion that that power has in the past been grossly abused, but when we see extreme reluctance to relinquish that power there is the beginning
  586
  of abuse; and where we see reluctance to accept a criticism, attempts by executive officials, on various specious grounds, to disengage themselves from the control of the Board of Governors (about which the noble Lord had a great deal to say) these are warning signs the meaning of which, I suggest, is plain. I do not believe that minor safeguards, however good in themselves, are in the end sufficient. The true safeguard against the danger of concentrated power is to spread and divide that power, and I am in favour of measures directed to that end.
  6.40 p.m.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, in a debate such as this, the first duty of any unofficial speaker is to be as short as he can, and for me the pleasant and easy way to being short will lie in confining what I have to say substantially to commenting upon one of the speeches which we have heard—namely, the speech of the noble Earl, the Postmaster General. It was an excellent debating speech which gave great pleasure to all of us. It gave me, perhaps, even more pleasure than it gave most other noble Lords, because all the gibes and digs and twists which he directed against those who support this Motion appeared to me to leave my own withers wholly unwrung. The noble Earl, for instance, commented on the fact that the noble Viscount who opened the debate, Lord Halisham, had dwelt a good deal on past history and on early committees. I also, as Lord Trefgarne has mentioned, had something to do with Committees relating to the B.B.C. That work kept me very fully employed for one and a half years quite recently. I am going to return to one or two of the things which I learnt through that course of compulsory education about the B.B.C. which the late Government gave me
  Before I pass from this matter, however, I should like to say that I am bound to thank the noble Lord who has just sat down for his kindly references to that Report, and his appreciation of the work that went into it—not by any means by me, but by many others who contributed to it. I am sure that all who served on that Committee will be glad to think that it has had one such excellent and attentive reader—perhaps rather more attentive than any reader we found in either of the Governments which had to act upon the Report. The noble Earl

  587
  the Postmaster General gave a very charming and vivid picture of the lobbying which he said he had observed in this House before this Motion was put forward. Let me tell him that I was not lobbied at all. I first learned about this Motion coming on to-day when I saw it mentioned in the newspapers, and I at once decided that, as I had been submitted to such compulsory education in the subject of the debate, I ought to try to show some of the results of my education here to-day.
  The noble Earl, again, challenged those who support the Motion to say why they object to the Government scheme. I find it very easy indeed to answer that. My objection to the scheme is fundamental; it is that "money speaks"; that the scheme is one which by altering the word "sponsoring" makes no difference at all to the substance. It is clear that whoever is responsible for the alternative programmes for which the White Paper provides will, in fact, be dominated—must be dominated—by the people who provide the money by which the system lives. Money speaks! That also makes it easy for me to answer another of the noble Earl's questions—how is it that the advertisers have so readily accepted all the controls that are imposed on them by the White Paper? They have accepted them because the controls mean just nothing at all. If the advertisers do not get what they want they will not produce the money by which the new system will live. They will, in fact, get sponsoring by another name. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has pointed out, it is clear that the advertisers on the whole will aim at the minimum of competition in this new free system. It is also certain that they will aim at the maximum of audiences.
  That gives me my answer to what is, perhaps, one of the strongest points made by the noble Earl: I mean his references to the Press. He asked how it is that the Press maintains its reputation in spite of advertisers. I am not going to discuss the Press as a whole. If it were possible, and I did discuss the whole of the Press, my speech would not be short. Nor am I going to say anything against the Press, by which, at one time, I most happily earned a living, writing Radical leaders for publication in a Tory paper. But I
  588
  would say this: that the glory of the British Press does not lie in those papers which aim at the maximum circulation, or which achieve the maximum circulation. What advertisers will want in the programmes which they will favour under the new system outlined in the White Paper is quite different from what is supplied by the best papers.
  EARL DE LA WARR: If the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting his very interesting remarks, I should like to ask him whether he will tell us how it is that the Manchester Guardian gets any advertisements, if in fact advertisers are only interested in large circulations and low standards of journalism.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: They are not interested only in those things.
  EARL DE LA WARR: They are interested in good standards as well as bad. Therefore they would not unite in debasing any service that they used.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: They are interested in different sections of the community, probably with very different desires. Let me now turn for a moment to the work of the Committee on broadcasting of which I was Chairman in 1949 and up to the end of 1950. That Committee, as is quite obvious from its Report, approached its subject with a rather critical spirit towards the monopoly—the whole of the monopoly. We considered the possible alternatives to continuing the B.B.C. monopoly. We considered them and discussed them very carefully indeed. And, having considered all the alternatives, we came to the conclusion that rather than try to have several different B.B.C.'s, several different broadcasting corporations, it was better to have one with adequate machinery for securing decentralisation, for securing external criticism, and for opening the minds of the B.B.C. to argument. As your Lordships know, monopoly, as such, is not always an evil; there is the admirable monopoly we have in the Postmaster General. After all, we have in this country only one Government at any one time. And on the whole it is better to have only one Government rather than several. But it is better only if the Government we have is open to argument, in place of the brandishing of

  589
  Whips. After carefully examining every possibility we could see of getting a good broadcasting system by multiplicity of broadcasting organisations, the main conclusion of our Committee was that the monopoly should be continued, with certain devices for securing decentralisation, criticism and so on.
  I want to deal with one other point in that Report. It is clear from the Minority Report that the Chairman of the Committee and two of his colleagues had no dislike of advertising as such. We inserted in the Report a proposal that the B.B.C. should be encouraged, and that the Government should allow them, to introduce advertisement under control, strictly limited, as only a supplement to their main income—something on the New Zealand model. That did not appeal to the rest of the Committee and it was not accepted by the Government of the day. I want to make it clear that I signed that Minority Report not in any way as giving any kind of support for what the White Paper is proposing to-day. We said clearly that, though we wanted the door opened to limited advertising, to allow consumers to learn about the things they might want to buy, that bore no relation to putting the financial control of broadcasting in the hands of people who wished to sell other things. Anyone who will read that Report will admit, I think, that all of us who signed it showed no distrust of business men or of advertisers in their right place. There was certainly no distrust of the people. But we did come to the conclusion that the people ought to pay for their broadcasting on sound and on sight directly—rather than indirectly—by licence fee. On that, I should like to express my cordial agreement with the arguments that were put forward by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in his most interesting and, to me, most moving speech.
  For me the Government destroy the whole case for the White Paper proposals by one sentence which, perhaps by inadvertence, they have allowed to stand in paragraph 3—namely, that
  "…television has great and increasing power in influencing men's minds.…"
  From that observation the Government draw the conclusion that television should not be a monopoly. I reach the
  590
  quite different conclusion, as I hope your Lordships will, that television is too precious to be entrusted to wrong hands, to persons interested in selling other things. Television is a voice and a presence in every home. It is a new means of influencing men's minds, influencing their thoughts, their enjoyments, their whole lives. Therefore, it opens the possibility of really doing something to solve what I believe is the major problem facing all of us who wish to live, as most of us wish to live in this country, under conditions of freedom and democracy. We shall do so only if our democracy is efficient enough, particularly in choosing its rulers correctly. In other words, the survival of democracy will depend upon its education.
  Is it reasonable to throw away the great power of education which has been given to us by television, a voice and a sight in every home in the country, by handing it to people not interested in education? We claim that television ought to continue to be a public service, and if it continues to be a public service, then I think, returning to the inquiries that we made in the Committee of which I was Chairman, in practice, for practical reasons, we must continue a monopoly of broadcasting, subject to criticism and review, a monopoly financed essentially by licence fee, whether or not we open the door to supplementing that by advertising revenue and by using this means of communication to help consumers to find things they want to buy—that is a minor matter. Therefore, for the reasons that I have tried to give the House, and I hope that I have set them out shortly, when a Division is taken I propose to vote for this Motion, not because I distrust the people or dislike advertising, and not on a Whip, but on my own conscience.
  6.58 p.m.
  LORD BENNETT OF EDGBASTON: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships for the first time I claim the indulgence which you always show on such occasions. I cannot claim to be unused to speaking within these four walls, as for seven or eight years, when your Lordships lent this Chamber to the House of Commons when theirs was bombed, I occupied this identical seat and spoke from this identical point. So I cannot complain that I do not know the acous-

  591
  tics of this Chamber. But I can assure your Lordships that this occasion is quite different from any I have experienced before. I feel something like a small boy who has come up from his prep. school and appears for the first time in front of the "big noises" of the senior school. I am sure your Lordships will understand that if I do not acquit myself as well as I may do in months to come, it is because I feel nervous even though I do not show it.
  Why am I intervening in this debate, particularly as I am opposing the views of many old friends and colleagues, with whom I am generally in agreement and of whose views I have the highest possible opinion? I have had a great deal of literature sent to me lately, and I have read a great many articles in the Press. Possibly they have had upon me an effect quite the reverse to that which was intended. When I find dogmatic and assertive statements, not statements of what is possible or what is likely to happen, but definite dogmatic statements that "this is going to be" and "this will be," I become suspicious. I become suspicious because I have found in the past that those statements are as likely to be wrong as to be right.
  I feel that there has been a complete misunderstanding on the part of a great many people of the point of view of the businessman in this controversy. I agree that there is a profit motive which enters into the idea of programme companies, but I do not apologise in the least for that profit motive. Why should I? It has benefited me, and a great many more like me. I believe that the profit motive is the main drive for efficiency and progress in this country. But what I do protest against is the suggestion that there has been a conspiracy going on between advertisers and advertising agents and the programme companies in order that they may secure control of television for their own purposes. That simply is not true; there has been no conspiracy. I speak as an industrialist in fairly close touch with what is going on. My companies have to spend a certain amount of money in advertising and, as some of your Lordships know, I have been President of the Federation of British Industries, and I am in touch with them. I say emphatically that that is not the case. I will be
  592
  emphatic for once, and I will make the definite statement, from my own knowledge, that there has been no agreement, no lobbying and no conspiracy to obtain television at all costs as an advertising medium.
  I was glad to hear the disclaimer of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in which he said he did not agree with the suggestion. But he went on, and the inference from what he said was, "Although I put this into words. I have got my eye on them, and I do not exactly trust them." I was grateful, therefore, to the Postmaster General for his statement that he did not believe it. I am indignant at the suggestion of the low morality of the business world which has been introduced into statements that have been sent round to us. It is absolutely incorrect. The business world is not willing to join in an attempt to debase the national life, to get at the children, or to do anything and everything possible simply to sell its goods. That is what is being suggested.
  Some of your Lordships are sponsors at times, and I am one of you. We sometimes sponsor appeals on behalf of charitable objects. To whom do we go first of all? We go to these large firms who are the main advertisers of the country, and ask them to support us; and they do support us. Is it suggested that those large firms who support us in that direction are going to debase the whole life of the nation in order to sell a few more goods? It would be a case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: these people are high-minded people when we want money out of them, but they are a lot of "dirty dogs" when they try to sell their goods. That certainly is not true. Your Lordships need not accept my word for it. Here is what the Bishop of Oxford said, writing in the Oxford Diocesan Magazine in August this year:
  "We must recognise that advertisers in the public Press very rarely offend against the canons of decency or good taste—less so on occasion, perhaps, than some of the reading matter provided in books and papers for general perusal. Is it fair to assume that, if they are given access to this new advertising medium, men of business will at once throw taste and decency to the winds, and break out into excesses which no one could excuse?"
  Let us look at these proposals for a moment. The programmes are to be prepared by specialists, and I am sure they will be costly, so that to rent advertising space, when it is offered, will

  593
  be a most expensive procedure. For that reason, I suggest that the greatest care will be needed to ensure that a really good performance is put on, otherwise it will not appeal to the advertisers, and the company will not get the advertising. I suggest that this scheme is self-policing, in that if the performance is poor the advertisers will "sheer off." In my view—and I speak as an advertiser—they will drop the medium of television, and spend their money elsewhere. To hear some people talk one might think this is the only way we have of advertising and spending our money. I can assure them that there are plenty of other avenues open to us. Advertising budgets are limited, and it is a case of selection by firms of where they spend their money. As I say, what will happen if programmes are poor is that they will "sheer off" What I am quite certain will not happen is that they will attempt to debase the programmes and lower the standard, and put over anything so long as they sell goods. It may be suggested that I am speaking only of the larger advertisers, and that a great many unprincipled small people will crowd in. But it will be too expensive for the little man. I hold, therefore, that the standard must be maintained if the advertisers are to use this medium at all.
  Comparisons have been drawn this afternoon with daily newspapers. I do not think that that is a good comparison. The correct comparison, to my mind, is with the illustrated magazines, the weeklies and monthlies, some of which are read for pleasure, and some because they are technical journals which have to be read because of trade and business interests. Do those who oppose this scheme honestly suggest that the advertisements in those periodicals spoil them? I have made it my business to look through a number of them during the week-end, and I have been struck with their interest value, their style and good taste. Quite apart from whether I want to buy anything—which I seldom do—I am always interested, in reading the advertisements, to see what is going on. It must be remembered that the subject matter of these journals would not be what it is were it not for the advertising; the articles written in our scientific papers, and those we get in our technical journals, would disappear, or would be
  594
  very poor, were it not for the advertising revenue. I have not been buying space lately, but in the clays before the war, when I used to buy space, I remember often being told by the journal proprietors and their canvassers that the rates had to go up. When I asked why, they would say, "Our circulation is increasing." The increase could not be met on the subscription of the journal; it was done on the advertising revenue; and the bigger circulation they had, in spite of the fact that it was paid for, the more revenue they needed from advertising.
  What are the alternatives to this scheme? I have listened attentively to what has been said this afternoon, and I was particularly intrigued with the suggestion of the most reverend Primate, that we should go a little further; that we should increase the advertising and include the B.B.C. in it. I know that he made other suggestions, too. I have no doubt, from what the Postmaster General said in his speech, that all suggestions that have been put forward will receive careful attention. One of which I have heard and read is that there should be another Corporation drawing fees from licences. One or two views have been expressed to-day on what that would mean in the increased cost of licences. Two pounds is not enough; the B.B.C. already want more. Then we shall have another increase, and it will double. I read in one newspaper to-day that people have suggested that the licence fee will be trebled and quadrupled—I do not know whether that is right. I can assure dour Lordships that that is the way to kill the one thing which increases business circulation. If you increase the price, you price the article out of the market; and the one way to increase your business is to get the price down. As I understand it, television depends, as things are to-day, on a large increase in the number of viewers, and in fees they pay. I do not consider that raising the amount of the fee is the way to get the extra revenue required.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, raised his hands in horror at the idea of £500,000 being advanced by the State and then turned over to private enterprise. I can assure him that there is nothing new in that. That has been going on, to my certain knowledge, for a long time in advanced productions for which the in-

  595
  dustrialist cannot see his way to provide the finance, and in factories and plants which are put down for defence purposes. It is common practice to do that. The Government put up the factory, they put in the plant, and then turn it over to the people with the business ability to put in the working capital and run the business. They pay a rent for the facilities provided; and they have schemes worked out for them to pay the interest and eventually, if necessary, take over on agreed terms. There is nothing new in it. I do not see why we should regard it as an exception at which we need look in horror.
  It seems to be the general idea that competition is needed. I am not a television fan, but lately I have made it my business to watch. The trivial nature of some of the programmes staggers me, and I believe that needs looking into and improving. There is no spur like competition. As a businessman I can assure your Lordships that that is true. It is a daily experience in our organisations, and we have a saying, "The only way to be safe is never to feel secure." I suggest that the B.B.C., good as it is, has probably a feeling of security which makes for complacency and for getting into a rut. In my view, there is nothing so effective in shaking people out of a rut as to know that if they do not produce the things the public want, somebody else will do to for them. I can assure your Lordships that such knowledge keeps people on their toes.
  I am largely neutral on the question of television itself. When I was in another place we did not have much spare time in the evenings for studying television, and now that I have more time I find many other things that I prefer to do. I have tried to look at this matter as impartially as I can, and the one thing I want to repeat is that the large advertisers in the business world are not dying to get hold of television to sell their wares. There seems a pretty widespread view that a competitive system would be good. I believe that if you are going to run it simply on fees and fees alone, you are going to raise them dangerously. Therefore, I would recommend the words in a very critical article which I came across in the Economist during the week-end. That said:
  596
  "Outright rejection would be a great pity."
  That is how I feel about it—it would be a great pity.
  One other point I wish to make is that we are relying upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see, as the most reverend Primate suggested, that the priorities are right, and that we do not spend money on television when we ought to be using it for some other purpose. The Chancellor is a good watchdog, and I am prepared to leave the priorities to him. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not pass this Motion, but will allow the Government to put forward their legislative proposals so that we can have Second Reading debates and go through them as we do in the Committee stage. If that happens, I believe that out of the controversy and the discussions we shall get something which will be to the good of the nation and will not hurt it in the way that has been suggested.
  7.15 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I feel it a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bennett of Edgbaston, speaking, as he said, in the same place but to a different audience. I am particularly pleased to follow him because I take credit for having persuaded him to speak in this debate. I had some difficulty in doing so, because he said he had nothing to say. He has had a great deal to say, including many worthwhile things which we should all take to heart. I congratulate him most sincerely, and hope that this will be the first of many occasions upon which we shall hear him in this House.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in opening, this debate, gave a most unfortunate example about monopoly. He said that the outstanding monopoly in this country was the Post Office, and what an extraordinary thing it would be if rival concerns were able to stick on different coloured stamps and carry letters. In point of fact, he has "put his foot in it" there, because I have a licence to carry letters and I do use a special blue and silver stamp. I have had this licence since 1936 and my company, the District Messenger Company, have held it for forty years. So even in the carrying of letters the Post Office has, I hope, some healthy competition. The noble Viscount also said that it was un-

  597
  satisfactory to have two corporations competing against one another. I would say that possibly two of the most successful public corporations to-day are our two great air corporations, the B.E.A. and the B.O.A.C., and I think the fact that they are running their services to some extent in competition keeps them on their toes all the time.
  The noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, and others, have in this debate quoted the opinions of Chancellors of Universities and other high educational authorities. I would never attempt to quarrel with such eminent authorities on questions of education, but this is not an educational question—it is a question of entertainment. My job is entertainment, and I feel that in the entertainment world I perhaps know a little better what the public want than do educationists. My experience is that competition improves the London theatre. A new show from overseas, a new management coming into being, puts the other managements on their mettle and we get better entertainment, whether it is in Shakespeare, ballet or the lighter entertainment. Too much has been said in this debate about giving the public what it ought to have instead of giving the public what it wants.
  Much has been said about America, but little about the system in Australia which is much more analogous, although I admit not quite similar to the system proposed in the Government White Paper. Anybody who has lived for some years in Australia, as I have, will know that the A.B.C. has been vastly improved and its programmes have been, better than they would have been because of the spur of commercial television. I do not say all the Australian commercial stations are good but some are. 2 G.B. brought out a famous violinist, and as a result of that the A.B.C. had to bring out celebrities of international repute. Some of the transcriptions, as they are called, of the commercial programmes in Australia have been sold all over the world and I am almost certainly right in saying that some of them have been sold to the B.B.C. I think most people are agreed that a second television programme is desirable, but if we do not accept something like the proposals put forward, how can we possibly get it except by paying a licence fee of at least
  598
  £5 or, in the view of some people, to get a really good second programme, not far short of £10?
  A good deal has been said with regard to advertisement and the B.B.C. The B.B.C. itself depends on advertising. It gets an enormous revenue from advertisements in the Radio Times. In addition, I happened to hear to-day about a television programme which was put on the B.B.C. only last Monday, a forty-minute programme of the Italian road race known as the Mille Miglia. It was an excellent programme and the B.B.C. was right to put it on; but at the end of the programme it was announced that the film had been made by the Shell Film Unit. If that is not hidden advertising, I do not know what is.
  There are many aspects of this question, and I am not going to weary your Lordships with a long speech. I intend to deal with only one aspect, and that is the question of employment in the radio and television industry. I heard a most moving speech the other day by that great actress Miss Margaret Rawlings, in which she painted a heartbreaking picture of the position of many of these television actors who were barely making a living because of the very limited employment open to them. She also mentioned that if they offended the B.B.C., their one possible employer, they had no chance of getting alternative work. I have here an extract from a report by Mr. R. S. Lambert, who worked for the B.B.C. for some years. He says:
  "It is astonishing to find, after working a number of years inside a big organisation like the B.B.C., how much one's individuality becomes diluted and how much one's initiative and enterprise are sapped.…You can be comfortable and cosy even in Broadcasting House, once you know the ropes and have ceased to be ambitious or critical, especially if you hold an administrative post. But whether these comforts are good for the soil of man, I am not in a position to say."
  One section of employees in this industry are the radio writers. Their association writes as follows:
  "If one manager rejects a plot, there are others; if one publisher refuses a book, there are others; if the B.B.C. refuses a radio script there is no other market; and if you displease your sole employer you are out."
  I know that Mr. Sandison, the General Secretary of Equity, was very critical at the T.U.C. Annual Conference of the

  599
  present state of affairs. He said, I understand, that the actors would very much welcome alternative chances of employment. This is what he said:
  "Fees for acting in the B.B.C. television shows are so low that no actor can make a living in that medium although he satisfies the needs of many millions of viewers."
  I feel sure that there are many young men of ability both in acting and in writing, and in the technical field, who are not getting a full chance under the present system. Maybe their ideas are unorthodox, and perhaps a little daring. If they do not agree with the B.B.C. they have very little hope. I think this proposal of the Government will give them their chance, and it will also give that spur to the B.B.C. which their programmes need. If it does, then programmes will be better than ever. For these reasons I sincerely support the Government White Paper and oppose the Motion which is before us to-day.
  7.25 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, there are many speakers in this debate and I have added myself to their number only in order to make two points and to record my convinced support of the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, and my noble friend Lord Samuel on this question. It seems to me that the issue has been clouded by the false application of two well-worn slogans, both of which I hope are on their way out: "State control" and "Free enterprise." The B.B.C. can be considered subject to State control in a technical way only, since in reality the B.B.C. is an outstanding and successful example of British compromise with Socialism, by which State-constituted bodies are administered by experts who never for a moment allow themselves to be controlled either by politicians or by bureaucrats. On the other side, the few advertisers who will be rich enough to use the new system can by no manner of means be allowed to use the phrase "free enterprise." The rest of the population are not going to have any real say in this affair. I know that the Postmaster General considers that the Government have devised a scheme by which the advertiser will be deprived of his money's worth—by which the man who pays the piper will not call the tune. It is impossible to believe, however, that these embattled businessmen, masquerading as the spokesmen of the people, who write
  600
  flippant circulars deriding some of the most respected members of your Lordships' House, are going to allow the jazz band to be turned off and the C Major Quintet of Schubert to be put on in its place.
  Why then should we slavishly copy this low-grade American ideal? Where does Great Britain stand in these days? Not, I hope, cap in hand like a satellite ready to implement other people's way of life. This country does not look like that to me. I think we show an orderly and admirable quiet, as we sit among the ruins of our Empire and our wealth, listening to the ugly noises set up by the rest of the world, and planning to lead the future. And what sort of future is this Elizabethan Age to be to which everybody is looking forward? Surely it must be an age in which we stand for quality, for a high standard in culture and civilisation. Indeed, we remain a first-class Power because of the quality of our people: the people who conquer Everest; who ride like Pat Smythe and dance like Margot Fonteyn; the people who act like Laurence Olivier and compose like Benjamin Britten. Who can deny that opera of superlative standard is produced at Glyndebourne and that the British Broadcasting Corporation is the outstanding superior of any radio system in the world? The Government propose to let down the Elizabethan Age. It is contrary to my temperament to indulge in indignation, but I find it shameful for Parliament itself to undermine the improving standards of our young democracy by giving sanction and prestige to a project based upon nothing but money. Surely it is shameful also to plunge the innocent people of this country into a planned and premeditated orgy of vulgarity. I hope your Lordships will once more show the commercial backers of this scheme that this House more accurately understands the welfare of our democracy.
  7.30 p.m.
  LORD AMWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, used the phrase that has been repeated a number of times in this debate and that we hear and read constantly in discussions upon the subject, that "the people are entitled to what they want," and that we should "give the people what they want." But to what people is he referring? When were the people asked, and when and where was

  601
  the answer given? There has been no question of that kind, and this talk about giving the people what they want is inclined to be quite beside the mark, for those who are responsible for the Government's policy in this matter do not themselves propose to give the people what they want. If the people of this country want anything, to a very large degree they want football pools; and yet it is not proposed to include in the advertisements any advertisements of football pools. It seems to me that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy about this matter. You can always find that kind of excuse for anything, that you should "give the people what they want," because some people want even things of the worst type, whether it is in the matter of culture or anything else.
  It is because I was for a number of years associated with the advertising profession that I desire to put a particular aspect of the question in the debate this evening—namely, the business one. I should like to say to my advertising friends that I think they are backing the wrong horse. Now, it is important to understand that there are two different kinds of advertising: the advertising that may be called an announcement, and competitive publicity. They are two very different things. One is exemplified by theatrical advertising, although I never could understand why the theatres never told you where the theatres were, or how to get to them—but theatrical advertising is the kind of thing I mean by "announcement," which is of public usefulness. People wish to know where to buy the things that they have made up their minds that they want. That is a very different thing from competitive advertising. Competitive advertising may be exemplified by the spectacle of five twenty-sheet posters in a row advertising five separate detergents, each one of them saying the same thing and each professing to be better than all the rest. That is the kind of thing in advertising that is going to be dominant in respect to television.
  Personally, I think that in the long run that is bad business, too. If advertising by itself were the subject under discussion, I would give my reasons for that opinion. I think it is bad, political economy. It is usually argued that "this kind of publicity keeps the wheels of industry turning." That is quite unsound.
  602
  All that it does is to induce A to buy from B something which he previously bought from C. And there is the question whether the people should be induced to spend to the last penny rather than save. That is a national question that we have often argued. It is brought up and it is arguable from a public point of view. This idea that the wheels of industry are kept going because of competitive advertising is entirely stupid. If there were no advertising of soap, would people go without baths? It is simple nonsense, and it is just the kind of nonsense which we should expect to dominate television which was under the control of advertisers.
  The point I want to put to the advertising profession through this debate is that there are large numbers of people in the country—I shall indicate how many in a moment—who regard this competitive hullabaloo as essentially vulgar, and not only vulgar but contrary to human dignity and reason. There is no reason at all why people should be told what they have to buy and what they have to enjoy. A prominent advertiser in the public Press recently said that we live in the twentieth century—he was defending sponsored television—and we have got to like it. He went on to say that the purpose of advertising was to produce among the public a state of conditioned response. Hitler was a past master at that kind of game. I replied that if I knew that Pavlov proposed to slit my throat in order to find my salival reactions to an advertised delicacy, I should shoot him first in the name of Christian decency.
  The argument which I have put so far is an idealistic one, and I have put it for a certain reason which I shall explain in a moment but it is not an argument that will appeal to business men. However, this argument will. There is a strong feeling throughout the country against sponsored television, a feeling that cannot be denied. It is held perhaps not by a majority—we do not know—but by, at any rate, a very powerful minority. I want to ask the advertising world whether it is good business to alienate hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the population of this nation. The Government are forcing this issue without a free vote on the ground that they have a mandate for competition and free enterprise. But this is not free competition,

  603
  this is not at all free enterprise. It has already been pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—in fact, it was pointed out also by the noble Lord, Lord Bennett of Edgbaston, only a short time ago—that it costs a great amount of money to get on to the air, or on to the ether, or space time, or whatever it is you get on to. A good deal of money has to be spent, which means that only firms who can afford such large appropriations will ever get on to television at all. What about the rest? What about the small man? The Tory Party profess to believe in free competition and the rights of the small man to his corner or niche in the commercial world; but the small men are left right out. They are to be shouldered out, just as the middle class and the working class were shouldered out of the Reform Bill of 1832.
  I cannot understand how so many—if it is so many—of the business people of this country are in favour of sponsored television. They will never get on it. They will be shouted down by people who own vast conglomerations of capital, who can afford the tremendous expense of getting on the air for advertising purposes. So there is a certain amount of unconscious hypocrisy about this talk of free enterprise and free competition. Some people will buy the air just in the same way as, if they could bottle it, they would buy sunshine. I was on a Select Committee some time ago which dealt with the question of advertising by means of sky writing, and I remember the blank faces of the business representatives who came to give evidence when I suggested that writing in the sky about personal hygiene or even personal taste was really an unwarrantable intrusion upon public amenities. The question we were considering at the time was advertising over the beaches in the holiday season, and I said that it was intolerable that the privacy of the holiday-maker or the privacy of anyone else should be interfered with in this way in order to sell Eno's Fruit Salts or some toothpaste, or something rather less delightful than those two particular commodities.
  There is a gadget which I understand has been invented in America, of all places, whereby the viewer, sitting in his armchair, can cut out the hullabaloo without any difficulty. That suggests, at any
  604
  rate, that even in America some people are realising that there is, as I say, an essential vulgarity in this kind of thing; and it would be better for this country to keep to what is called a monopoly. It is in a sense a monopoly; but monopolies exist properly where the alternative is impossible, and it is impossible in this particular case. It is as impossible to have free enterprise in commercial television as it is to run half a dozen or twenty railway lines from London to Newcastle or Scotland; it cannot be done. It is a natural monopoly, using the air, or whatever medium it is, which ought not to be monopolised by any private person at all. That is the attitude noble Lords take on this side of the House, whether it is a sound one or not.
  Bodies all over the country—and this is the particular point I want to put to your Lordships' House this evening—are passing resolutions. They might pass another resolution—mine: "That no commodity that is advertised in this way shall darken my door." There is, after all, the power of the boycott. That is why I want the business man who is an advertiser, like the noble Lord, Lord Bennett of Edgbaston, to consider whether it really is a paying proposition to insist upon this kind of thing, forcing it upon this House and the other place. There has been no question at all of any right or mandate given on the matter. It ought to have been left to a free vote of the House. Is it really a sound business proposition? There are, indirectly and directly, seven million members of the Labour Party. The Labour Party is to a man and woman opposed to commercial television. No greater expression of feeling has been made on this subject than was made at the last Conference of the Labour Party.
  THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW:Has the noble Lord taken a referendum of the members of the Labour Party in the country, as opposed to the Members in the House, on this particular point?
  LORD AMWELL: Of course I have not taken a referendum. I go by the discussions I have heard and the feelings that are expressed. All the members of the Party whom I know are opposed to commercial television. I am merely putting the business point of view; I am not arguing about the matter for the

  605
  moment. What I am saying is that it is from a business point of view a stupid thing to force this proposal in the way that it is being done. You have your advertising agencies and your advertising departments of big firms, and they have be flagged maps on the walls analysing every village and every town in this country. It is all scheduled for their campaigns of conditioned response—population, industry, general taste, sport, politics, religion; they know all about it. I suggest that they schedule this fact: that the members of the Labour Party alone—and it is not alone the Labour Party but religious bodies and other people concerned in social welfare up and down the country who have the same views and have passed the same resolutions—could kill them stone dead. If this policy is maintained of making it a Party issue when it ought not to be regarded as a Party issue, then every opponent is justified in taking direct action. That is the main thing I want to say, and with that I finish. I ask the advertising world and I ask big business whether it is worth while, from the point of view of business itself, to alienate so many millions of the people of this country, for that is really what they are doing.
  7.47 p.m.
  LORD KENSWOOD: My Lords, there are still a number of speakers who wish to address your Lordships' House, and the hour is late. Nevertheless, as a former Governor of the B.B.C. I feel it encumbent on me to say at least a few words on some of the aspects of the Memorandum. I shall not make a long speech, but shall rather content myself with indicating lines of inquiry for Her Majesty's Government to make. We have heard—and we all believe it—that the B.B.C. is held in very high respect in foreign countries. That high respect has redounded to the prestige of this country. I am perfectly willing to accept the assertion which has been made this evening that business people, people who advertise, are men of the highest integrity, that they are benefactors—I will not dispute that. At the same time, I also endorse what the last speaker has indicated—namely, that advertising is to some extent, at least, suspect. I believe it is incontestable that some of the claims made in advertising, however amusing
  606
  those advertisements may be—and I agree that they are artistic, and incomparably better than they used to be—often exaggerate the merits of the articles advertised. I do not think there can be any doubt about that. If that is the case, my Lords, particularly in foreign countries, then if British broadcasting, whether it be sound or television, is associated with advertising, I am quite sure that the prestige of this country will suffer. I put it to your Lordships: is this the time when we can afford any diminution of our prestige? We have our way to make in the world. We have lost a great deal of our prestige and we must do what we can to secure the respect of foreign countries.
  I come now to this question of competition. The White Paper is very vague as to its meaning. Let me begin with monopoly. We are told that monopoly is bad. We have been given examples of monopoly which nobody would care to break. I should like to mention the Royal Navy. Privateering was still permitted less than a century ago, and yet who would go back to privateering? In other words, the bogy of monopoly does require investigation. How are the defects of monopoly combated in the B.B.C.? The answer is, through the Board of Governors. It seems to me extraordinary that Her Majesty's Government, the very Government that appointed the present nine Governors of the B.B.C., should now virtually say they do not trust them. Surely that is unfair and unjust. I have the greatest respect for the present Board of Governors. They were very carefully chosen, and I think the least the Government can do is stand by them and not say, virtually, "We do not trust these Governors; they do not fulfil their duties." On this question of competition I had hoped to hear from the Postmaster General some elucidation of what is meant in the Memorandum by competition. It can mean a great many things. Does it mean—presumably it does—competition for numbers of viewers? That may well be their interpretation, their meaning, in view of the fact that the new bodies to be set up will rely on their income from advertising fees. Surely that is not the way in which we should view television.
  It is significant—or perhaps it is not—that in the Charter of the B.B.C. its

  607
  objects are stated to be information, education and entertainment. In this Memorandum education is omitted. Some of the speakers to-day have already pointed out that if we are to have a really fine population, capable of independent thought, and capable of choice, we must have better education. That has been recognised by all Parties. We are still waiting for the span of compulsory education to be increased. In the meantime, the B.B.C. is doing a great work to help forward education of the people. But this commercial television is not to educate people. The B.B.C. has been criticised because it is said that it is wrong to leave the influencing of men's minds in the hands of a single body of people. Surely that is a very poor argument. I have already alluded to the Governors. The Governors are a cross-section of the population, and include some of the best men and women in the country. Surely they, with their various views, can be trusted to influence the minds of people in the right direction, whichever that may be. I maintain that the right direction is (and this is precisely what the B.B.C. is doing) to enable the people of this country to move towards independence of thought. The various broadcasts that are made give them information; and then, through the various discussions that they have, they are enabled to know how to use that information so as not to be influenced by any particular person or body of persons, but to form an independent judgment.
  There is another aspect of competition—that is, competition for artists. It is stated in the Memorandum that amongst other people, writers and artistes (forgive my hesitation, but that is a dreadful word) will benefit. It is perfectly true that if we were to put up competing stations some of the commercial stations would try, and would doubtless be able, through increases of fees, to "cream off" the most popular artists of all descriptions—comedians, ballet dancers, musicians, actors and so on. They certainly will be able to do it, and to the extent that they get the stars, the stars will benefit and will receive even more than their already inflated incomes. But, my Lords, the supply of stars is strictly limited. There are very few geniuses, and they cannot be multiplied. The vast majority of artists—and I say this without fearing that I shall be
  608
  contradicted—belong to professions which are lamentably overcrowded. I believe—I am speaking from memory—that Equity complained a short time ago that, of 10,000 members, only 6,000 have jobs. I know that this is the case among ballet dancers and musicians.
  Here again, I speak as a member of an artistic profession myself. I know that far too many youngsters are already induced by the large incomes of the stars to become musicians, actors, dancers and so forth. It is quite possible, although not certain, that some of these underemployed artists will receive further employment on these commercial television stations. That, however, is a very short-term view. If they did receive more employment, then still more young people would be induced into these artistic professions—in other words, it would increase the numbers of underemployed and unemployed artists and, what is worse, these youngsters would have gone into these professions instead of into the trades and professions which would be productive to the benefit of the country as a whole.
  Before I go on to the question of freedom of speech that has been raised, I want to point out that I am surprised that the Postmaster General is apparently not aware that there is already a great deal of competition inside the B.B.C. We have the three basic programmes, and, in addition, there are the six Regional programmes, and of those six Regional programmes the National ones, the Welsh, the Scottish and the Northern Irish, have been further strengthened by this very Government, so that there is practical independence of action as between all the Regions of the country. They compete with one another, or, to use the expression that I much prefer to the word "competition," there is emulation. They receive enough money to be able to be almost entirely independent of Broadcasting House.
  Now, with regard to freedom of speech, last June, I think it was, I listened to a broadcast by a distinguished scientist whose whole talk was directed against a certain deodorant which is now very much publicised and which is an ingredient in some popular toothpaste and so forth. He was entirely denunciatory. About two or three weeks ago I listened

  609
  to a popular radio doctor equally strongly warning against the extravagant claims of certain categories of patent medicines. I ask your Lordships: is it conceivable that such informative broadcasts would be permitted on commercial television? Of course not. The companies who wish to gain clients will not permit anything which will displease them. Here again, it is quite obvious that, in a negative way, it is the advertisers who will control the programmes. Just one word in conclusion. It is a trifle, but I wonder whether it is not significant. I have already alluded to the objectionable word "artistes," a word which makes every serious artist squirm. Is it really possible that Her Majesty's Government have been so ill-informed, and have devoted so little care to the formulation of this White Paper, that they do not know what is going on in the minds of the people who will be employed on commercial television? As a consequence, I hope Her Majesty's Government will find it possible to think even once more, and to come to the conclusion that commercial television is a bad thing for this country.
  8.0 p.m.
  THE EARL OF WARWICK: My Lords, during the years I have been in y our Lordships' House, one of the things that has amazed me most has been the diversity of subjects upon which one could found a good debate, and certainly this evening has been one of them. In the speeches of those people who have opposed the White Paper of the Government I have found every sort of subject discussed, but very little discussion about the fundamental issue, which is a simple one. I would press the attack harder were it not for the fact that I, also, cannot claim to own a television set but that does not mean that I have not seen television a great deal both here and in America. Surely, my Lords, people who enjoy television are no less moral or intelligent, or less deserving in their particular fields. Some of us like the written word. Those people are no less deserving of Her Majesty's Government's attention than the rest of us. It is for that reason that rather a backwoodsman in the person of myself comes down to speak to your Lordships and to occupy your time.
  I was not here during the debate in May last year; but I read it, not very
  610
  carefully, I must admit; and I thought that what had happened was that the Government were doing their duty. We have to move with the times. Television is here to stay and, unfortunately, the B.B.C. is probably not capable of coping with the great expansion that is to take place, nor is its existing financial set up such that it can continue it. That is why I thought the Government were doing their duty, and the major prophets were doing what major prophets always do, which is saying, "How wicked the world is, and how careful we must be to insist on a lot of safeguards!"—a very good thing. After that, the debate would be concluded and the Bill would go through.
  I read no further until, a month later, I received a letter from a friend of mine working in Washington, an American, who said, "Would you be good enough to send me a copy of the House of Lords Hansard on the debate some time in May, because I understand it is the best thing that has been published since Punch was started." That is a remark which obviously in your Lordships' House I could not describe as proper, but I sent him the Report; and because of that remark I read some of the speeches in the debate again a little more carefully. While I certainly do not subscribe to my friend's opinion, I am inclined to think that there was an undue amount of vehemence from some of your Lordships on that occasion.
  From an article I had read in the Observer some time before, I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Reith, who cannot be here to-day, was not an enthusiast, but when I read what he said in that debate last May (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 176, col. 1296):
  "Do the Government know about the American Federal Communications Commission? Would a British one be any more effective?"
  I paused and thought, because I worked a good deal in America before the war in the entertainment business. I broadcast a good deal, and I came under the authority of the Federal Communications Commission. Well, it was not perfect—nothing in this world is perfect, I suppose—but I can tell your Lordships that many reputable people in the entertainment business were hauled up by that Commission; and on the whole, during the years I worked in America, I thought they did a very reasonable job. Then

  611
  we go further, to the second half of the noble Lord's remark, which is:
  "Would a British one be any more effective?"
  I should have thought, with the experience we can amass from what has gone on in America over the last years, that not only would it be as effective but, if we are any good at all, it would be a great deal more effective. That is what I imagine will eventually arise out of the White Paper.
  However, I went on to the next point in this letter from my friend, which was a reference to a speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who spoke again today. We all know Lord Samuel very well in this House. I have always listened to his speeches with the keenest interest; they are classics and things to be greatly admired. But I think he must have been presented with what I will call a misrepresentation when he was in America, for I find from column 1302 that he said in that debate that he asked some of his friends whether they listened to the radio and what they thought of it, and they all answered in almost exactly the same words—namely:
  "I practically never listen to the radio. I do listen in sometimes to the political commentators. I listen if the President or one of the political leaders has a statement to make. I listen to the music on certain programmes, and now and then there may be a good entertainment on the air."
  They were good enough to add that they rather liked sports on the television. My Lords, that is an exact contradiction to what His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury said this afternoon. He said, I think, that four and a half hours per diem of life in the United States of America to-day was occupied in the viewing of television. Those two statements are not compatible. Nor was it very reasonable for the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to have made that statement when one considers that this immense radio industry in the United States is kept alive by people who, so it is said, very rarely listen to it, and then only for a few topics. To proceed further, one is asked to believe that these huge firms that the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, referred to in his speech about advertising, such as Dupont's, Ford's and the other great firms who advertise, are apparently supporting these industries out of nothing but philanthropy. We know that that is
  612
  not true. The broadcasting industry attracts a great deal of money in America and, of course, many people listen to it.
  Advertisers have had many very unpleasant things said about them in the Press and in the course of this debate, and particularly by a body which refer to themselves as the National Television Council and which I believe is supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who is going to speak to-morrow. I think it would be better if they were to call themselves the National Anti-Television Council. However, they circularised a great many of your Lordships and, I believe, a great many of the public, saying that advertisers would debase standards, would cause crudity in television, and so on. Well, who are these advertisers? They are just plain and simple business men of our country. Many of your Lordships serve on boards of companies—I do myself—and I refuse to believe that the ordinary decent business men of this country—indeed, any of your Lordships associated with the board of a company—are likely to try and degrade television. It is quite unthinkable. And I do not believe they would gain any money by doing so. Then what about the poor agent, the middleman between the manufacturer and the producer? I do not think it likely that he would keep his employment in the next year, or get his contract renewed, if he produced a programme which was of such a nature that there was a public outcry against it, and he was condemned in the Press and in the other vehicles which exist for raising criticism of that kind.
  I think there has been a vast amount of exaggeration here. After all, there is a big business side to this question, and that business side, for us, is a good one. I believe that many of the mistakes we have made have arisen out of what happened after the war in the United States. Television was then new and it has expanded there very fast. In consequence, there has been a big shortage of programmes. One matter about which we have heard to-day is the limited channels which we shall have in this country, so there can be no question of expansion occurring at such a rate as to result in a big shortage of programmes. That situation in the United States probably led to the existence of those

  613
  molehills which have been made into mountains by those who are opposed to the policy set out in the White Paper on account of the moral aspect of the question. I am convinced that in the United States, a great and progressive country, as the time-lag is taken up so programmes will continue to improve. I am sure that the objections which noble Lords raise to competitive television, based on the present situation in America, will have less and less justification. The troubles in America to which I have alluded are decreasing and not increasing.
  As your Lordships know, since the war 300 or 400 old British films have been sold to the United States of America for reproduction through the medium of television—that is certainly helpful from our point of view. Further, it seems to me, from such knowledge as I have, of the industry, and in view of figures which I have seen, that we could make films for television which would be exportable to the United States and would thus bring us in a very reasonable dollar payment. In addition, one series has been made here by an American whose name may be familiar to your Lordships—indeed, I think it is familiar to most of us. This series brought us in one year a million dollars worth of currency. I was in America last spring, when the first of these films came out, and it was received with immense respect by the television public in that country—in fact, I might say that it was received with the greatest acclaim, and it did us a great deal of good.
  Your Lordships are sufficiently knowledgeable in business matters, I am sure, to realise how important this may be, because television has a quality which in this respect is most useful—it has a very short range: it goes over only a limited number of miles. A film which is made for exhibition in this country does not lose value when exported to another country, because, unlike radio, by means of which the listener can tune in to stations all round the world, television viewers are limited in their field of viewing. So there is the possibility of producing here (I am not speaking of live programmes) films which, if you take advantage of this exportable value, can be made of the highest possible quality, and which, in the end, will not only pay
  614
  their way but also, perhaps, bring in a small dollar payment. I say "of the highest possible quality" advisedly—and for this reason. A half hour's good entertainment costs somewhere in the neighbourhood of £8,000 or £9,000, and I cannot see how the B.B.C. with their present financial set-up can foot bills of that kind. However much we respect the B.B.C., it has to be admitted, I think, that the present television programmes are not very good. That, I admit, is a matter of opinion, and I will not go further than say that in my view they are not very good.
  But I cannot for the life of me see why we cannot use this simple and straightforward system, which has been used in America for all these years, and still avoid the dangers and the pitfalls that those who oppose the policy outlined in the White Paper seem to find everywhere. I do not believe that they have a case against us unless, first, the advertiser or manufacturer in this country, secondly, his agent, and, thirdly, the producers of whatever performance may be put on, are all of them amoral or irresponsible people. And I do not believe that that will ever be the case in this country. A fourth condition would be that, whatever safeguarding body is appointed by the Government, when we come to the stage of the introduction of a Bill—it would be unreasonable to discuss it before then—would be incompetent. So we are envisaging a series of circumstances which I believe cannot possibly arise. I should like to end by quoting the words of Mr. Selwyn Lloyd on this question. Those words hit me hard between the eyes when I first read them. Here they are:
  "The case against competitive television is really a vote of 'no confidence' in the character and judgment of the British people."
  8.17 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, the "big guns" have departed—though some, I see, have returned. It is coming to be rather a soldiers' battle, and I will not detain your Lordships very long. I must say that I am astonished by the fervour—one might almost use the words "moral indignation"—of noble Lords who have put down the Motion which is now before the House, and of noble Lords who have decided, quite sincerely, to support it. I have

  615
  always regarded this problem, ever since it came into the news and one began to think about it, as perfectly straightforward. I take it that we are all agreed that it would not be a bad thing—perhaps some of us would go further, and would say that it would be a very good thing—if something were done to put a bit of competition, or a lot of competition, against the present B.B.C., so far as television is concerned. That seems to me to be a point upon which most of us, if not all, are agreed. I was therefore astonished when I discovered that what seemed to me a most common-sense way of providing this competition has affected so many people and so many different areas and organisations so deeply. I still find it rather difficult to understand why.
  It seems to me that any suggestion for an alternative Corporation, run on the same lines as the B.B.C., could not possibly result in the provision of proper competition. In my view, it is not unlike a shepherd dividing his flock into two and buying another dog. However, I think I have an idea as to where some of the emotion arises. This matter has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Bennett, who, speaking for the first time in your Lordships' House, defended the ordinary, decent, sensible businessman in this country. I shall not follow his footsteps, for he put the case far better than I could put it myself. There is a prejudice against the businessman of this country. I know where it started, and I know perfectly well who continues it. It is certainly carefully nurtured by the Party of the noble Lords opposite. It is a useful weapon for them. It is part of the armoury of class warfare which, however much the noble Lords themselves may dislike it, is an essential plank in the Socialist platform; and I do not expect them to drop it because I ask them to. There is no doubt that one has only to talk in large enough figures and to mention the hard-faced—I believe the word used in this debate was "hard-boiled"—businessman to excite a Socialist to an absolute frenzy.
  I am sorry to see that this prejudice appears to have reached the Liberal Benches. I greatly admired the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel; it was a fine speech, such as we have
  616
  learned to expect from the noble Viscount, but I was sorry to see that the same old prejudice crept in. Let me give the House an example. The noble Viscount said that in the next ten years a sum of from £50 to £100 million would be spent by advertisers on television. That sounded a very large sum, but what the noble Viscount did not say (and here I think my noble friend Lord Bennett of Edgbaston would agree with me) was that the £50 million to £100 million will come off the total spent on advertising. I presume that if £50 million to £100 million is spent on advertising on television, a similar sum will be taken off some other form or forms of advertising. I know that these phrases can be trotted out to exercise the glands and work up emotion.
  The noble Viscount asked "Who is going to be 'in on the ground floor'?" I do not think that was a very helpful comment. Somebody has to start. Why should anyone be blamed for being "in on the ground floor"? What is wrong with the chap who starts anything? It is a prejudice. I hope that what I may call the mistrust of businessmen will be dropped out of this debate. It is quite irrelevant.
  LORD REA: My Lords, before the noble Marquess leaves that point, I should like to say a word. I do not know whether it has been made perfectly clear in the Socialist Party, but certainly in the Liberal Party there is no Whip on, and every Member speaks for himself. I think the noble Marquess would be sorry to discourage other Members who sit on these Benches from perhaps supporting the Government. What he calls the prejudice of the Liberal Party may possibly be applied to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.
  THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I take that comment in the spirit in which it is made. Perhaps I ought to attribute this to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, personally, rather than to the Liberal Party. But I am not going to absolve the Labour Party from encouraging the prejudice.
  To move from that point to the other side, we have opposite this prejudice against businessmen the ubiquitous "public interest." That is a phrase which has been used over and over again to

  617
  justify a great many things. It has been used to justify things in other countries which are quite inexcusable. Certainly there is a public interest in some things which one can define, but my view of "the public interest" is simply this: the public interest is what the public want. I am surprised that up to now very little has been said in this debate about what the public want. The noble Lord, Lord Amwell, suggested that seven million Labour supporters, man, woman and child, were against this competitive television. I asked whether he had taken a referendum, and of course he had not. I do not pretend to know the answer to the question of what the public want, but I think it is high time an attempt was made to decide what they do want, rather than sit around arguing about what they ought to want.
  I believe that if we were to ask the public, "Would you like an alternative programme on your television sets, which you need not turn on if you do not wish to, and for which you will not have to pay?" (certainly not directly, though I suppose it can be argued that they will pay indirectly), they would say, "Yes" I think that is common sense, and for the life of me I cannot see what is wrong with it. Give the public a choice. If we are going to sit around and debate what in our so-called wisdom we think the public ought to want, I think we are getting too big for our boots. I regard it as the most impertinent suggestion that I have ever come across. Certainly we have canons of good taste. Can we believe that the public should not be allowed to see programmes which are produced by advertisers, because the programmes are going to be of low taste? Of course not. Why should they be? The whole trend of modern advertising in the papers, magazines and hoardings is towards decoration, beauty and dignity. Noble Lords talk of the mass market as if the general approach to the mass market were at the lowest common denominator of taste. That is an outrageous suggestion to make to the British public, and I am surprised that any noble Lord should make it. And that is all that is being said in this Resolution. I would give an example which I am surprised has not been mentioned already, and I am delighted that nobody else has "bagged" it. I imagine that beer is a mass market,
  618
  and I also imagine that most noble Lords have followed the Whitbread advertisements on the posters. What could be a better form of taste and typography than these? And why suggest that television is going to be any different?
  I am not going to say much more. I have said what I wanted to say, and will end by saying this. I am going to vote against this Motion. I suggest that any noble Lord who feels like going into the Lobby to support the Motion should say to himself that he is acting on an unfounded political prejudice against businessmen and in a patriarchal way, as a modern patrician having the right to get up and say, "I am in a position to tell the public what they ought to see." I say, "No, give the public a chance to decide; they are the best judges of what they want. Then need not turn on their programme if they do not want to. Give the public a chance to express their own views in their own way." I think that your Lordships may easily make a farce of this House, if the public get the idea that we are sitting here debating something which is not really our business at all.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, before the noble Marquess sits down, I think I should refer to something he said which might convey an impression contrary to the fact. I should like to repeat what has been said before, that on this issue the Labour Party have stated to all their members that this is not a Party issue, and all members of the Party are free to speak and vote according to their consciences.
  THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I hope I never made any suggestion that the Labour Party had the Whips on. What I said was that I understand perfectly well why the majority of the Labour Party will vote against the Government on this Motion.
  8.30 p.m.
  LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, at this stage in a long and interesting debate it would be presumptuous, perhaps, to think that one has anything new to say or, indeed, to take very long in saying it. My reason for speaking at all in this debate is that I felt that merely to go into the Lobby and register a vote against the Motion on the Order Paper in support of the Government was really

  619
  not adequate in the circumstances, and that this was an occasion when one should say, as briefly as possible, why one votes as one proposes to do. Therefore, I ask your Lordships' indulgence if I make a statement giving the angle from which I view this matter. It perhaps argues some temerity for a Back Bencher to intrude into the bright light which has been cast by those who support this Motion, and I must admit to feeling a little like one of the untouchables who gets up to question the dictates of a Brahmin hierarchy. It is hard for me to grasp what seems to me the unsubstantial shadow of the objections to the tentative scheme which the Government have put forward.
  I do not propose to go into details, or to deal with any of the financial questions which have been mentioned this evening, because I feel, rightly or wrongly, that this is not the occasion to go into details. What I have asked myself is: What are the principles at stake in this matter; and what really lies behind this Motion in the shape of principles? Surely, it is the old attack on liberty and freedom of choice. It is no good saying to me, or to the many people who think as I do, that the B.B.C. is not a true monopoly. In so far as our intelligence enables us to judge, it is. Some, I know, avoid the embarrassment of openly defending monopoly by admitting, the desirability of an alternative programme, but frequently omitting to mention that an alternative programme is not necessarily a competitive one. I have asked myself, also: Have this Government fought for freedom in all the physical markets of our life, only to be urged to yield ignobly at this stage to the planners in matters of the mind? There is, as it seems to me, hardly any argument which has been used in this debate which would not apply equally to control of the Press or of the bookselling business.
  I know that the self-appointed supervisors of human destiny have always been busy in this land of ours, but they have not often had an opportunity like this. Surely, there is no merit in the fugitive and cloistered virtue of a Ration bred to mental slavery and servitude, and walled in against temptation to fall below the standards set by a certain small group. Liberty is not, and never has been, a
  620
  hothouse plant. The primary function of Government, surely, is to protect the life, the liberty and the property of the individual, and not to make the people good by Act of Parliament. All over the world we are trying what seem to some of us reckless political experiments, on the plea that the only way to teach responsibility, and to breed a sense of responsibility and a healthy public opinion, is to grant freedom to make mistakes. I remember long ago in a Colony where I was stationed asking one of the major chiefs what his people would think of certain Government measures which I was proposing. He turned to me and said: "Sir, my people do not think; they think what their chiefs tell them to think." Is that the feudal mentality which we are asked to admire and to set up in this country? It seems to me that that is the idea which many people have who feel that they know better. Do we want to turn England into a kind of intellectual Whipsnade, with a board of directors like the B.B.C., whose duty would be to preserve its hand-fed inhabitants from all contact with the realities of life? Most of us, surely, want the programmes of television and broadcasting to contain something for all reasonable tastes, not to deify the high standards of a distinguished minority.
  We hear much about the danger to children. Personally, I cannot accept the assumption, amongst many other assumptions I deplore which have been made in argument in this debate, that competitive television financed by advertising will lead to a deterioration of standards and to the worst features of television as described to us by those who do not like American television. This American bogy seems to me to have been exaggerated beyond reason. In any case, I personally do not want my children to grow up into a kind of political embodiment of the Third Programme. Surely, freedom of choice is still the basis of true democracy. At the back of the arguments we have heard is a desire, as it seems to me, to impose willy-nilly the more cultured tastes of the minority upon the less refined tastes of the majority in this country. It argues a mistrust of the instincts of the people of this country, and a belief that in a fair field the bad, as defined to us by a distinguished group of fellow citizens, will always beat the good,

  621
  as also so defined by them. I personally am not so pessimistic.
  I can understand the temptation of the choice and master spirits of our age to want to impose their high standards upon a reluctant people. But we all remember the very healthy reaction to that kind of thing in Athenian days, when it was a healthy human instinct which led to the banishment of Aristeides because people were so tired of hearing him called "The Just." People of my generation remember only too well the joyless Sabbath of our youth, made so by the determination to enforce what then passed as goodness. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, quoted to us that very noble motto of the B.B C. May I, in this connection, venture to offer an even better one in modern days, also in English:
  "Oh! glorious are the guarded heights
  Where guardian souls abide—
  Self-exiled from our gross delights—
  Above, beyond, outside;
  An ampler are their spirit swings—
  Commands a juster view—
  We have their word for all these things,
  No doubt their words are true."
  The price of liberty is still eternal vigilance, and, for my part I would go so far as to set the B.B.C. free also—if they have not lived in servitude for too long to appreciate it—to take advertisements to help pay for their activities. Government, as I see it, is a creeping disease, and we surely do not want our mental liberties poured into the bottomless pit of State control.
  This desire to protect us, willing or not, against the evil outside influences recalls to me an analogy in my own experience. When I was much younger I dreamed of rendering a certain small West African town in the Colony where I was, immune from all tropical diseases by a system of careful controls which I need not specify. I consulted leading scientific authorities in England, and they told me that the scheme was perfectly feasible, but they asked me whether I had reflected what it was that I should be doing if I succeeded. It meant that a generation would grow up which had no naturally acquired immunity from these diseases, and that if ever the ceaseless vigilance required to maintain that condition relaxed for a moment and the defences were breached, the result would be appalling. I wanted to keep out pestilence, disease and that sort of thing. The
  622
  supporters of this Motion want to keep out fresh air and the virile winds of freedom. In each case the resultant artificiality would render no ultimate benefit to the people concerned. It is, I suggest, attacking a problem the wrong way.
  We live, I know, in a world of saints and sinners, and I suggest that we do not want the anæmic paradise of the apostles of control. Age has never been able to impose its standards on youth for very long. I hope it never will, and I think it is good that it should be so. It is still true to say that if we lose liberty we lose all, and the shape of an omnipotent B.B.C. seems to those who think as I do far more likely to debase standards than a competitive system under no more, shall we say, than the ordinary controls of decency, and so forth, which govern the Press. The Government's scheme may be tentative and imperfect, but we have already been assured that any suggestions for improvement will be welcome. I should like to conclude by emphasising what I said at the beginning: that what seems to me so important is not to pick holes in details of what we think the system will be, nor to put up ninepins of that kind for the pleasure of knocking them down, but to examine the principles which lie behind the Government attitude and to compare them with the principles which lie behind the authors of this Motion.
  8.45 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I submit that the terms "freedom" and "liberty" are relative terms, and that if the noble Lord who has just sat down had all the liberty and freedom that he desired in those words, used in their literal meaning, we should revert to chaos. I suppose fifty years ago, for example, it would have been supposed to be outrageous that a man should not build a house where he liked, and yet to-day I do not think that even the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, would plead that we should be allowed to build just where we like, how we like and with what materials we like. I quote that only as an example of the statement that really these are relative terms, and that to argue that in this small country we should all have complete freedom is entirely out of date.

  623
  May I say a word about the fact that one political Party has issued a Whip in this debate, and no other political Party? Surely, if ever there was a topic upon which there should be a free vote not only in this House but, if I might suggest it, in another place also, this is that topic. When I said this to another of your Lordships the other day the reply was, "Well, the other side have put on the Whip and so we must, too." We now find that that is not so, and that one Party only has issued a Whip for this debate. The noble Earl, the Postmaster General, said, "But has there not been plenty of lobbying?" Of course there has—from both sides. I have received many pamphlets and papers from both sides, and from the opponents of this Motion I have received nothing less than a copy of a speech by the Prime Minister, as I suppose we all have. The point is that whilst, of course, the groups have been indulging in lobbying, was it to be expected that they would not? It has been made a political issue on one side and not the other.
  We are getting a certain number of things clear as a result of this debate. Sponsoring has gone and complete freedom has also gone. I have already said that you cannot have complete freedom in this matter, and the whole of the White Paper denies freedom. If there is any doubt about that, may I quote paragraph 12 of the White Paper, which says:
  "The Postmaster General would specify a maximum and minimum hours for broadcasting each day, and would thus control the amount of broadcasting, as he does with the B.B.C."
  If that is the case, surely there is no real freedom in this matter, because, according to paragraph 12, the Postmaster General could say that there should be none at all. The fact is, of course, that however many competitive systems we have under this scheme, the noble Earl will be on the field with his whistle and can order the players off at his discretion. Monopoly has not gone. Under the White Paper, in my submission, the monopoly stays. It might not be the monopoly of the B.B.C., but it is Government monopoly. Surely there is no dispute about that. Under the White Paper there will be Government monopoly, and nobody really thinks there can be anything else.
  624
  On the question of alternative programmes I am not entirely in agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who opened this debate, because, although I am unalterably opposed to advertising, I concede at once that there is a case for alternative programmes. Indeed, does not this Motion say so in its opening words? May we, therefore, take it that we are all agreed that there will be alternative proposals? The question is, who should provide them? Unlike the noble Viscount, I see no objection to competition by corporations, competing one against the other. I do not think he liked that, but several speakers have said, and I agree, that there is no objection to that, provided there is no advertising. Competition is very good up to a point; but all these things can be carried beyond that point.
  I want to raise a new point, one which I have not heard earlier in this debate, and, what is more, I have not seen it in any of the correspondence in the papers, of which I have read a great deal. Competition could be positively harmful in this matter. Television, as I, being entirely non-technical, understand it, requires a very high mast and a station from which to put out the programmes. That has to go, for preference, on a very high spot, the higher the better. It is bound to cause considerable injury to the amenities. We all know of the trouble that occurred at Plymouth, where there has been much controversy in the Press as regards Hessary Tor, the highest spot in the Dartmoor National Park. Great objection has been taken to a television station there. Expressing a purely personal view, I hold that the Hessary Tor installation should be allowed, in spite of the fact that it is bound seriously to interfere with the amenities of the National Park. It should be allowed because we must have television and, that being so, we must have the best television. But what is to happen if there are to be three or four Hessary Tors near our large cities? I have already said that I want competitive programmes—and that means two or three programmes. I have been informed—no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that it is possible to put out more than one programme from a single mast. Therefore, if the B.B.C. is to been trusted with the task of putting out more than one programme, which is one of

  625
  the possibilities, one mast will suffice, and there will be no more blemish upon the amenities.
  But what about competitive programmes? Will they need additional masts? If so, must they be in the same place or may they be in a place separated by some distance? The same problem may occur round Manchester. It has been said that if there is competitive television there will be additional stations at least in the large areas of population in Lancashire. Presumably the best service for Manchester will come from the Peak District National Park. Is that to be another blemish there, or will the existing station suffice? That is a technical question which I cannot answer; but it is all-important that it should be answered, because all these questions have some relevance to this debate. As I have said, that is an unhealthy form of competition.
  I submit, my Lords, that the crux of this whole matter is finance. I should like to say how much I admired the speech of the most reverend Primate this afternoon. He put his finger on the real question at issue, which is, who should pay for the additional programmes which everybody wants—except, possibly, I must say, the most reverend Primate himself. Should these programmes he paid for by the viewer or by somebody else? If it is to be somebody else, the only person it can be is the consumer of the goods advertised. I say unhesitatingly that they should not be paid for by the consumer. The noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, who, I am sorry to see, has just left the House, when he spoke a minute ago seemed to think that, somehow or other, nobody need pay. That is not so. He would, he said, ask the viewer whether he would rather pay a licence or have a free programme. Well, of course, that is impossible. The consumer will pay. The consumer who lives, perhaps, in far distant northern Scotland, for instance, who does not have any television, will pay. I should prefer the other alternative—thathe who enjoys the programme should pay for it. Much has been said as to the cost of the licence, whether it should be £5 or £6 or maybe £10. Why should not the people who have these programmes pay £6 or even £10 for them? Much criticism has been
  626
  expressed because viewers do not see such good programmes here as do the Americans. It is all a question of cost. If the B.B.C. were given two or three more pounds a licence, they could give us very much better programmes.
  One further point on finance. The B.B.C. have to pay taxation to the Government to the extent of 15 per cent. They could give very much better programmes if this 15 per cent. were restored to them. If we have competitive television with advertisements, are the competing stations also going to be taxed to the extent of 15 per cent. by the Government, or will they get away scot free? I have not heard that question asked or answered this afternoon—unless it happened while I was absent from the Chamber. But, surely, if the B.B.C. have to pay 15 per cent., all the stations should likewise be made to pay. My own preference would be that none of them should pay. My objection to this Government proposal is a very simple one: I object to advertising in the programmes. I have no objection to alternative programmes, even if they ate competitive. It is the advertisements that, quite frankly, I cannot stomach. It is said that it would be no worse than an advertisement in the Press. I cannot agree with that statement. I am bound to say that I think there 'is a great difference between Press advertisements and advertisements in television—and so with the cinemas. I think that advertisements in cinemas are most objectionable; and I would go so far as to say that a good cinema does not have advertisements.
  I should like to refer to another matter which Lord Linlithgow raised. He said that somehow there was a prejudice against the business man. Nothing that I, at any rate, am saying is due to any such prejudice whatsoever. But I have a prejudice against certain types of advertising, and I am not ashamed to confess it. I will even admit that I have a strong prejudice against part of Piccadilly Circus. I am ashamed when I see it: I am not proud of it. For these reasons I trust that the Motion will not be opposed by Her Majesty's Government. They have already altered the plan. I would ask them to alter it again and not to upset the system which has been en-

  627
  joyed by us in this country for thirty years and which I, for one, have come to be proud of.
  9.0 p.m.
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON; My Lords, before coming to the remarks I intend to make, I must refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and what he said about the Conservative Party having put on a Whip for this debate. Admittedly, they have put on a Whip, but I would ask your Lordships to remember that the Government policy has been attacked by what is a highly organised group who, in effect, have their own Whip. I saw in the papers just a day or two ago that they were calling a meeting at which to discuss what they were going to do in this debate and were calling upon anyone who opposed the Government White Paper in this matter to attend it. In addition to that, the Leader of the Labour Party in another place—
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I know that the noble Lord does not wish to misrepresent the position. I can assure him that there has, in fact, been no Whip at all and there is no "highly organised body"—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: "Order; order!"
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: What, in fact, has occurred—and I hope the noble Lord who is on the Front Bench will contain himself for a moment, while I tell him what has occurred; and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who is here in his place will confirm exactly what I say—is that those of us who proposed to take part in this debate on a particular side had a meeting together to decide who was to speak first and who were to be the Tellers. There has been no Whip and, speaking for myself and, I believe, for everybody else, no attempt has been made by any of us to influence a single vote.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Certainly, there has been no organisation of any sort or kind.
  LORD MOYNE: I may say that the first I heard of this debate was in The Times. I was in "Dublin's fair city," and not in the backwoods, by the way.
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I, and many of your Lordships, have
  628
  received enough literature about the opposition to this White Paper to know that a great effort has been made to influence the votes in the Division which will take place at the end of this debate. Further to that, I would point out that the Leader of the Labour Party in another place has said publicly that, if the Government are to pass a measure instituting commercial television, the Labour Party, if and when it gets into power, will repeal that. Certainly, if anything is a Party attack, that is. I do not believe that this Party was the first to instigate the putting on of a Whip. It was forced into that position because it had no alternative. I should like to refer to one thing that has been said in this debate by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who moved the Motion when he referred to the children's programmes. He was deploring the fact that, when commercial television comes in, there may not be children's programmes of the kind or standard that the B.B.C. put on now. I should like to remind your Lordships of one thing: the B.B.C. will go on just as it has been going on up to now—in fact, on an even larger scale, covering, I am told, over 90 per cent. of the country. I think there is (I have noticed it in the country) a growing impression among some people who have not studied this question closely that somehow, in some way, commercial television will take over the whole field. That is not so. The B.B.C. will be just as strong as it has ever been and will put on all the programmes it has ever put on.
  I will not follow any further other noble Lords who have spoken because I want to talk about the question of employees in the television field. That is a matter which, to a certain extent, has been overlooked. The fact is that there is considerable unemployment amongst artistes, actors and actresses, and this unemployment is serious and growing. These people are unable to find jobs on the stage or in films, and they look to television to provide them with the employment that they cannot find on the orthodox stage. Unfortunately, the B.B.C. is able to absorb only a very small proportion of those unemployed people, and they are now looking to commercial television to provide them with the employment which they have not so far been able to obtain. I should like to quote as an authority for this statement

  629
  some words spoken by Mr. Donald Wolf it on September 28 of this year—and he is in a position to know what conditions are like in the acting industry. Mr. Wolf it said that 80 per cent. of the actors and actresses in the country would be unemployed in six months unless something was done—something in the nature of commercial television—to employ more of them. In addition to that, I know of one body outside which has received 3,000 letters from artistes saying that they are desperate for employment. That is a rather serious situation, because these people are an essential part of our community. This question not only affects them but also covers cinema technicians, many of whom have been thrown out of work by the closing of film studios. They, too, look to the field of television to provide them with employment.
  Leaving the question of unemployment, I should like to turn to another side of this same matter—that of the choice of an employer, which I believe is of great importance to the work in this industry. The fact is that no choice exists at the moment either in the television field or in sound radio in this country. Of course, television is being affected by the Government's proposals, but it will at least be something if a choice of employment is to be permitted in that field. In a dispute between a producer or a director and an artiste, or in the case of friction between them, or a dislike arising, possibly through the fault of neither one, it is the artiste, the actor or the actress, who has to "knuckle under" and take the situation that exists, for he or she has no alternative employment elsewhere. If he is to earn his daily bread in the vocation for which he has been trained, he has to stay there and "knuckle under" to the producer.
  I believe that this situation in which there is only one source of employment—namely, the B.B.C. television services—is bad for the artiste, is bad for the standard of programmes and, I believe, bad for the whole of the television industry. In the first place, it leads to subservience on the part of the artiste, to the producer, and with highly individualistic people, as actors are, it must kill the individuality upon which they so greatly depend for their performances. It must stifle their talent. Secondly, it
  630
  leads to favouritism in the choosing of artistes for particular programmes. Those are the inevitable consequences which one has to bear from a monopoly, and the scheme outlined in the White Paper will remedy that situation. I feel quite sure that many actors and actresses will welcome this Government measure as being a great boon and salvation to them.
  I should like to turn for a moment to American television, because I believe that American television has been rather seriously maligned in this country; and it must be irritating for many people in America to hear their television constantly represented by people overseas as such an awful thing. I go to America about once a year on private business, and when I go there I always look at the television. There is a television set in the house in which I stay. To be frank, the programmes are not nearly so bad as people make out. Television in America really does not deserve be frightful reputation that has been given to it. Of course, it is easy to find lapses in television anywhere—I could even mention one or two that I have seen on the B.B.C. Generally, the Americans put on very much more sport on their television than the B.B.C. does; it is possible to watch a boxing match every night—and very good they are too. There are also quite a number of high-quality features, such as concerts and talks. I did not find the degrading and awful programmes which one so often hears are supposed to be put on American television.
  The chief criticism I would make about American television is that they almost invariably put the advertisement in the wrong place, usually in the middle of the feature and often just when it is nearing the most interesting part. That can be very annoying. However, as we see in the White Paper, that is not to be allowed over here and I think that is a very wise decision. I would add that one must remember that Americans are of a very different character from ourselves, and it is somewhat natural that their radio entertainment should be of a different character, too. So perhaps it is not surprising that we do not like it and are not used to it. It is simply that we are not Americans.
  I believe most firmly and conscientiously that we have no right to

  631
  withhold an alternative television programme from the British public. In the first place, talking about alternatives, I do not believe that it is a really practicable proposition for the B.B.C. to put on an alternative television programme, because I think that would defeat its own ends. Already we are told that there are about 20 per cent. evasions of licences amongst those who possess television sets. As we have also been told, it would cost £5 or £6 for a licence for every television owner if the B.B.C. were to be able to put on an alternative programme. I am quite certain that if the cost were raised to that figure the number of evasions of payment of the fee would mount up enormously, so that possibly there would be nothing like the amount of revenue coming to the B.B.C. to pay for that alternative programme. In any case, I think it would be a considerable imposition nowadays, with the fairly high cost of living which we have known since the war, to make people pay yet more for their television licence.
  Again, for an alternative programme to be really worthwhile I believe that it must not only be a different programme but must also be different in type and character. The B.B.C. certainly would not be able to produce an alternative programme different in type and character from that which they already produce. It needs to be produced in a different way by different people altogether. My Lords, I believe that it is wrong to leave so powerful a medium as television—which is, after all, far more powerful than sound radio; it is something that can come into everyone's home visually and influence them—in the hands of just a few people who can decide what the public of this country shall see. I believe that the Government have taken the right step in introducing their White Paper, and I shall certainly vote against this Motion.
  9.15 p.m.
  LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I have to begin by declaring an interest: I am the Vice-Chairman of a company which advertises its stout under a name which is mine but not Moyne. Some of your Lordships may think that my interest would lead me to support the White Paper, but you would be wrong—it leads me to oppose it. I am opposed to it
  632
  mainly for economic reasons. When I first heard of this kind of proposal, for about five dull-witted minutes I thought that advertisements on the television meant getting your television free; that the money for it came down like manna from heaven and cost nobody anything. Fortunately my wits soon cleared. But there has been a lot of shouting—a lot of quite expensive shouting, with loudspeakers in the streets, I am told—even quite lately about "free" television, a phrase which, if I may say so, is dangerously ambiguous and misleading. There is no such thing as free television. Somebody has to pay for it. In some cases it will be the consumer, in some cases the shareholders, in some cases the smaller concerns who would fall by the wayside. In so far as it was borne by shareholders, approximately half the cost would fall directly on the Exchequer in reduced income and profits tax. It will surprise me if those jealous guardians of the nation's purse who meet in another place are not concerned at this attempt to tax the community to pay for a new service without the scrutiny and quantitative control of Parliament.
  It will be argued, I know, by noble Lords who take the other view, first that expenditure on television would be at the expense of Press and poster advertising. This has been considered very carefully in my own firm and I can only say that the view formed on looking at what happened in America is that such expenditure, if we were obliged to incur it, would probably in the long run have to be additional to what we spend already. Next, it will be argued that the community will gain by increased production resulting from increased sales of consumer goods. But, my Lords, we live in an age of inflation, to combat which, since 1947, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has painfully budgeted for a surplus; and our ability to thrive and export depends on saving and on spending less at home. If commercial television simply increases the sales of one manufacturer as against another it will cost the nation and the State a pretty penny; if it succeeds in increasing consumption it brings us nearer to that inflationary disaster which the Party to which I am so proud to belong has worked so hard to prevent. And, my Lords, there are other inflationary tendencies concealed in these proposals,

  633
  since many companies would undoubtedly be obliged to meet the cost of television advertising by putting less to reserve and would have to go to the market for new issues. The inflationary spiral would therefore be directly increased, whether or not the scheme were successful in promoting the total consumption of consumer goods which might be so disastrous to us all. If those who favour this scheme were wrong, and sales were not increased in the aggregate, it would be bad enough; but if they were right it would be far worse. Really, our Party cannot have it both ways; they cannot urge wage restraint and thrift upon us while at the same time introducing a new and expensive method to stimulate consumption.
  One of the most astonishing features of the plans in the White Paper is that producers have not been consulted about them. I can only speak of my own knowledge regarding our own company. We, as one of the six largest advertisers in the country, have never been asked whether we wish to see television advertising introduced. It would appear that industry is to stand beside the State as a milch cow, whether it likes it or not. It is no use saying that no advertiser need go on to the television screen if he does not want to; competition is likely to drive him there. Would it not be right to discover whether anything like a majority of producers favour this vast waste of their own and the country's money before inaugurating this service for their supposed benefit?
  The Incorporated Society of British Advertisers and the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, in an open letter to the Postmaster General, which many of your Lordships must have seen, while pleading for flexibility if advertising is introduced, begin and end very fairly by emphasising that they hold no mandate to press for competitive television, which is surely evidence that producers as a whole are not clamouring for it. I believe that the majority of manufacturers would prefer this expensive and extravagant race never to begin; they say very little about it, because if it does begin they realise that they may be forced by the snowball effect of competition to participate, and they do not want to have to eat their words. I, being Irish, have a logical mind, and I see no difficulty at all in saying that I do not want this expensive
  634
  race to be run, but that if it is run we might be obliged to go in for it and would acquit ourselves creditably. I do urge on the Government the advisability of seeing whether industry as a whole wants this thing started. I am told that it is the most expensive form of advertising in existence in proportion to the results obtained.
  We have heard a great deal about breaking the B.B.C. monopoly uttered in almost the same breath as tributes to the B.B.C. for its fairness and its impartiality. But in fact the B.B.C. is not a monopoly in the true sense of the word at all; it is a sounding board from which all sections of opinion, all varieties of taste may make themselves heard and in due course seen. Critics of the B.B.C. have been concerned with ways in which it has not yet gone off the rails, but conceivably might do so. Well, let us watch it and see that it is as good in the future as it has been in the past. That is up to all of us. It is not a monopoly but a balance of representative opinion effected by its Governors. If the balance goes wrong, it can be set right. Parliament has just reaffirmed its Charter, and presumably thinks well of its functioning. But if Parliament feels that there should be a separate programme for television under separate control, that can, I suggest, be achieved within the framework of the B.B.C. at infinitely lower cost and without resort to advertising. Personally, I would simply favour an alternative television programme under B.B.C. direction, bearing relation to the first as the Light or the Third do to the Home Service.
  But if separate control is wanted, why not have an independent Scottish (or Welsh) television programme, guided by an independent Committee of Scotsmen (or Welshmen) who would appoint a director and a small producing staff responsible to them? These could use B.B.C. stations and technicians. It is only, after all, against programme selection that any monopolistic criticism can be raised. To pay for the extra expense of this independent director and staff I suggest—and this meets a point regarding evasion made by Lord Fairfax of Cameron—licence fees for the gadgets which would make an alternative programme possible. Such gadgets could be registered and numbered and the seller could be made responsible for re-

  635
  cording the names of the purchasers. Alternatively—a different arrangement—it would be possible to give a choice, on the buying of an ordinary licence (giving the right to listen to either programme), to have one with a thistle or a leak on it and to earmark the money from such licences for the running of special programmes. National sentiment would ensure a certain measure of initial support which might increase with the popularity of the programmes. I do not wish to be specific about such suggestions. A Countrymen's Committee would be an alternative approach. But it is obvious that anything of this kind would cost the nation far less than what is proposed, and would ensure that the televiewer, and nobody else, would pay for what he got, which is, after all the only fair way unless Parliament chooses to vote the money for something extra.
  I suggest that the B.B.C. should be allowed to retain all the funds it collects instead of being taxed as at present. The White Paper would indirectly and directly finance a rival to the B.B.C. while leaving that body with one hand, so to speak, tied behind its back. How much better to set the B.B.C. free and let it do the job instead of resorting to this elaborate and expensive subterfuge to make the man without a television set pay for the pleasure of the man with one, out of the increased costs of what he has to buy, by a penny here and there to begin with, and perhaps afterwards by runaway inflation that would undermine and jeopardise his whole standard of life.
  9.25 p.m.
  LORD FOLEY: My Lords, I should like to say straight away how happy I am to be able to take part in this debate, as I am, and always have been, extremely interested in all matters appertaining to the entertainment industry. I congratulate the Government on their courage in the face of considerable opposition in proposing to go ahead with alternative competitive television. I am 100 per cent. certain that the proposed measures are a step in the right direction, and whilst I welcome the proposals already made, I feel that the Government have not gone far enough. I should like to see commercial television stations completely in the hands of free enterprise—with, of course, reasonable controls. I feel that
  636
  the danger of the proposed new system, in which a first alternative station is owned by the Government and staffed by Government employees, is that it may well become a second B.B.C. I am pleased to see from the White Paper that programme companies will be responsible for producing the programmes, and I can only sincerely hope and trust that this does not mean that the station will produce the programmes and merely allocate space at the beginnings or ends of these programmes for commercial advertisement. If this were to take place it would be the same as if the B.B.C. offered advertising space at the beginning or end of one of its present television programmes.
  It has often been stressed by opponents of commercial television that the sponsor-advertiser should have no control over the programme. This, I feel, is a bad idea, since, quite obviously, the person who spends large sums of money on a programme to advertise his goods must be allowed to have some say in the production of the programme. I am not suggesting that the sponsor should produce the programme, but I feel that he should be allowed to go to reputable companies, well versed in such matters, and be able at least to indicate to them the type of programme that he desires. There are many thousands of artistes, producers, technicians, and experts of all sorts in this country who are looking forward to the day when the great new experiment of free alternative commercial television will arrive. If all plans for this measure were abandoned because of certain well-meaning but, I feel, thoroughly ill-advised people, it would be more than a pity; it would be a great tragedy, not only for the television industry, but for the entire entertainment industry.
  Let us face facts. The B.B.C. has done a very good job with regard to television despite its many problems, the chief of which, of course, is a grave lack of funds. But we must not blind ourselves to the fact that, whilst many programmes, such as outside broadcasts, sport, et cetera, are excellent, the standard of most studio productions is, on the whole, pitifully poor. It is interesting (and this I think is an important point) that most of the top programmes of the B.B.C.—that is, programmes which have a big viewing

  637
  audience—are programmes directly derived from American commercial television. An example of this is, What's my Line? which is an extremely popular programme. What's my Line? is bought by a private company direct from American commercial television and is sold to the B.B.C. It is therefore a direct product of the much-despised commercial television. Yet that is one of the most popular programmes we are seeing today. Another point worth noting is that sport, which we know is an enormous success, and which is well done, is, after all, not entirely without a commercial connection. A boxing match is produced by the boxing promoter for financial reasons. I feel that this should be borne in mind.
  I believe that, with the right encouragements, advertisers will supply ample funds under the new system, and I am confident that these programmes could be immensely improved. I cannot for one moment agree with those opponents of commercial television who believe that in striving to reach the greatest possible viewing public, and pandering to general taste, there will be a lowering of the moral tone of many programmes. I feel sure that the reverse will be the case. Surely no sponsor in his right mind is going to associate himself, or the article he produces, with a programme which will be adversely criticised on moral grounds; and the fact that the station itself will have the final word as to whether or not the programme shall go over the air is in any case an additional safeguard. Of course, we do not want the same sort of thing here as in America: we have a different way of life and different standards of taste. But even with regard to this aspect, I feel that the opponents of commercial television have seized upon the worst aspects of it in the United States and ignored the best; and I can assure your Lordships that there are many commercial television programmes over there which are absolutely first-class.
  I have never seen American television myself, but many friends of mine who are experts in the entertainment industry, and whose opinion I value highly, inform me that there are programmes produced in the States on commercial television of a standard and variety undreamed of in this country, and that even the com-
  638
  mercials at the beginning or end of these programmes are themselves in excellent taste and sometimes as short as to be merely the bare announcement of the name or title of the firm producing the programme. I am convinced that in the entertainment industry, as much as, if not more than, in all other industries, free, unhampered, healthy competition is the only way of ensuring a high standard.
  The aim will be for the advertiser to produce a programme better than that produced by someone else. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should dispense with the B.B.C. in favour of commercial television. They will certainly have to improve their programmes very greatly if they are to compete with good commercial television, but I fee, certain that healthy competition will also have a beneficial effect upon this excellent public Corporation, which I in no way decry, for I know only too well the tremendous difficulties under which they have been working in the past.
  In conclusion, I should like to say this. There are many eminent men in this House to whom we all listen with great respect, men who, indeed, have a profound grasp of many subjects and matters of perhaps more weighty import than this. I cannot help feeling, however (I hope that this House will forgive me for saying this) that by the very virtue of their position in life and the responsibilities they bear, they are somewhat out of touch with the entertainment industry. On the whole, the entertainment industry is not usually a subject which comes within the scope of people holding high public position. I am convinced that commercial television will come—nothing and no one can stop it. Its arrival can be only temporarily delayed. Here I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who said that if we do not do something about this, other people in other countries will. To my mind, it is the only logical way to run a television industry, and, indeed, the whole entertainment industry; and I must repeat that, whilst welcoming the White Paper, I am disappointed that the Government have not had the courage now to give to the people of this country the finest television service and the best possible entertainment in this medium, which I know all your Lordships will agree they so richly deserve.
  9.33 p.m.
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, it may be thought that a Scotsman has not much connection with this particular debate or with the White Paper, but I make a national claim for the right to participate in this debate, television having been given to the world by a Scotsman. The name Baird, who hailed from Helens burgh, is one to conjure with in respect of television. I am glad that this important matter is being treated by this side of the House, at least, as a non-Party issue, and that we are quite free to vote as we choose. I do not suggest that I shall make a very imposing contribution to this debate, but to-morrow night I shall give my vote in the Lobby in favour of the Resolution that is before us.
  On reading Command Paper 9005, I was struck by the words of the first sentence in paragraph 3 on page 3 entitled "Question of Monopoly"—namely:
  "As television has great and increasing power in influencing men's minds, the Government believes that its control should not remain in the hands of a single authority, however excellent it may be."
  This is a curious declaration, and the subsequent attitude would justify the Government in adding after the words I have quoted a statement to the effect that we must now take television out of the hands of those who are doing their best to give a real service of high quality and put great power at the mercy of persons whose concern is, by any and every means, to add to the number of viewers so that the interests of advertisers who furnish the revenue may be served.
  It is pleaded by supporters of the proposals that a decline in the quality of programmes is not inevitable. I do not think I am unfairly prejudiced in declaring that the change of motive is liable to have that result. Remember, "he who pays the piper calls the tune." I also remember that our own national poet, Robert Burns, said:
  "When self the wavering balance shakes, It's rarely right adjusted."
  I find educationists and church workers very much worried by the possibilities now facing us as a result of the Government's proposals. The effect upon children and young people is dreaded. The subject came before the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland last May, when the work and findings of the Church and Nation Committee were
  640
  under discussion. The attitude of this great free Assembly which, unlike the great established Church in the Southern part of this Island, has full sovereign powers in all matters concerning its constitution and government, was clearly against commercial television. Not wishing even to appear to usurp the authority of the Government or of Parliament, the Assembly called for a free vote to be allowed when the matter came up in your Lordships' House and in another place, being fully convinced that the good sense of Members would settle the issue.
  I cannot speak with any great knowledge of what happens in America, but I had a personal experience in New York five years ago which I shall never forget. It was my first introduction to television, and I believe it was the same for the four colleagues who were with me. On that occasion the advertising of somebody's shirts (I think it was) was done against a background of all-in wrestling bouts taking place in Madison Square Garden. These proved to be spectacles of sheer ugliness. "Sport" is a dignified name that could never be used to describe how those repulsive looking men savagely attacked each other. All of them had heavy limbs and gross bodies, topped with what might be described as Piltdown skulls—I could not speak as to their lower jaws as these were covered with a short growth of black stubble, which added to my disgust at their appearance. I saw nothing entertaining in these contests. The whole programme was repugnant to me, and I ask your Lordships to reflect upon the effect of such spectacles upon children. They might be useful in the hands of a lecturer seeking to demonstrate the feasibility of the Darwinian theory of human evolution, but that would be educational and the broadcast had no such qualities. It is complained that advertisements interrupt programmes in America. The intervention by the advertising of the shirts was a blessing in connection with that particular broadcast.
  Frankly, I am apprehensive regarding the use that might be made of this great invention by advertisesrs. They would provide the income to run the competitive, or sponsored or commercial service—the adjective is really immaterial; it all comes to the same thing at the end.

  641
  Here let me pose a question: would not those who pay for the advertising of their wares be able to charge that as a working expense, thus reducing their profits and therefore their liability to taxation; and does not that mean that indirectly the Treasury would be subsidising the proposed new service? The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, put that same point as an assertion; I put it as a question, hoping to get a definite answer, so that the report on this matter might be complete.
  I want to give another sample of what takes place in America by quoting the words of a well-known minister of a New York City church. He is the Reverend Doctor H. E. Fosdick, and I quote his words from a letter written by a correspondent to the Edinburgh Evening News and printed in that paper last Monday. Doctor Fosdick said:
  "Every ingenious device that money can buy is being used to persuade our children to become addicted to alcohol. In homes where the use of liquor is discouraged by family tradition and parental choice, the solicitation of T.V. is continually urging the children and young people to become drinkers. This invasion of our families by urgent appeals to acquire a habit which is ruining millions of our people is insufferable."
  So says the Reverend Doctor Fosdick. It might be asserted that nothing like this could ever take place here. Are we so sure? Are we certain that our standard will always remain higher than that prevailing in the United States of America? I ask your Lordships to look at what happens to us at the hands of advertisers to-day. We are treated, for example, to a slogan consisting of three words of an unfinished sentence. I am thinking of the words: "Beer is best"—which, in my opinion, should be rendered: "Beer is best left alone." That would complete the sentence and state a demonstrable truth. Beer is a narcotic drink consisting principally of water to which has been added certain substances originally having some food value, but this value has been almost, if not completely, destroyed by the process of manufacture. The resulting concoction impairs health, contributes to disease, lowers industrial efficiency and output, increases the incidence of road and other accidents, and is the cause of an immense amount of human misery and degradation.
  But, notwithstanding these proved facts, the false slogan: "Beer is best" still
  642
  stands because of the wealth used to give it circulation, while those who can prove its falsity have not the power at their disposal fully to blazon forth the truth. I give only that one sample of the dangerous use self-interested persons could make of this proposed new instrument of publicity. Other instances will suggest themselves to your Lordships, especially with regard to alcoholic liquors, in connection with which statements are widely circulated which are scientifically untrue. We can ignore the slogans when we see them on the hoardings and in print, but the same kind of appeal carried into our homes and shown on television screens is a very different matter. The dangers, as I see them, especially to children and impressionable young people in their formative years are so great that I cannot possibly do other than oppose the White Paper proposals.
  9.45 p.m.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, I am glad that the Government saw fit to remind noble Lords that the subject now under debate is a matter of some importance. I did not regard their communication as a command or as a crack of the whip, but I was glad to be reminded of this matter. I think perhaps the Government might have saved themselves trouble because the group who have given orders for mobilisation against the White Paper policy would have publicised the need for our attendance. I intervene to make it clear that, although I have been associated with the B.B.C., and have sat on its Advisory Council, I do not agree with, or even acquiesce in, the statements of those who have had intimate connection with the B.B.C. I have sat in company with men for whom I have the greatest respect; I have sat at the knees of the noble Viscount who sits on those seclusive and exclusive Benches, but
  "…evermore
  Came out by that same door wherein I went",
  though I was anxious to learn. Yet I think it is right that I should tell your Lordships of my personal experience which led me to certain conclusions.
  I inquired and I criticised. I should have thought that membership of a General Advisory Council carried with it the duty to do so. I raised various questions. I remember, in the

  643
  first place, raising the question of the insidious infiltration of the inglenook of the home by veiled Communist propaganda. I was met with a considerable essay, running into several pages, on the freedom of speech—with which, of course, I agree. No doubt eternal vigilance is necessary to maintain our freedom. But eternal vigilance is also necessary to prevent enemies of the State from getting a medium of propaganda which they would deny to others if they came into power.
  I ventured to criticise some programmes, but I was informed that millions—I forget the number of millions—had listened to these programmes. That statement was based on the reports of the Listener Research organisation. On inquiry, it transpired that the Listener Research organisation consisted of a few inquirers who ascertained by calls on various houses what people had listened to the night before, or the week before, and what programmes they liked. Apparently, the resulting number was multiplied by some multiple which was arrived at by some unknown means. So it was ascertained that so many millions listened. If I had ventured to put before my medical colleagues a statement that I had proved there was a definite familial influence on the incidence of some particular disease, and revealed that I had made inquiries from a selected number of households and then multiplied the result by millions, I should have been ruled out of court. I hope that the most reverend Primate, when he gave us the information, apparently ex cathedrâ that the average number of hours spent by male and female adults, and by children, watching and listening to television in the United States was four and a half a day, was not basing that assertion on the same kind of statistical fantasy such as I have outlined.
  The next thing I asked for was extra facilities. I asked that my profession should be able to have facilities similar to those enjoyed by my profession in the United States of America, that on a selected band of frequency we should be able to transmit to a selected audience, in a selected place, educative and informative television. Technical explanations, very laboured, were prof-
  644
  ferred in excuse for the fact that this facility could not be given. These explanations might have been justified, but the fact that remained in my mind was that my colleagues in America could pass over the air a perfect picture of an operation for 1,500 surgeons from all over the world, yet we in this country cannot do it. Another detail I raised was the remuneration of artistes. We all know that those who have entertainment to offer cannot afford to be off the stage, off the cinema, or off the air. That is no excuse for under-paying them, nor is it right for any public corporation to take advantage of the situation. Why did these experiences impress me particularly? It was because I thought that they were all inherent in the fact that there was a monopoly; that monopoly created an atmosphere of self-satisfaction and complacency, and allowed those concerned a comfortable night's rest, in spite of having refused facilities which are enjoyed in other countries.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who has been so assiduous in his attendance in this House since proposing the Motion, admits by its terms that the opponents to any duplication of television had lost on the first round, the question of the absolute monopoly. He proposes that, instead of there being the new organisation proposed by the Government, the B.B.C. should run a second service—which would re-create the monopoly against which I have such strong feelings. Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that I am no longer a member of the Advisory Council of the B.B.C. The noble Viscount admits the desirability of an alternative. He is an astute lawyer, and I should have thought he would have been more careful in his choice of words. I should have thought that, instead of "alternative," he would have used the word "duplicate." The noble Viscount also quoted from the Report of the Sykes Committee, but he did not quote the recommendation that the Government should keep their hands free to grant additional licences and should consider various alternatives.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is right about that. I did not quote it, but if he reads Hansard he will see in what I said a direct reference to it.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, I am pleased to hear that, because I should not like to believe that the noble Viscount would have deliberately omitted any reference to it. Nor did he quote the words recently uttered by Sir Frederick Sykes, that the Government White Paper reflects the public feeling which is now manifest. Perhaps the noble Viscount was not aware of that. The noble Viscount dealt with the question of coverage, and tried to draw a comparison between this country and the United States, to the detriment of this country. But surely it is fantastic to try to draw a comparison with such differences in distances. The whole of the United Kingdom, or, if not the whole of the United Kingdom, then the whole of England, could be put in Lake Michigan and still you could sail round it. Comparisons with the United States are invidious. There is one thing that I feel keenly when the United States are mentioned in this regard, and that is a sense of humiliation that the United States are so far ahead of us, although we in this country were the pioneers of television. And why are they so far ahead? Because industry in this country was cramped by monopoly. In favour of the United States, I should like to speak from personal experience of the educational broadcasts on television that are being put over by the universities and by the hospitals, and, as I have already mentioned, in the case of surgical congresses.
  I should like now to say a word about advertisements. I believe that advertisements create a desire to improve the individual's lot in various respects, according to his state. I believe that salesmanship encourages production, and advertisement is a part of salesmanship. The bulk of advertising is decent and honest. It is informative and educative. In regard to the Press, I would say that the better the paper the more people want to advertise in it, regardless of its circulation. In fact, some papers are bought because of their advertisements. I cannot understand Lord Moyne's anxiety. Obviously he already spends "a packet" on advertisements and does not want to add to that side of his expenditure account; but, after all, he is in rather a favoured position. Everybody knows that "Moyne's a Guinness" and that
  646
  "Guinness is good for you"; so perhaps he can "lay off" for a time.
  I submit that the Government's White Paper is an excellent effort to meet the views of others, views which have been expressed in a previous debate in your Lordships' House. The Government have introduced an element of competition, and they claim, I think, rightly, that their proposals are in the interests of the viewers, the writers, the artistes and the technicians. They have put down a limit of ten years, and the proposals are open to revision. They have devised effective control and given greater freedom. Therefore I support the Government and oppose the Motion. At the same time, I should like to remark, before I sit down, that I hope there will be no Division. After a debate like this, the value of which, on the whole, is merely informative, it is ridiculous that there should be a Division. I should also like to remark (perhaps the noble Viscount who opened the debate will give me his attention), that I have no readiness to accept his judgment that, because I oppose the Motion. I desire to add another influence to the degrading of the public taste. Nor am I prepared to accept the judgment of the pontifical pronouncements from Printing House Square, and accept a condemnation, because I support the Government's White Paper, as wanting
  "the educational purpose of broadcasting deposed and vulgarity—or, at best, triviality—enthroned."
  I thank your Lordships for your patience at this late hour.
  10.0 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF DONEGALL: My Lords, I am a very late comer to this debate in your Lordships' House, and shall occupy your Lordships for only two minutes. We have heard much argument to-day. I know that Omar Khayyam's statement about going out by that same door by which you enter has been quoted several times, so I will not quote it again. What I feel about this matter is that we cannot as a nation ran counter to the trend of the times—the "March of Time," as they call it in America. We are going to get commercial television, anyhow; it is just as inevitable as the sands running out and the tide coming in. The Government suggests that we should do it in a British way. Otherwise, we shall

  647
  undoubtedly get it in a foreign way, by aeroplane, by submarine or from the Continent of Europe. It cannot be avoided in the long run. Let us as we have throughout our history, look at the trend of the times, and go with it, adapting the current tendencies to the British way of life, rather than try to fight what will undoubtedly be a losing battle.
  10.2 p.m.
  LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I should like, first of all, to refer to a point made by the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, about the prejudice against the businessman shown by those of us who support the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. We should not be talking about the businessman at all in this debate. Why should we be talking about the businessman, when we are talking about this romantic child of science which the B.B.C. have so admirably nurtured, and which should continue to be completely separate from the commercial factor? It is not that we have a prejudice against the businessman, but that we think it extraordinary that the question of the businessman should be taking up so much time in this debate. If I may say so, coming into the Chamber and listening to the debate, at certain moments one might think that it was a debate on industry and trade, instead of on this sensitive child of modern science. We have hardly talked at all about the problems of the medium itself.
  I suppose that many noble Lords, on both sides of the House, are at a disadvantage in not being viewers. How many of us, by being here this evening later than usual, are separated from programmes on television that we should want to see? I myself am not a regular viewer, but I am a keen one. I know that on many days there are few things one would want to look at, when one would rather listen to the Third Programme, or the Home Service, or even the Light Programme. But there are days when certain good things happen, which I am sure would never come about but through the B.B.C.—and these things will improve. The need of a second programme is a crying need. I consider that the B.B.C. are crippled by their own unitary audience at the moment. They would put on more thoughtful pro-
  648
  grammes, were it not for the fact of there being only this one programme. We should regard it as something abhorrent in sound. This absence of a second programme is something to be got over as quickly as possible in television and it will never come about until the B.B.C. have the money to do it. In fact, the whole problem is whether the B.B.C. will have the money to provide this second programme. I take the view that it is a pity that the country was ever encouraged to think that television was something cheap. The mere addition of another £1 to the cost of a licence for sound radio only I consider to have been a mistake in the first place. We should be paying £3 or £4 for this magnificent service with which the B.B.C. provides us.
  I find it mystifying and strange to think that a Conservative Government—and I speak, perhaps, as one of the most non-Party animals or beings in this House—should be putting forward these ideas for commercial television; a Party who were themselves responsible for the formation of the B.B.C. in 1926, and who were proud of it. I think this shows an extraordinary collapse of outlook and taste. I was reading to-day the Charter of 1926, and there is a paragraph in the Royal Salutation of the Charter which is interesting for its tone and outlook. It says:
  "AND WHEREAS it has been made to appear to Us that more than two million persons in our Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have applied for and taken out Licences to install and work apparatus for wireless telegraphy for the purpose of receiving Broadcast programmes AND WHEREAS in view of the widespread interest which is thereby shown to be taken by Our People in the Broadcasting Service and of the great value of the Service as a means of education and entertainment, We deem it desirable that the Service should be developed and exploited to the best advantage and in the national interest."
  One notes there the use of the noun "education" before that of "entertainment."
  I think the Postmaster General suggested that those who support this Motion could not, in fact, be interested in what the people thought, or wanted, in not wishing the air to be free. I thought that he slipped out a most revealing sentence, to which I should like to cling for a few moments, when he said, talking

  649
  of the new commercial programmes: "For the purposes of our argument they have got to be lighter than at the moment." The crying need is for a television programme that will be nearer to the Home Service, and further away from the evenings of light entertainment that we often get at the moment. The noble Earl asked, "Is it a crime to be light? Is it a crime to give people what they like?" Of course it is not. But, as I think those of us who support this Motion all feel, the position of the B.B.C. is one of leadership, and not of reflection only. The Times leader this morning referred to the B.B.C.'s "duty of acting as enlightened patron." We cannot think well of these Government propositions.
  The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, also asked for a definition of the word "debase." I should say that in this context the definition of "debase" is that the rival programme, the rival product of the producing companies, will, in fact, be competing with the B.B.C. for the largest audience, and competing in one channel only. How can that possibly fail to result in an appeal to people who want to view all-in wrestling from Liverpool, rather than to people who want to view a Brahms symphony from the Albert Hall? We do not for a moment suggest that everybody should be listening, or viewing as well as listening, to Brahms symphonies; but if the B.B.C. or, for that matter, your Lordships' House, have any function it is surely a responsibility of leadership and sensitivity.
  Now to turn for a moment to the White Paper and to the question of finance. The White Paper says that programmes of high quality are very expensive, and suggests that at first there will have to be a network operation. It says also, in a sort of schoolboy tone, in paragraph 7
  "…renting from the Post Office any necessary connecting links between stations…"
  I cannot think that the person who wrote that sentence, or the Government, have any serious idea of what it costs to run a television programme. I myself, as a former member of the B.B.C. staff—and I have gone to some trouble to find out—have always been fascinated with landlines. I think it is even more fascinating that a picture can travel through a cable than through the air. I find that the rental to the B.B.C. in one year for the landline between London and Man-
  650
  Chester—and I think the alternative channel will be concentrating on these two areas, where half or more than half, of the population live—is about£100,000. That is one-fifth of the proposed first birthday present of £500,000, or whatever it is—we do not yet knew properly: it is all so vague. In one studio alone, say at Lime Grove, let alone lighting or anything else in that studio, a unit of four or five cameras is worth perhaps £100,000. I think the biggest "cheek" of the whole matter is that the public are, in fact, paying for this equipment.
  I admire Mr. Norman Collins as a writer though I know that, over this matter, he is on the other side. I think that what he wrote in a recent number of the Political Quarterly is interesting. Referring again to this question of the unreality, most of us are talking without reference to the programmes themselves. We probably do not even know that we could go and look at television within this building at any moment. If we were at home we probably should not be looking at it. But this is a good sentiment and one we should take to heart:
  "A note of singular unreality has hung over the whole discussion. It has been—and still is—rather like debating the case for a free Press with a thoughtful Polynesian whose only experience in the matter has been a tattered piece of newspaper that once chanced to drift upon his virgin coral foreshore."
  Speaking as a person who has been a producer in the B.B.C., I resent the view that there is not within the B.B.C. monopoly a tremendous spur and instigation towards excellence through competition between services, and especially between producers. There is the spur and responsibility of being in a special position. The great thing is that there is never any ulterior motive. I think the ulterior motive through advertising is in itself thoroughly sinister.
  It has been said before in this debate, but it remains an overriding fact that the only revenue in support of the alternative programmes will come from the advertisers themselves. Surely, we are a great enough people to stick to this idea of the B.B.C. as an instrument of leadership. There is absolutely no analogy with the Press. If one thinks of The Times or any ether newspaper the pages are so planned that the advertisements do not hold you up. If you are reading a story on the home news page

  651
  of The Times you do not have to look down to the south-east corner to see an advertisement for a Rover car, if you do not want to. In the time factor, you are held up for three or four minutes. You may turn off, but the great mass of people will not, and they will be inoculated against excellence by whatever happens. In any case, it is the thin end of the wedge, and ultimately you will get advertisements in the middle of programmes.
  I wish to say very little more, but may I say this on this point of freedom. The main attack on the B.B.C. monopoly has taken the line that the people must be satisfied by freeing the air. I am afraid that I am in a mood of extraordinary bewilderment and apprehension. If, on principle, the air must be free on television, what are the future plans of the Government for sound radio? Are the Government not horrified that this sound radio will continue in its present form? Or do they think that there is no particular interest from the advertisers' or other persons' point of view and that it is a dying art? I think there is a sinister aspect in their clinging on to what is always the captive audience of television. Unlike the noble Viscount who so brilliantly opened this debate, I have only once, and then only for a brief moment, appeared on television. But as a viewer I can see what a tremendous captive audience there is for this. Even the mere shifting of images themselves on the screen has a witchcraft quality. What a golden opportunity for advertising! There are 10 or 15 million people who may be looking at this, but it is an intimate audience with people in their sitting-rooms or their drawing-rooms. This is one of the most encouraging facts in a mass age. What an absolutely immoral thing to introduce the commercial tone of voice and the commercial image into this intimate situation in people's own homes! Let us be great enough to resist this powerful tide that is upon us. Though we know that, mechanistically speaking, it is possible that we may be defeated on this Motion, we know that in any case morally we have an overriding and permanent victory.
  10.18 p.m.
  LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I feel that as a production engineer I should preface
  652
  my few remarks by declaring that I have no interest in the manufacture or sale of television apparatus, I have not been coached by anyone except myself as to what to say, and I do not own a television set. Not having the requisite bawbees to spare to buy one, I enjoy the warm hospitality of my English friends when there is some great event to witness. Your Lordships, I know, will agree that the use of so vital an idea-forming apparatus should first be considered from the children's point of view. I think that is most important. As the proud father of three children from seven to eleven years old, I hired a television set for the Coronation. In theevenings they make their own fun and games with the wife and the rest of us, and do their homework for school next day. This, I suggest, is for the young far preferable to goggling at a screen in a stuffy room for even one hour a day, let alone the four and a half hours a day that Lord Simon of Wythenshawe said was the time spent by the average American to-day.
  As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has observed, we cannot escape television. In this, of course, I agree; but I am convinced that we must avoid the particular presentation arrangement offered in the White Paper. I have come to this view after having listened, as we all have, with considerable care to the majority of the speeches in your Lordships' House. Those which have touched me most were, first, the speech by the most reverend Primate, then those of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe. They have convinced me that the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, should be supported. As the most reverend Primate said, we want less, and not more, television, and for that television we must pay as we can afford to do. We are fast becoming a nation of gogglers and leaners when we should be vigorous actors on the stage of life.
  10.21 p.m.
  LORD WALERAN: My Lords I, like other noble Lords, must make a declaration of my interest in a trade connected with this debate. I am a director of an electronics company, a subsidiary of E. K. Cole, Limited, which makes many television sets. Unlike the

  653
  noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, I tried to find out what were the views of the people in the industry. I am not speaking on their behalf, but I gather that their general view was that the industry itself, given the fact that there should be a second programme—which, as I gather this afternoon is the general opinion of your Lordships—should not enter into any argument in regard to its setting up. The industry's proper function is, when the second programme is created, to get down to the production of receivers and other equipment with the greatest possible speed and at the lowest possible cost.
  I want to make just two points. The first is that, while I agree with the policy in the White Paper (and if this Motion goes to a Division I shall certainly go into the Government Lobby), I think it will be a pity if it does, in fact, go to a Division. I should have thought that it would be much more helpful to your Lordships' House if the Motion were withdrawn and we used what has been said simply as a record of our debate. I want also to make the point—and this is where I clash with the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson—that in the B.B.C. technical services we have the finest technical services in the world, bar none. I do not think that it would be a good thing to add a second lot of transmitters, receivers and so on, particularly the links to which the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, referred, the radio and other links required to give full coverage. I have mentioned this matter to the Postmaster General: that practically at this moment it would be possible for the B.B.C. to lay on two more channels with virtually their existing equipment—they would not need a great deal more. If that could be done, a great deal of expense could be saved.
  We know that the world looks to this country in its achievements on the technical side of the B.B.C. which have been so ably backed up by the Post Office. We should not do anything to destroy that. It might be wiser, if necessary, to divorce the engineering side of the B.B.C. from the Corporation and let the production corporations use it. That would be a wise thing. There could be an arrangement that the B.B.C. would pay so much out of its licence money, and, equally, the Corporation could pay from
  654
  the money it gets from other sources. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said in his speech that if the Bill came along fairly soon and went through, then by Christmas of 1954 we should have millions of people, perhaps 10 millions, seeing a second programme. I am afraid that that cannot possibly be true unless Her Majesty's Government tell the industry what frequencies are to be allotted. It is impossible for the industry, in so short a space of time, to be in a position to design and produce the necessary equipment. I can see the position arising, when the Bill comes into being, that the production corporations will have hired staff under contract—they have to do that if they are to get a team and train them. They will be ready, but the producing side of the industry will not be able to get the new receivers on the market because they will not have been told the frequencies in time. This will be very costly for the companies and all concerned. We have the finest possible technical service in this country and we ought to use it without delay.
  10.26 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I entirely support the principles outlined in the White Paper by Her Majesty's Government and I must say I am somewhat astonished that so many of my Party are in opposition to the proposals. One would imagine that plans were afoot to destroy the B.B.C. On the contrary, have no doubt that they will materially assist the B.B.C. with their programmes and that competition will act as a spur to the B.B.C. to produce even better programmes than they do to-day, for every new television set that may be brought into use to view a competitive station will bring an additional licence fee to the B.B.C. A former Director-General of the B.B.C.—I think it was Sir FrederickOgilvie—was quoted to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. The noble Lord made one quotation but left cut one of the most important parts. In a letter to The Times on June 26, 1948, Sir Frederick said:
  "No matter how efficiently it is run, the B.B.C., good as it is, would gain vastly by the abolition of monopoly and the introduction of competition."
  I suggest that that is a very clear aid forthright statement of a former Director-

  655
  General of the B.B.C. which should not be lightly disregarded.
  I believe that the principle of free broadcasting is just as important as the principle of a free Press; and, in any case, the proposed system provides for stricter safeguards than those under which the Press operate to-day. I am not prepared to accept the present nationalisation of information, education and entertainment as it is envisaged by the present B.B.C. set-up; and the sooner the country has competitive stations the better. Otherwise we shall in course of time lose one of our "four freedoms" which this country has always endeavoured to maintain. I am afraid I do not recognise the right of anybody to choose for me what I am to see and hear; and I strongly urge your Lordships who sit on this side of the House to give your support to Her Majesty's Government. I cannot help feeling that certain sections of the Party opposite are in opposition to the White Paper proposals because they are well satisfied with the present system, which would enable them with little difficulty to control the mind of the nation. For this reason also I am quite unable to understand the attitude of certain Members on this side of your Lordships' House. Perhaps they have not realised the danger which may exist with a monopoly of the mind.
  There is no doubt that certain people in the country have sought deliberately to mislead the public by insisting that competitive television is merely an American system under another name. Of course, this is not so. Under the system outlined in the White Paper, the station and not the advertiser will be responsible for the programme. The analogy is the same as with the newspapers, which sell space for advertising but do not allow advertisers to direct their policy. It has been argued that a commercial station would still be entirely subservient to the advertiser because it enjoys no other source of revenue. Why should a commercial station be subservient to the advertiser any more than a newspaper is? It is well known that a newspaper cannot survive very long without revenue from advertisements. That is absolutely true. There was, in fact, one newspaper that tried it and failed dismally, and went into the Bankruptcy Court.
  656
  What do the B.B.C. say about advertising? Look at this large and imposing document, Facts, Graphs and Figures, which is produced by the B.B.C. and issued to advertise the Radio Times. It is just as well to realise that they think that advertising is a first-class thing and they are doing all they can to provide for it. Also, there is a link up with the programme. If one turns to page 45 of this document, one finds a note which says:
  "Every time interest in the wireless lags for an interval the Radio Times gets the readers' attention. It is looked at when the mind is free and receptive and inevitably the advertisements get seen, read and studied."
  I really do not see why the B.B.C. should object so much to advertisements on the air when it does all it can to provide them in print, to the tune of something like a £1 million profit. It has been said that the small man would be excluded from commercial television. It is just as well to observe that the small man is already excluded from the National Press, because, of course, it is too expensive; and he is also excluded from the Radio Times. The cost is far too great. But, as I mentioned a short time ago, in replying to a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in one of his statements about the small man, in the United States small traders combine together to put on a programme, and I see no reason why that should not be done here as well.
  We have heard it argued also that the advertisements in competitive television might be blatant and annoying and would destroy all pleasure in viewing. Surely, the answer to that is that, if the broadcast did not give pleasure, no one would bother to look at it, and would quickly observe the simple remedy of switching it off. But what would be of vital importance to the private station would be that advertisers would no longer support it. The idea that advertisements would be inserted in the middle of a programme I am sure would be avoided in this country, as I am certain it would not be acceptable to the public. Another quite unwarranted argument that has been put forward is that, with free enterprise broadcasting, the standards would decline and become trivial, worthless, and perhaps vicious and corrupting. I would ask your Lordships to consider what has been done by private enterprise in parallel fields such as films, plays and

  657
  other sources of amusement, and I suggest that no further argument in this direction is necessary.
  Perhaps it would not be out of place to read to your Lordships a short letter which appeared in The Times on November 21:
  "As an ordinary suburban housewife, who has had to sacrifice in order to buy a television set, I am looking forward to the new commercial programmes. Lord Halifax and Lord Hailsham are rich men with other means of entertainment. Why do they deny me, and thousands like me, additional pleasure? I am old enough to remember the cry of 'Peers versus People.' As a Conservative I should regret its revival."
  I doubt very much whether those of your Lordships who are opposing the principle of the White Paper are putting forward the wishes of the majority of the people. What has the Gallup Poll to say about it? A recent Gallup Poll has indicated that a majority of the nation, and particularly the owners of television sets, are in favour of the Government's intentions, and also that 75 per cent. of the set owners were earning under £11 a week. The most reverend Primate has told your Lordships to-day that he is not satisfied with the financial arrangements which will arise under the Government proposals. Does the most reverend Primate really suggest that an average family earning under £11 a week should be asked to pay £5 for a licence in older to finance another corporation, instead of the family getting it pretty well free through advertising? Does he realise that, apart from the cost of the licence, a television set will have to be adapted to receive an alternative station programme and this adaptation will cost something like £10 to £15? Surely, the viewer is entitled to get his alternative programme at the least possible cost.
  The most reverend Primate has also posed the question whether it is a good thing to put more money into television. I would say that it is vital that our manufacturers of television sets and equipment should be given the utmost encouragement. The television industry will undoubtedly become a large one, and we in this country do not want to lag behind in the world race. We must remember, of course, that we in this country, in fact, invented television. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has said that the monopoly of the B.B.C. should be maintained because it is a public service. Does he
  658
  suggest that transport should remain a monopoly because it is a public service? If he does not maintain that, I think he is sitting on the wrong side of the House. The noble Viscount has also suggested that the White Paper is a retrogression and that it has presented us with a mule. I think he has got the wrong animal. I suggest it is more like the "eager beaver," anxious to get things done. The noble Viscount suggests that the private station will endeavour to get the largest audience all the time. It may happen that, if the station puts on good programmes, the advertisers will come along and say: "Your programmes are too highbrow. We cannot afford to pay you." The truth, of course, must lie somewhere between the two. Programmes must naturally attract large audiences but not necessarily maximum audiences all the time, though, of course, there are only a limited number of programmes which can capture mass audiences.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Bennett of Edgbaston, I am astonished at commerce being put on such a low plane in your Lordships' House today. The fact is that few of the speakers today have had much practical work in commerce. After we have examined all the arguments today, the fact remains that in a comparatively short time television broadcasts from Europe will be available in this country. I suggest that it might well be better to have an alternative British programme for the public to turn to, rather than a foreign station which may well blow all the arguments of the "goody-goodies" into the dustbin where they belong. I hope that all your Lordships on this side of the House will support Her Majesty's Government, not only for the benefit of the public generally but also as a major asset in assisting our merchants and manufacturers to sell their products and increase their output for the nation. The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, must surely know that without a good home market it is not possible to compete efficiently in the export market, and it is the export market which we must keep ever before us. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to get the proposed plans into working order at the earliest possible moment.
  10.38 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, at this hour of almost unparalleled lateness for your Lordships, I will not detain the House for long. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord has just said in favour of private enterprise in television but I confess that I rather resented one thing he said. He suggested that certain sections of the Party to which I belong opposed the White Paper because they wanted to control the public mind through the B.B.C. I would remind the noble Lord opposite that the Party to which I belong ruled this country for several years since the war. It therefore had ample opportunity to take over the B.B.C., but my Party has always respected the independence of the B.B.C. just as scrupulously as the Party to which the noble Lord opposite belongs; and it will always do so.
  I have one main reason for speaking in this debate and I should like to state it quite briefly. It is this. I happened, owing to circumstances, to be closely involved in the consideration of broadcasting policy for a few years immediately after the war, at the time when responsibility for broadcasting was transferred from the war-time Ministry of Information to the Post Office. Your Lordships will remember that television was suspended during the war, and before we decided to allow the B.B.C. to start up again at Alexandra Palace we considered very carefully the rival merits of commercial television and of the system that had been practised before the war, by the B.B.C. Your Lordships will not expect me to advance any original arguments. I can only say that I have formed a very definite opinion about this matter, and that I should like to throw my opinion into the common pool of the exchange of opinions which has constituted the value of this debate.
  The view I formed at that time was that commercial broadcasting in this country would be a very serious mistake. Both on grounds of principle, the maintenance of the B.B.C. standard of broadcasting, and on technical grounds, the shortage of wavelengths available in this country, it seemed to be essential to stick to the public service type of sound and visual broadcasting. I must confess that the fears that I entertained at that time, that standards would fall if we had commercial control, were confirmed by some
  660
  experience I had of commercial television in the United States of America. My impression of what happened there was similar to that of my noble friend Lord Mathers. If I may refer to it—because I think it is a fair sample of commercial television in America—I would just say quite briefly what happened. I found that my début in television took place in a studio immediately after an item which consisted of an interview with a distinguished New York sculptor on the subject of his work. While this was going on, the television camera was moving to and frobetween the sofa where the sculptor and interviewer were seated and a bevy of fashion models parading at the other end of the studio. This seemed to me to be making the worst of both worlds, either of which might have been very enjoyable had they been taken separately.
  I also asked at the time what other English guests had been featured on this programme, and my attention was directed to an item entitled "The last surviving English cavedweller." I was intrigued by this anthropological curiosity and made some further inquiries. It transpired that this somewhat surprising description had been applied to an elderly lady from Somerset, who happened to be the owner of some caves and dabbled in an amateur way in speleology. It may be said, as the noble Earl, the Postmaster-General considered, that there is no fair comparison between this country and the United States. On this point, however, I was greatly influenced by what the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, said about the fairness of this comparison, because I do Rot think there is any noble Lord in this House who has a greater knowledge of international broadcasting (what one may call comparative broadcasting) than the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe. So I do not think this is an unfair comparison.
  I know that noble Lords opposite try to draw a dividing line between sponsored broadcasting and broadcasting based on advertisements. But I fail to see how this dividing line can, in fact, be drawn. In both cases the main concern of those who arrange the programmes is bound to be to interest the largest possible number of people in certain articles of very general use, which contribute the money that pays for the programmes. This concern for

  661
  mass coverage, which is inevitable in commercial broadcasting, has been shown everywhere to produce programmes which cater for the lowest common denominator in taste. The essential difference between public service broadcasting and every variety of commercial broadcasting, whether it is by advertisements or sponsored broadcasting, is surely that the former produces a balanced programme of entertainment and instruction—and nobody wants a programme that is exclusively highbrow or exclusively lowbrow. What everyone wants is a balanced programme that caters for all tastes—while the latter produces an unbalanced programme of undiluted, mainly trivial, entertainment. That is surely the principle at stake in the Government's proposal, and, of course, it is a principle which applies just as much to future developments in sound broadcasting as it does to television. If we approve of this principle for television then surely we cannot refuse it when it is brought up later on when we have, as we all hope we shall have, further developments and new alternative programmes in sound broadcasting. What we have to decide surely is: do we want to continue a system of public service broadcasting, which admittedly gives a balanced programme and tries to improve taste and widen knowledge; or do we want to introduce commercial broadcasting which experience in other countries all over the world has shown quite conclusively to give unbalanced programmes and to do nothing to raise the standard of taste and informed Opinion?
  My Lords, one thing on which I think we are all agreed is the desirability of a second television programme. But why should this programme be controlled by a commercial company? There are ether alternatives. I do not think these alternatives have been sufficiently examined by the Government. Why should not responsibility for the second programme be placed in the hands of the B.B.C.—that is one alternative—or of another public corporation which would share the sense of responsibility and public service which the B.B.C. already has? The argument which some noble Lords have used, that monopolies are harmful, is surely a dangerous one. There are monopolies and monopolies. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, put the matter
  662
  quite clearly when he said that certain types of monopoly are desirable in the public interest—monopolies in certain forms of public service, municipal and national; whereas other forms of monopoly are undesirable and in such cases you want competition—private enterprise.
  Surely the test of monopoly must be the service it renders to the public. Three Committees of Inquiry have already testified to the admirable service rendered by the B.B.C. So I do not think that impartial examination would show that the B.B.C. had abused in any way at all its position as a monopoly. But those who, nevertheless, are not satisfied with the B.B.C., and who believe that competition would improve the quality of the service, could get what they want by the setting up of another public corporation. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, seemed to overlook this alternative. He maintained that if we want an element of competition in broadcasting it must be provided by private enterprise, by commercial broadcasting. But that is not the case at all: we could get an element of competition into broadcasting by having another and independent public corporation. To have commercial broadcasting is not the only way of introducing a rival to the B.B.C. I share the view of Lord Simon of Wythenshawe that there is no likelihood of a debasement of standards so long as broadcasting remains a public service.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY): Can the noble Lord tell us how he would finance the second Corporation?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should finance it out of an increase in the licence fee. I am not dealing with that side of the matter because I want to be short, but the noble Lord has addressed that question to me and I will certainly answer it. I think that if we had another public Corporation, we could in that way safeguard the standard of broadcasting perfectly. I am not at all satisfied if the second television programme is going to be in the hands of a private company, a programme company. I should have been satisfied if it had been the Government's intention either to set up a public Corporation or to provide broadcasting facilities to a university or a local authority in one of our great cities, because

  663
  again under these auspices we should have the necessary sense of responsibility and the motive of service to the public. But this, unfortunately, is quite clearly not the Government's intention. The intention is to provide stations for commercial programme companies which will remain in business only so long as they can attract advertising revenue, and this is what those who support the Motion object to so strenuously.
  It has been maintained that advertisers will not seriously influence these programmes, that the programmes will be chosen and arranged by the programme companies and not by the advertisers. But surely the first responsibility of the board of any programme company will be a responsibility to its shareholders; and this responsibility can be discharged only by cultivating the good will of the advertisers who will be its sole source of revenue. Moreover, of course, there is nothing to prevent the large firms who will want to advertise from subscribing to the capital of the programme company or companies. A television programme will be costly, and a large sum of capital will have to be raised. I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, addressed certain questions to the Government (I understand that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is going to be good enough to reply to them when he comes to speak to-morrow) because I think we ought to know more about the financial structure of these programme companies and a great deal more about the nature of the boards of directors which will run them. Will there be interlocking directorates between advertising firms and programme companies? One might well get a nominally independent programme company which in fact would be controlled by firms that might go in for mass advertisement. That might easily happen. There is nothing in the White Paper, as it stands at the moment, to prevent these interlocking directorates. But whether or not the programme company or companies will become creatures of the advertisers, I cannot conceive that a tremendous influence on the character of the programmes arranged by the programme companies will not be exercised by the advertising firms.
  Whatever may be the merits of the Government's proposals in the White
  664
  Paper, there can be no doubt about one thing—and it is something on which the noble Lords who support this Motion and the noble Lords who oppose it will agree; namely, that public opinion is profoundly divided. I suppose the bulk of the Labour Party and the Liberal Party would be in favour of the Motion and against the White Paper; and I suppose the bulk of the Conservative Party would be in favour of the White Paper. But this is a division of public opinion which cuts across Parties, and which, whatever we may say, concerns a very large section of the nation in both camps. I was glad that the most reverend Primate laid special emphasis on the state of public opinion in relation to this matter of commercial broadcasting. The conclusion which the most reverend Primate drew was that the Government would be well advised to try to secure agreement about the proposals in the White Paper. Presumably if this is what the Government intended to do, they would have to suspend their proposals in the White Paper, and any legislation which they might contemplate, until this effort to reach agreement had been made.
  I wish that the intention of the Government, as shown from the speech of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, the Postmaster General, were anything of the kind. It seemed to me quite clear, from the noble Earl's speech, that the Government intend to use the weight of their majority in this House to push their proposals through; and presumably if they put the Whips on and use their majority in this House, they will have to do the same thing in another place. If they do this, they will be making broadcasting policy, for the first time, a Party issue. That is a thing we all deplore. We have always tried, in positions of responsibility in office and in positions of lesser responsibility—though still of responsibility—in Opposition, to keep broadcasting policy out of politics, because there are certain things, touching the welfare of the nation and the Constitution, that we all want to keep above the Party controversy. But if the Government do this they will be forcing broadcasting policy into the cauldron of Party politics. Surely there is one thing which they ought to consider carefully, if this is the line of action which they intend to pursue. Are they convinced that, even if

  665
  they have a majority in both Houses of Parliament, they have a majority in the country? They have no mandate for commercial television. This was not in their programme at the last General Election. If they are uncertain—and I think most of your Lordships would be uncertain—about the state of public opinion, then surely they should al least wait before introducing this revolutionary principle of commercial broadcasting, which is a reversal of the whole principle upon which our broadcasting has been based since it began. Surely they should wait to do this until they have an express mandate from the electorate. That, my Lords, is an appeal that I should like to make to the Government for their most serious consideration.
  10.58 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): I beg to move that the debate be adjourned. In moving the Adjournment may I mention to your Lordships that an Order will be made putting the debate first on the Order Paper for to-morrow, before the other Business at present standing first on the Paper.
  Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to and debate adjourned accordingly.
  House adjourned at two minutes before eleven o'clock.