Sitting of 4 May 1954

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Coal Sales (Grading Complaints)
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the extent to which coal merchants are selling low grade coal at high grade prices contrary to the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Acts; and if he will initiate prosecutions, in view of the fact that the general interests of the country are affected by this.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): No, Sir. Overcharging and undercharging are not offences under the Merchandise Marks Acts. The prices of coal are fixed under the Retail Coal Prices Order, 1941, and complaints about coal prices should be addressed to local fuel overseers.
    Miss Burton: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that I complained about quality and not about price? Is he correct in saying that if a customer is sold Grade B coal at Grade A prices that customer has no redress?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is conceivable that some redress could be brought about under the Merchandise Marks Acts, but complaints about the price charged for particular grades of coal would be better addressed either to the local fuel overseer or in the form of Questions put down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate to what extent it is compulsory on retailers to issue to the customer a bill showing the quality and the price per cwt.? Is the Minister aware that many retailers are not doing this,
    172
    and that therefore it is impossible for the customer to have any redress at all?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

    Petroleum Products (Prices)
    Mr. Crouchasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will ask the Monopolies Commission to hold an inquiry into the prices charged by the petrol and oil companies.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he will take, through the Monopolies Commission or otherwise, in view of the excessive prices charged by oil companies for petrol.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Without accepting the implication that prices for petroleum products are excessive, I will continue to bear in mind the supply of these products as a possible subject for a reference to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the price of petrol and fuel oil is an important factor in the cost-of-living index, and is he satisfied that there is genuine competition and not a number of private arrangements between the big oil companies?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am bearing this question in mind.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: With a view to helping the right hon. Gentleman to come to a decision more quickly, will he bear in mind the costly ballyhoo by which the oil companies bamboozle motorists into paying fancy prices for mysterious ingredients which are supposed to pep up the petrol, but which seem to be pretexts merely to pep up the price?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That might be outside the scope of the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that Persian Gulf oil is again in the news and that its cost of production is one-third that of American oil, will the Minister make representations so that some of us may have the cheaper oil from the Persian Gulf instead of having to buy American oil at prices which are artificially kept up?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is rather wide of the Question.

    Wool and Camelhair Garments
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning his further investigation into transactions of certain wool and camelhair manufacturers.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The subsequent transactions to which I have referred concern the sale or exposure for sale of garments made from the wool and camel-hair cloth bearing the labels in question. I have no evidence on the basis of which I could institute proceedings; if anybody has such evidence, I shall be glad to consider it.
    Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable disquiet among some of these manufacturers because they manufacture cloth to the requirements of the wholesalers who then put the wrong labels on the garments? Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to look at that aspect of the matter?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It might be, but I have no evidence of the sale of these garments to the customers with the wrong labels on them. If I receive such evidence, I will look at it.
    Mr. Chapman: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he proposes to get such evidence beyond saying that he will look at any evidence brought to his notice in this House? We have no evidence from him that he takes any steps to tell dissatisfied consumers to come forward and to help him with prosecutions. He does not seem to be doing anything at all on those lines.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As far as I know, I have not had a single complaint in this connection.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman want any?

    Light Industries, Goole
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the need for light industries to be developed in Goole; and whether he will encourage industrialists to establish them there.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am aware that some further industrial employment would be welcomed in the Goole area,
    174
    but there is, as the hon. Member knows, a limit to the amount of industry seeking new quarters.
    Mr. Jeger: Does not the Minister agree that it is a very serious situation when about one-sixth of the adult working population of Goole has to travel out of the town in order to obtain work? This entails something like 2 to 2½hours' travel a day. Could not the right hon. Gentleman do something to encourage light industries to settle in the town?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will bear all these factors in mind in giving consideration to this matter, but only 289 out of a total insured population of 12,000 in the Goole area are at the moment unemployed.

    Calico Printing Industry (Report)
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the Report of the Monopoly Commission on the calico printing industry; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have arranged to discuss this Report with the industry. I shall make a further statement on this matter in due course.
    Mr. Jay: Had not the President had this Report in his hands for some months before it was published? If he withholds these -reports from the House, ought he not to be able to make up his mind as soon as we are allowed to see them?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have no intention of making immediate or early decisions on any of these cases. These reports from the Monopolies Commission are large, complex and important, and I think they require very careful study before any Government takes action on them.

    Retail Trading Standards Association (Correspondence)
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has sent to the letter from the secretary of the Retail Trading Standards Association concerning the information given by him to his Department's investigator on the matter of the "Masnaga" bedspread; and if, as the investigator was given

    175
    access to correspondence admitting infringement of the Merchandise Marks Acts, he will make a further statement upon the matter.
    Mr. P. Thomeycroft: A reply has been sent to the secretary of the Retail Trading Standards Association, who is at liberty to disclose the contents to the hon. Member if he so wishes.
    Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that that is rather a scurvy way to apologise for the answer which he gave? May I ask him whether the letter to which he refers is a formal acknowledgment from his Department, or whether it deals with the subject matter? May I ask him, further, whether he is acknowledging that he made a mistake in the House in reporting on this matter?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: This answer was not to the hon. Lady. It was to a third party. The third party is quite at liberty to disclose the answer to the hon. Lady if he so wishes.
    Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that this reply was made in answer to a Question of mine, when I told the right hon. Gentleman that he was mistaken. Would he be good enough to tell us whether he was mistaken or not?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No mistake occurred at all. This is correspondence which is taking place between the Board of Trade and somebody other than the hon. Lady. I am not entitled to disclose that correspondence to the hon. Lady. If the third party wishes to do so, that is a matter for him.

    Italian Silk Scarves
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that yarn dyed fine silk organza scarves, 20 inches by 20 inches, imported from Italy are being retailed in this country at approximately 4s. 11d., and that this compares with similar British goods which are sold at 8s.; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Silk scarves imported from foreign sources are already subject to import duty at the rate of 33½per cent, ad valorem or 15s. 0d. per 1b., whichever is the greater. I have no evidence that this duty is not sufficient.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend say how the British textile industry can possibly compete with the Italians after paying nearly double wages and giving better conditions of work than is the case with the Italians? Will he do something to protect this industry, because unless something is done very soon it will run into very serious difficulties. Will my right hon. Friend look at the samples which I have in my hand giving proof of what I have said?
    Mr. Thomeycroft: I will certainly look at anything which my hon. and gallant Friend cares to put before me, but there is a very substantial protective duty on these scarves already.
    Mr. Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is not much point in buying from abroad things which are dearer than those which we have at home?

    Match Industry (Revised Swedish Agreement)
    Mr. Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken by the British Match Corporation to carry out the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. P. Thomeycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) on 5th April.

    Woollen Textile Mills, West Riding (Minister's Visit)
    Dr. Bronghtonasked the President of the Board of Trade for what purpose the Minister of State, Board of Trade, made an official visit to woollen textile mills in the West Riding of Yorkshire on 21st April, 1954.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: This visit was an informal one, undertaken in order to enable the Minister to see some of the processes, and to meet leading personalities, in this very important exporting industry.
    Dr. Broughton: Will the President say what opinion was expressed to him by his right hon. Friend, after the visit, on the state of health of this industry which for generations has been, and still is, of vital importance to the economy of the country?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: My right hon. Friend informed me that he was much impressed by the vigorous and enterprising outlook of the industry concerned.

    Trading Estate Factories, Sunderland
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on the trading estate factories in Sunderland recently occupied by Messrs. Price (Tailors) and Fordham and Company.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I cannot at present add to the answers to the hon. Member's previous Questions about these two factories.
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade how many North Eastern Trading Estates Limited factories previously occupied are at present unused.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Four, Sir, of which two have been allocated to new tenants and are being prepared for occupation by them.
    Mr. P. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in trying to influence new firms to come to Sunderland, that there is nothing wrong with the work people or management in that town? Will he do what he can to overcome the influence of the hon. Member for Sunder land, North (Mr. F. Willey) who is doing great disservice to this area?
    Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the period of the Labour Administration there were not so many complaints from the Sunder land area as there are today?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: This is going a little wider than the strictly statistical field of the Question.

    Merseyside Development Area (Parliamentary Secretary's Visit)
    Mr. Collickasked the President of the Board of Trade what positive results have been achieved by the recent official visit of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Merseyside industrial Development Area; and to what extent it has brought nearer a decision to build an advance factory at Birkenhead.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: My hon. and learned Friend was invited to Lancashire to see for himself what progress is being
    178
    made in the three Development Areas. As to the second part of the Question, it is not our policy to build factories in advance of demand.
    Mr. Collick: Is the Minister aware that no new factory accommodation is avail able in Birkenhead and that until advance factories are built there is no possibility of attracting alternative industries? Will he not do something more about it?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member knows that I have the interest of this important area very much at heart, but there are powerful arguments against the building of advance factories in this, as in other areas.
    Mr. Fort: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the implementation of the Government's policy of bring new indusdustries to the North-East Lancashire Development Area is warmly welcomed there and that his hon. and learned learned Friend's visit made a notable contribution in seeing what development is going on in accordance with that policy?
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that Nelson and Colne, which is admittedly at the worst end of this Development Area, has derived no benefit whatever so far from the declaration of this Development Area?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think it must have escaped the hon. Member's attention that, since this Government came into office, the area has been declared a Development Area and a start has been made with one of the biggest factories in the whole of North-East Lancashire.
    Sir H. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say whether "advance" building means "speculative" building?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Is not the right hon. Gentleman himself mistaken? Has it escaped his attention that the factory about which he is talking, though in this North-East Lancashire area, is not in the Burnley or Nelson and Colne end of it?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman may criticise the fact that it is not in a particular part of the Development Area, but until I started on this matter it was not a Development Area and there was no factory there anyway.

    Films (Block Booking)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the practice contrary to the provisions of the Cinematograph Acts of block booking whereby film renters insist on exhibitors booking several films at once, and of renters insisting on exhibitors agreeing to pay the Eady levy before they can have films; and whether he will take action to stop these practices.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. The Cinematograph Films Acts do not prohibit the practice known as block booking; nor do the Acts regulate in any way the administration of the British Film Production Fund, which is a voluntary scheme run by the industry itself.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what exhibitors mean by the practice of block booking is the system under which renters compel them to take a large number of films in order to get one or two films which they want? Is it not also a fact that the Eady levy is supposed to be voluntary, and is it not therefore wrong to make it compulsory to pay that levy before a man can obtain films?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Block booking, as described by my hon. Friend, is not, I understand, barred by the Cinematograph Films Acts.

    Weights and Measures (Legislation)
    Mrs. Slaterasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any indication when legislation to implement the Report of the Committee on Weights and Measures Legislation will be introduced, having regard to the state of present legislation and the need to remedy anomalies which have developed since the last Act on this subject was passed.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Not this Session.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Excess Profits Tax (Deferred Repairs)
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to extend beyond 31st March, 1954, the
    180
    time limit by which repairs deferred from the Excess Profits Tax period must be carried out in order to qualify for relief from Excess Profits Tax.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): No, Sir. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) on 16th July, 1953. My right hon. Friend thought it right to come to a decision at that time so that traders should be in no doubt about the finality of the date, and he is not prepared to vary that decision.
    Mr. Jay: Is there not some real hard ship in this case if it was due to Government action that the repairs were deferred?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman knows that these expenses relate to a tax which itself came to an end in 1946. The original terminal date for these claims was 1949. It has been twice postponed, and I think we must now wind up this tax.

    Steel Company Shares (Sale)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many steel firms have been returned to private shareholders; and how many remain to be disposed of by the Agency.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Agency have to date completed negotiations for the sale to private shareholders of securities in eight companies, and still retain direct interest in the equity capital of 62 companies.
    Mrs. White: Can the right hon. Gentle man tell us how much time the Agency has at its disposal in which to return all these firms to private enterprise? Can he say, in particular, how much longer it will be before the English Steel Corporation and Guest, Keen and Nettlefold are returned to private enterprise?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that it would be most undesirable in the public interest to speculate about the disposal of particular companies. On the general issue, the hon. Lady may remember that during the debates on the Steel Bill her right hon. and hon. Friends were anxious that we should not rush the matter in order to

    181
    accelerate sales, thereby not getting adequate prices. I should have thought she ought to be grateful for the way in which the Iron and Steel Agency and my right hon. Friend are conducting this matter.
    Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the obvious failure of the Government's plans to denationalise the steel industry, would it not now be wiser to reconsider the whole matter and repeal the Act?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As that question is founded on a false hypothesis, its conclusion is inevitably even falser.

    Earned Income Allowance (Married Women)
    Dr. Kingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the gain would have been to the Exchequer last year if the first £120 of the earnings of married women had not been exempt from Income Tax.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The estimated cost in 1953–54 of the tax relief on the earnings of married women was £85 million, which includes the cost of the separate set of reduced rate reliefs as well as the wife's earned income allowance of £120. It does not follow, how ever, that the Exchequer would benefit by this amount if the reliefs were with drawn, as many married women might stop working.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that the proposal to abolish this relief has now received the support of the Committee set up on tax reform, and, at any rate, the revenue from such abolition would be at least sufficient to meet the cost of providing equal pay in all Civil Service Departments, and even relief for married men without families?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the hon. Gentleman has over-simplified the recommendation of the Royal Commission, but I note his view that further tax should be imposed on married women who work.

    The Highlands and North Wales (Assistance)
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, to assist the problems of areas subject to persistent depopulation, such as parts of the Highlands of Scotland and North Wales, he will consider taking
    182
    steps to schedule such areas as ones in which a lower rate of Income Tax would-be payable.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is the Financial Secretary aware that during the last 100 years, while the population of Britain has increased five times, the population of large parts of the country shows exactly the reverse trend and that some places have become derelict? In view of the enormous expenditure contemplated for new towns, does he not think that it would be to the advantage of the whole of the United Kingdom to encourage by all possible fiscal means the population to grow up spontaneously, in places where it is sparse?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My noble Friend knows very well that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scot land is taking many measures to help the aim which he shares with my noble Friend, but I doubt very much whether a system of differential Income Tax as between different parts of the United Kingdom is a very sensible way to tackle it.

    Waterproof Coats (Tax)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now take steps to authorise a revision of Customs Notice, 78D, in order to deal with the anomaly under which, in the case of double-texture waterproof coats under the D Scheme, tax is more severely assessed on cheaper garments made from cotton than on the more expensive garments made from wool.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the generous Financial Secretary not recognise that the trade has discussed this with Customs and Excise officials, who acknowledge that it is an anomaly, and could not the Minister give some other answer than the one he has given, if that is acknowledged?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I certainly do not accept the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman makes that pronouncements of this sort have been made on policy by public officials, but I agree with him that there is a point for consideration here, and it will be considered together with other difficulties over this tax at the next review of the tax.
    Mr. Dodds: Why could not the right hon. Gentleman have given that answer in the first place?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Because the one which I gave in the first place was perfectly adequate for the hon. Gentle man.
    Captain Orr: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication when the next review of this tax will take place?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Not today.

    Government Expenditure
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for a closer control of Government expenditure.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend is examining this question in connection with the review of Government expenditure to which I referred in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W Smithers) on 27th April.
    Mr. Grimond: So far as administrative expenditure is concerned, will the right hon. Gentleman consider better control by this House, and also whether, so far as the more extravagant excesses of State expenditure are concerned, it would not be possible to establish some personal responsibility?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend, as my original answer indicated, is reviewing the whole subject, and I have no doubt that the particular points which the hon. Gentleman has in mind will not escape attention.
    Mr. Assheton: Will it be possible for my right hon. Friend to say when he expects that the Chancellor will be able to make any answer as a result of this examination which is taking place?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am afraid I cannot say today when that will be.
    Mr. Jay: Is the Financial Secretary fully satisfied with the Chancellor's economic efforts to date, which reveal that total Government expenditure is more than £1,000 million higher than it was under the Labour Government?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So far as I understand it, the criticism which the
    184
    right hon. Gentleman has made has been that we have economised too much rather than too little.

    National Savings Campaign (Expenditure)
    Sir W. Darlingasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what functions are performed by the one chief illustrator, three senior illustrators and two leading illustrators who are employed at an annual cost of £5,592 in connection with the promotion of National Savings by the people.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Their main job is to help to produce posters, leaflets and other publications used by the 200,000 savings groups, the local savings committees, the banks, post offices and other organisations which are concerned with the work of the National Savings Movement.
    Sir W. Darling: Are these illustrators responsible for the design of the "fritter bug," and is it intended to allow the establishment of similar illustrators in other Departments of the State?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am afraid that my entomology is not up to answering that question without notice.
    Lieut-Colonel Lipton: While the right hon. Gentleman has described the main activities of these gentlemen, will he confirm whether it is part of their subsidiary activities to paint rosy pictures of the Treasury and what they are up to at the present time?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That work would be so unnecessary that one would not ask anyone to do it.
    Sir W. Darlingasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the reason for the increase of £108,813 in the outlays of the National Savings Committee.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The main reason for the increase is to meet the cost of a special campaign to increase savings which the National Savings Movement, with the full support of my right hon. Friend, is arranging to carry on towards the end of this year.
    Sir W. Darling: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be an elementary saving not to expend this

    185
    additional sum of £108,813 in the outlays of the National Savings Committee, and would it not be better to spend it in stimulating the trustee savings banks and other established organs of savings which cost the Exchequer nothing?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This campaign is designed to enable the National Savings Movement generally, embracing all the savings organisations, to make a special effort to encourage savings, and my right hon. Friend is fully satisfied that the effort in the favourable circumstances of today is well worth the money.
    Sir W. Darlingasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how much of the estimated increase in advertising by the National Savings Committee is to be expended in commercial television.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: None, Sir.
    Sir W. Darling: Does my right hon. Friend tell me that this important advertising campaign, backed by the illustrators and the additional £108,000 which is to be spent, is ignoring the possibilities of commercial television?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Nothing is being ignored, but perhaps I had better not anticipate today's debate.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would not the best saving be to spend no money upon commercial television?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That question does not arise out of the original Question, but I could not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman more.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

    Chief Inspector of Factories (Salary)
    Dr. Strossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the salary of the Chief Factory Inspector has been raised since 1938 from £1.650 to £2,125, whereas the salaries of the Chief Inspectors of Mines and of Taxes has risen from £1,650 to £2,750 and the salary of the Senior Inspector of Education from £1,650 to £3,000; and why there is now such a disparity between these salaries which were all similar in 1938.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The facts are not quite accurately stated by the hon. Member, but I agree that there is now a
    186
    greater disparity between these salaries than there was in 1938. In each case the current salary is fixed in the light of the current duties and responsibilities of the post, which have increased in some cases more than in others. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour has a claim for an increase in the salary of the Chief Inspector of Factories at present under consideration.
    Dr. Stross: While thanking the Financial Secretary for the way in which he has answered this Question, may I ask him if he is aware that, if there is such a disparity so patent as this, even if I am not absolutely correct in my figures, it does mean the degradation of the scale for the whole of the Department as compared with other Departments, and this may explain why, in the entry group for the factory inspectors' rate, almost no one is now entering with scientific or technical qualifications but merely with an Arts degree, and that it is not reasonable to make this the Cinderella of all the Departments?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I certainly cannot agree that there is any degradation in the status of this most important Department, but in view of the last part of my answer, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would prefer not to press me now on this particular point.

    Prime Minister's Staff (Salaries)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the staff employed in the office of the Prime Minister have had no increase in their salaries or wages since 1946; and how many of these have to meet the cost of their postage, secretarial assistance, living-away-from-home expenses, and all other expenses necessarily incurred whilst performing their duties on behalf of the State, from their personal salaries.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to both parts of the Question is "None, Sir."
    Mr. Lewis: While I rather anticipated that reply, may I ask the Financial Secretary if he is aware of the fact that in the opinion of the Department of the Civil Service there are no civil servants in this position, that in the opinion of local government departments there is no one in

    187
    this position, and in the opinion of private enterprise there are no workers or staff in this position? The only section of the population in this position is Members of Parliament, and will he look at this matter to see if they cannot be put on the same basis as the rest of the community.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Question does not appear to relate to Members of Parliament.

  HOUSING

    Building Man-hours
    Mr. MacCollasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the estimated number of man-hours required, at the last convenient date, to build a 1947 average traditional three-bedroom house of 1,029 square feet.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am informed that the estimate of man-hours required to build such a house in 1953 is about 2,400.

    Stockport
    Wing Commander Hulbertasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses and flats, respectively, have been erected in the county borough of Stockport during the 12 months ended 30th April, 1954.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: Figures up to 30th April are not yet available. The figures for the 12 months ending 31st March, 1954, will be published in Appendix B to the Housing Return on 10th May.

    Housing Applicants (Qualifications)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the plight of overcrowded families who, having moved voluntarily from one municipal area into another, then find they cannot remain in their new accommodation and that they have been struck off the housing list of their former area and cannot be accepted on the list of any other municipal authority; and whether he will circularise local authorities with a view to recommending the exercise of latitude in such cases.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I am asking the Housing Management Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee to investigate the whole question of residential qualifications now required by certain local authorities from applicants for houses.
    Mr. Sorensen: Do I take it that this answer covers the point in my other Question? May I ask the Minister again to give some indication when we can have a report on the matter, which is of great urgency?
    Mr. Macmillan: Recent experience has shown that it would be good to refer back to this Committee the whole problem, on which they made a report some years ago. This point, together with wider issues, will be covered by their advice to me.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is there any arrangement to cover the case of a family which moves to another area only to find it is unable to get on to the waiting list in the new area and has lost its position in the list in the old area?
    Mr. Macmillan: I cannot compel authorities to take any steps. The matter is much wider. I would like the Central Housing Advisory Committee, which does admirable work in this respect and carries great authority when it makes a report, to give me advice over the whole field.

    House Purchase (Improved Facilities)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the means of making house ownership possible for those who have not got the necessary capital to make a large deposit but have adequate income to repay the loan.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. After consultation with the associations of local authorities and the Building Societies' Association, I am urging county councils and local housing authorities to make full use of their powers under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts and Sections 4 and 5 of the Housing Act, 1949. In particular, I am recommending each of these authorities to operate two complementary schemes of guarantee which have been worked out with the

    189
    Building Societies' Association. Under these schemes the authority and my Department will share, as equal partners with the building society, the extra risk involved in the building society's making a bigger advance than it could make without a guarantee. The first scheme contemplates a building society advance of 90 per cent, on any dwelling valued at up to £2,500; the second, a building society advance of 95 per cent, on any post-1918 dwelling valued at up to £2,000. Full particulars are given in a circular which is being sent to authorities tonight. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The circular also urges all the authorities mentioned to use to the full their powers to make advances themselves for house purchase and other purposes. I hope hon. Members on all sides of the House will do their utmost to help me to persuade local authorities to make all these facilities freely available and so encourage this excellent form of personal saving.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the great satisfaction which his statement will give not only in my constituency but to thousands of people all over the country who are only too anxious to own their own houses?
    Mr. Fernyhough: Is the Minister not aware that high interest rates are the greatest drawback to house ownership? Will he have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him to reduce the Bank rate so as to enable building societies to follow suit?
    Mr. Macmillan: I would have thought the rather large deposit represented the main difficulty. If we can bridge that gap by requiring a smaller amount of deposit, we shall make an advance towards what all sides of the House want to achieve.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that the problems in the past in house purchase have been, on the one hand, the size of the deposit, which we hope the present announcement will deal with, and on the other hand, the rate of repayment? If we pursue a line of encouraging people now on a waiting list to switch from being subsidised tenants to the purchase of houses, have we not to produce some scheme to reduce not only deposits but the rate of repayment?
    Mr. Macmillan: If my hon. Friend will look at the scheme when published, he will find that it sets out in detail proposed schemes of repayment.
    Mr. MacColl: In view of the invitation to local authorities to invest more money in privately-owned houses, can the Minister give advice to them how to maintain the quality of houses?
    Mr. Macmillan: Local authorities are asked either to implement their existing powers to make advances of money or to operate the new scheme of guarantees, which may not cost them any money, except if there is bad debt. I hope that they will advance along both lines. As to the quality of houses, that is taken into account when the original contract is entered into and the valuation is made by the building society.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Will the new scheme cover Scotland?
    Mr. Macmillan: I have made an announcement for the territories for which I am responsible.
    Mr. Wade: Does the proposed scheme apply solely to building societies, or also to banks and other institutions accustomed to making loans to prospective purchasers of houses?
    Mr. Macmillan: In the first instance I thought the best scheme was to get the local authority associations and the Building Societies' Association together. If they are all agreed—and we are only setting out typical schemes—we can begin to work with all people who are prepared to operate along the same lines.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will the Secretary of State make a statement in regard to Scotland?
    Mr. Macmillan: The best course would be for the right hon. Gentleman to put down a Question to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Woodburn: Are these matters decided by the Government as a whole, or do Ministers decide them separately?
    Mr. Macmillan: Housing legislation, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, is different in Scotland from the Housing Acts under which I am operating, and which do not apply to Scotland.
    Mr. Jay: Is not the Secretary of State for Scotland sitting on the Government Front Bench? Can he not give any reply?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the implementation of any part of this scheme require legislation?
    Mr. Macmillan: I am advised that none of it will require legislation at the present time.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RE-ORGANISATION)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further progress has been made in respect of the re-organisation of local government, particularly in view of the desire of some municipal boroughs to secure county borough powers and status.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I cannot yet add to the statement I made in the debate on the Second Reading of the Luton Corporation Bill on 18th March.
    Mr. Sorensen: Surely the Minister can give some indication when we can have a report on this very important subject, seeing that a large number of municipal bodies are awaiting this report?
    Mr. Macmillan: I tried to make that point clear in the statement I made.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can the Minister say when we are likely to get some definite statement on the matter?
    Mr. Macmillan: Not at the moment.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Yew Hedges, Birdcage Walk (Removal)
    Mr. Arbuthnotasked the Minister of Works the value, per bush, of the yew hedge in St. James's Park; how many bushes there are; why they are being taken up; and why this work was not done early in March before the bushes had begun to put on growth.
    The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): There were about 3,700 bushes in the Yew Hedge along Birdcage Walk. Those worth transplanting might fetch 10s. each, but I expect to find homes for them in property under my care. The
    192
    removal took place as soon as labour was available.
    The decision to do away with the hedge followed public approval of the opening up of the park, which occurred when the hedges opposite the Horse Guards and the Mall had to be taken out. I am sure from the expressions of opinion which I have received that the hedges are generally thought to be better out than in.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that the remaining rabbit wire is an eye-sore; and will he give instructions that the bushes in their new sites will be liberally and frequently watered, bearing in mind that I hope to ask him at a future date how many of them are alive?
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir. I agree about the wire, but we must do one thing at a time.
    Mr. Gaitskell: What is the total cost of this operation? How much public money was lost as a result of this?
    Sir D. Eccles: They cost £300 to plant. That was some years ago, and the hedge has gone down hill ever since.

    Normanton Barrows
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Works why he has allowed the Normanton group of barrows, near Stonehenge, to be ploughed up; and what steps he is taking to prevent this and other destruction of ancient monuments.
    Sir D. Eccles: The Normanton Barrows are listed under the Ancient Monuments Acts. The owner should, therefore, have given my Department notice of his intention to carry out work affecting the Barrows. No such notice was received.
    I had already taken the following steps to try to prevent such damage. I arranged with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to include in a leaflet issued to farmers a warning about ancient monuments and, in particular, barrows, on their land. When a monument is listed under the Ancient Monuments Acts the owner or occupier is asked to inform any future owner or occupier of the existence of the monument. In addition to my travelling inspectorate, about 40 voluntary correspondents help us by passing on any information affecting

    193
    their areas. The local archaeological societies also assist.
    Clearly, further steps will have to be taken, and I am asking the Ancient Monuments Board, which I have recently reconstituted, to go into the whole problem and advise me what more I can do.
    Mr. Fletcher: While appreciating the reply, will the Minister bear in mind that there is a considerable amount of resentment at the continued vandalism which involves the destruction of so many historic monuments, and will he take every possible initiative in conjunction with the voluntary bodies in regard to the further steps which are obviously called for.
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Nicholson: May I ask a supple mentary question?
    Mr. Speaker: We have been a long time.
    Mr. Nicholson: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hector Hughes.
    Mr. Nicholson: I did rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter of public interest. It is not customary to allow a supplementary from this side of the House?
    Mr. Speaker: The House must trust me to use my discretion as to how many supplementary questions should be allowed on any one Question. It is possible to discuss any Question for a long time.

  SCOTLAND

    Storm Damage and Compensation
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement up-to-date of the amount of direct damage done in Scotland by the storm of 31st January, 1953; and what progress has been made in compensating persons who are to be, but have not yet been, compensated.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): The House has already been informed about the severe damage to woodlands. Apart from the Government assistance already announced, it has been agreed that the Lord
    194
    Mayor's Fund should help those who have lost timber in the windblow.
    Damage to public services was of the order of £430,000, of which it is estimated that £387,000 will fall on Government funds. It is not possible to assess the total damage to private property, but claims on the Lord Mayor's Fund—apart from those in respect of damage to woodlands —may amount to some £300,000. Of the claims so far received, about 95 per cent, have been passed for payment.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State not realise that this has an important bearing upon the amount of food produced by some of the most productive land in Scotland, that it deserves constructive consideration from that aspect, and what is he doing to restore the food supply?
    Mr. Stuart: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that everything possible is being done and will be done, but timber, of course, is not on arable land and fallen timber does not affect the food supply.

    Police Candidates (Written Examinations)
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the high percentage of candidates for the police who fail to pass the written examination; whether he is satisfied that the questions asked are not unduly academic; and whether he will place copies of some of these examination papers in the Library.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware that a considerable number of candidates for appointment to Scottish police forces are rejected on educational grounds. The educational standard required in a police recruit and the nature of the entrance examination that he must pass, which may be written or oral, are primarily matters for the chief constable concerned. I have no reason to think that an unduly high standard is required. I am arranging for copies of papers recently set for candidates for the Glasgow City Police Force to be placed in the Library.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that a man may be a very good policeman with out being a particularly good scholar,

    195
    that it is difficult to recruit sufficient policemen, and that it is unwise for any police authority to set too high an academic standard?
    Mr. Stuart: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, as a matter of fact, the standard we require is that of the average pupil of 15 years of age.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his remarks about Scottish policemen are a reflection upon himself as the head of the Scottish Education Department, and would he not arrange for the police with lower intelligence qualifications to have tuition when they become members of the force in order that they should attain a higher standard, as everyone will agree that policemen ought to have a good standard of education?
    Mr. Stuart: While we shall do all we can to maintain as good a standard as possible, I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that at the same time we also want policemen.

    Housing (Space Standards)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have objected to the contents of Circular No. 14/1954, dated 15th March, dealing with space standards in local authority houses; and what is the nature of his reply.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I have so far received representations from nine local authorities who have been told that, while the new standards are not mandatory, they can result in important economies without loss of amenity, and that I am most anxious that local authorities should give them a fair trial.
    Mr. Hamilton: I missed part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, but can he tell me whether the standards suggested in the circular are compulsory on local authorities? Secondly, can he tell me when he is going to make the up-to-date survey of housing requirements in Scotland which is indicated in this circular as being necessary?
    Mr. Stuart: In reply to the first part of the supplementary, the standards are not mandatory but do effect a saving in materials and labour and are £100 to £150 less in cost to build. I should like notice of the other part of the supplementary.
    Mr. Hoy: Can the Secretary of State tell us if the standards will have to be taken into account in connection with the announcement about houses in England which has just been make by the Minister of Housing and Local Government?
    Mr. Stuart: I do not think that we should necessarily follow English rules, but I will consider that point. To those hon. Gentlemen and members of local authorities who are doubtful about these houses. I would point out that I opened a new block at Sighthill, near Edinburgh, last Friday and I would ask them to view them before they make up their minds.
    Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order. Would you, Mr. Speaker, allow the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the announcement just made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government as this is the last Question on Scottish housing which is on the Order Paper today?
    Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State has sent me no request and there is no notice on the Order Paper about it. I could not possibly allow it.
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the letter from the Galston Town Council on the matter of the space-saving house; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Yes, Sir. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply given to the council, which explains the advantages to be secured by the adoption of the revised space standards.
    Mr. Ross: But surely, in view of the broadcast made last night by the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland will realise that these local authorities know just what is required in the matter of housing, and is he aware that they view with dismay this lowering of the standards of local authority houses at a time when the Secretary of State is permitting higher standards in private house-building, and will he consult local authorities about this matter and with draw the regulation?
    Mr. Stuart: As I have said, it is not mandatory, and I would ask hon. Members and local authorities to view these houses. Not only have I been round the unoccupied ones, but I have visited a

    197
    tenant of one of the houses and I find it difficult to understand the cause for this disquiet.
    Miss Herbison: Since the Secretary of State speaks so highly about these houses which he has opened, why has he given permission for a higher amount of money to be spent by people who can afford to build their own houses?
    Mr. Stuart: For the very good reason that if people can afford to spend more money in building their own houses, I do not see why they should not be allowed to do so.

    Hospital Boards (Appointments)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the terms of office of ex-Provost Slater, Buckhaven, and of Baillie Mrs. Anderson, Leslie, on the East Fife Hospitals Board of Management have not been renewed.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board, who are responsible for making these appointments, decided that the time had come to introduce into the Board of Management some new members from different areas and having different experience. This decision in no way reflects upon the services rendered by the members who were not reappointed, both of whom had served on the Board of Management since 1948, and to whom I take this opportunity of expressing my thanks.
    Mr. Hamilton: Why does the Secretary of State not indicate the reasons at the time when informing these people that their services will not be further required? Is it not a fact that both these people have got a splendid record of public service and that to change merely for the sake of change is quite ludicrous?
    Mr. Stuart: I said there was no reflection upon the members at all. The normal appointment is for a period of three years; actually, they had served since 1948, and it is quite a good thing periodically to introduce new blood and to gain new experience.
    Commander Donaldson: Is this a general principle in Scotland, as there are other areas, including the Borders, where changes have been made?
    Mr. Stuart: I said in my original answer that the regional hospital boards are responsible, and I think the policy which they are carrying out is a perfectly normal and proper one.
    Mr. Hubbard: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that there are other members of the East Fife Hospitals Board of Management who have also served since 1948? Is he further aware that ex-Provost Slater, and Bailie Mrs. Anderson have had a long-standing dispute with; the Regional Hospitals Board about hospital development in Fife, and can he say if their departure from the board has anything to do with the dispute, because there is considerable feeling in the area?
    Mr. Stuart: As I have said, this is the responsibility of the Regional Hospitals Board. I should not like to debate this in answer to a question, but if the hon. Member requires further information, I will certainly supply it.
    Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would use your special knowledge to ensure that when Scottish terms are used they will be spelt properly? The word "Bailie" has only one "1."
    Mr. Hubbard: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of this reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes have been made in the personnel of the South-East Scotland Regional Hospital Board during the past two years.
    Mr. J. Stuart: During the past two years, 13 persons have ceased to be members of the Board and five new appointments have been made. I will circulate the names of the individuals concerned in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is serious disquiet at what appears to be political discrimination in making these appointments, and will he tell the House what he is going to do about it?
    Mr. Stuart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if there is any such feeling, those who have it are completely misinformed, and I hope they will clear their minds of it. I think that in the course of any Adjournment debate I could do so.
    Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentle man ought to take this more seriously. Is he not aware that there is a feeling that people who have Labour sympathies are being deposed from these boards in favour of people affiliated to his own party?
    Mr. Stuart: I really must reply to that question put by the right hon. Gentleman. If he is referring to Lord Mathers, whom we all know very well, Lord Mathers intimated to me his desire to be relieved of his post and he has therefore been relieved.
    The following are the names:
    During the past two years the following have ceased to be members of this Board:—

    Bailie J. G. Banks, Edinburgh.

    Mr. J. Black, Bo'ness.

    Dr. E. A. Cormack, Edinburgh.

    Councillor Mrs. J. Dowie, Berwickshire.

    Lady Fraser, Edinburgh.

    Miss A. Hankey, Selkirkshire.

    Mrs. I. McNeill, Edinburgh.

    Mr. D. B. Martin, Fife.

    Lord Mathers, Edinburgh.

    Professor W. Oliver, Edinburgh.

    Major D. F. O. Russell, Markinch.

    Dr. A. Simpson, Hawick.

    Sir Henry Wade, Edinburgh.

    The following new members have been appointed: —

    Mrs. M. H. Anstruther-Gray, Cupar, Fife.

    Miss J. P. Ferlie, Edinburgh.

    Dr. J. C. G. Mercer, North Berwick.

    Professor G. H. Percival, Edinburgh.

    Dr. G. J. Summers, Edinburgh.

    Lerwick Herring Catch (Disposal)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements have at present been made for the disposal of the Lerwick herring catch this summer.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Subject to supply and the negotiation of satisfactory prices, the Herring Industry Board factory will be used to capacity for kippering and quick freezing; and, as in previous years, the Board hope to make arrangements for the curing of all available herring of suitable quality. I am informed that a klondyking firm intend to operate at Lerwick; and the Board will buy surplus herring for reduction to oil and meal.
    Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any un certainty about the klondyking and the curing? I missed the earlier part of his answer, so I am not sure whether this is a pious hope or whether he has some feeling of security about it?
    Mr. Stuart: It depends on the conditions and the hopes of disposing of the catch but, all being well, it is the intention of the klondyking firm to operate at Lerwick, and I hope they will do so.

    ATOMIC WEAPONS (QUEBEC AGREEMENT)
    Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Prime Minister what requests he has received from Her Majesty's Opposition to publish the terms of the 1948 agreement on atomic matters.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I have not received any such request.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: But is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great anxiety amongst all parties in this House as to what actually were the terms of this agreement? Is it not a fact that, under the terms of the agreement, this country gave up the right to veto the use of the atomic bomb by the United States of America and that there fore our finger is no longer on the safety catch?
    Hon. Members: Speech.
    Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to try to ask his question succinctly.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Just two more little teasers, if I may, Sir. [Interruption.] Order. Was this right given away in return for American aid, and is there any means whereby the people of this country can know exactly what rights were given away in order to obtain money with which to finance the Socialist experiment?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that there was so much spontaneous barracking and disorder that I could not gather the full import of the question.

    COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (CONSULTATIONS)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister if he has considered the desirability of calling a Commonwealth conference after the termination of the Geneva Conference to deal with the possibility of common action in respect of the then

    201
    world situation and also with internal Commonwealth matters affecting its present and its potential membership.
    The Prime Minister: This might take its place among matters to be considered after the Geneva Conference is over.
    Mr. Sorcnsen: Whilst thanking the Prime Minister for that reply, may I ask if he could be a little more positive and suggest that it will probably take place?
    The Prime Minister: No, I could not go any further than I have gone.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Prime Minister say what message was sent by the Foreign Secretary to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at Colombo regarding the part they might play in any settlement of the Indo-China dispute, and what reply was received from the Prime Ministers?
    The Prime Minister: It is hardly likely that I should have that in my head, is it?
    Mr. Gaitskell rose—
    The Prime Minister: To give those detailed statements and quotations, which have nothing to do with the Question placed upon the Paper, I think I might have the advantage of notice.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I do not know why the Prime Minister should be so upset by this question. There is a great deal of speculation in the Press about an extremely important matter, namely, the part that may be played by the Asian members of the Commonwealth in the settlement of
    202
    the Indo-China dispute. [An HON. MEMBER: "Put a Question down."] It follows from the Question on the Order Paper. All I am asking the Prime Minister is to tell us, first, was such a message sent by the Foreign Secretary and, secondly, could he not give us the general gist of the reply at any rate, even if he does not quote it word for word?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I should like to have notice on the Paper and then I can give an accurate and full reply.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Prime Minister not remember that this House recently expressed itself in favour of a conference such as that indicated in the original Question, and will he not respect that expression and take steps to implement it?
    The Prime Minister: I am not prejudging anything. I am only saying that we had better wait until the Conference is over and then take stock of the whole position.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister remember that all the self-governing members of the Common wealth are now intimately concerned, and have declared themselves to be concerned, in the world questions with which we are faced, and that in the past consultation with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers has always been of great advantage to all concerned?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I will certainly remember it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TELEVISION [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for television broadcasting services in addition to those provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and to set up a special authority for that purpose, and to make certain other provision, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment to the said authority out of moneys provided; by Parliament of sums not exceeding seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds in any one financial year;

  (b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Postmaster General for the purposes of the said Act;

  (c) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required to enable the Postmaster General to make advances to the said authority of not more than two million pounds in all;

  (d) the raising under the National Loans Act, 1939, of any money required for the purpose of providing any sums to be issued as aforesaid or for the replacement thereof;

  (e) the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Postmaster General from the said authority in respect of advances, and the issue of such sums out of the Consolidated Fund and the application of such sums, in so far as they represent principal, in redemption or repayment of debt, and, in so far as they represent interest, in payment of interest otherwise falling to be paid out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt;

  (f) the payment into the Exchequer of the whole or any part of any excess of the revenues of the said authority for any financial year over the sums properly chargeable by the said authority to revenue account for that year, including in such sums sums credited to the reserve fund of the said authority.

  Resolution agreed to

  TELEVISION BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  TELEVISION BILL

    Clause 1.—(THE INDEPENDENT TELEVISION AUTHORITY.)
    3.30 p.m.
    The Chairman: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we took together the first two Amendments on the Order Paper, in page 1, line 5, and the Amendment in page 3, line 25, at the end to add a new subsection (12). They all deal with the same subject.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, at the beginning, to insert "On the appointed day."
    As you have said, Sir Charles, it probably would be convenient to take with this Amendment the Amendment to the same line in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey), which is to insert the date 1st September, 1956, and also the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends in page 3, line 25, the purpose of which Amendment is to provide that the expression "the appointed day" means a day, not less than 12 months after the passing of the Bill, as the Postmaster-General may decide It also provides that any order made under the Clause should be in the form of a Statutory Instrument and such as it would be possible to pray against in the House of Commons.
    The purpose of this first Amendment is to make more practicable the administration of the Bill when it becomes an Act. That may be thought to be inconsistent with the general attitude of the Opposition to the Bill, but if Parliament is to pass a Bill I think that the House and the Committee ought to give consideration to the conditions which will come into existence, and to the practicability of the Bill becoming operative.
    There has been some discussion across the Floor, notably with the Assistant Postmaster-General, about the receipt of applications for programme companies to go into operation and as to the occasions upon which they will be able to operate. One of the terms which the Assistant Postmaster-General has used is the word "now." If I may say so, that answer was given with characteristic lack of thought on the part of the Assistant Postmaster-General. I cannot believe that he really meant now either in the sense of now, today, or now in the sense of operation on the passing of the Bill. I am sure that the Committee will recognise that there will be many complications in the operation of this Bill when it becomes an Act.
    First of all, there is the setting up of the Television Authority itself. I admit that, in relation to this Amendment, it is the Television Authority that is in question and not the programme companies, which are provided for under and in

    205
    association with the Television Authority. Let us contemplate what has to be done under this Bill, the principle of which we strongly oppose and which we do not want to see passed. First, the Television Authority has to be set up—the so-called "Independent Television Authority" which in itself is a misnomer; but we will come to that later on.
    That Authority cannot reasonably function until the programme companies are in existence and are in a position to do their work, for the great bulk of the income both of the Independent Television Authority and of the companies will be dependent upon revenue from advertisements which it is proposed should be paid for. Therefore, it is the case that before the Independent Tele vision Authority and the programme companies can operate they must be assured of something like a substantial revenue from these commercial advertising sources. It follows that the date by which it becomes practicable to operate the Act of Parliament is, at the end of the day, dependent upon the coming into the coffers of the programme companies and, through them, of the Independent Television Authority of a share of the advertising revenue which it is proposed to obtain.
    Let us look at this matter from the point of view of the people who will pay for the television advertisements. They will not be in a hurry to pay for television advertisements until they can see that it is likely that they will obtain value for their money. That is to say, these businesses and undertakings, before they become committed by way of contracts to the expenditure of what obviously will be large sums of money for advertising purposes, will want to be sure that they will have value for the money that they spend. They will want to be sure that their sales are likely to increase to an extent that will warrant the expenditure, and that they can obtain prices from the consumers which will take care of the advertising expenditure.
    Indeed, in view of the vast expenditure that they must incur, it may be that they will have to increase prices to the consumers. At any rate, if they do not in crease prices, it will be the case that if there is a large increase in consumption the consumer, who might have expected a reduction in prices because of that great
    206
    increase, will find that that reduction will not take place because advertising costs will be a debit against the costs of the concern.
    The programme company presumably will be a company which exists by virtue of subscribed capital; that is to say, the company will require shareholders' investments in order that it may go about its business. The shareholder will expect a return for his money. It is true that some companies are floated and the share holders do not get a return for their money immediately, but they expect to get it, if not immediately, at any rate within a short time. The programme company cannot in any way be sure of a reasonable return on its capital for a time after it has been floated.
    The flotation of a television programme company will be a very consider able speculative effort. It will be some thing like, although I do not say exactly like, the flotation of a daily newspaper. In modern conditions a daily newspaper is a very difficult thing to float. It re quires large capital expenditure and may well require some years of deficits and losses before it can pay its way. It may be that it will never pay its way, as was the case in relation to a recent venture of this kind where, unhappily from its point of view, the daily newspaper failed. I do not say that the work of these programme companies will be quite as big or as serious as that of a daily newspaper, but it is on the way to being so. It will be an enormous speculative investment and there will be great uncertainty whether it can pay its way.
    Of course, the advertising people do not care, because they will be out of it. All they have to do is to book their ad vertisements and draw commission. Consequently, when I see hon. Members opposite who are connected with advertising businesses, I do not wonder at all at the cheerful look on their faces. They do not have to worry so much. But the programme companies will have to worry, because if they do not get the advertising revenue they will have invested substantial sums of capital and the return will be very highly speculative.
    I presume that in due course the commercial Television Authority itself will not be able to live unless money comes in from the programme companies. It will be dependent on the revenue that it

    207
    receives from the programme companies, just as the programme companies will be dependent on the revenue they receive from the advertising agencies and individual advertisers.
    I put this question to the Committee as a practical proposition: who can be in any way confident as to the date by which this Bill can operate, if and when it becomes an Act of Parliament? I put it to the Home Secretary and the Assist ant Postmaster-General that the drafting of this Bill is typical of the whole experiment, the whole venture. As a matter of fact, the whole venture has not been thought out. No adequate, constructive thought has been given to the framing of the Bill or to the policy behind the Bill.
    All that has happened is that about 20 hon. Members on the back benches opposite have thrust their will down the throats of the Government. The Government, being a weak-willed and weak-kneed Government, have given way. They have said, "Well, the boys want a Bill, so let us cough up and give them a Bill"; and they have come along with all these complications and uncertainties and all the difficulties which I have indicated to the Committee. Anyone would think that it was a Socialist resolution of the 1880s instead of a modern party Bill. These were the sorts of things I used to draft when I was young, but I would not draft them now. [Interruption.] I was not tying myself to the date of 1880.
    This Bill is pure, Tory, doctrinaire, dogmatic idealism—idealism from their point of view, but certainly not idealism from our point of view. Clause 1 begins, so innocently, so unrealistically, so much in the abstract, so utterly incompetently and thoughtlessly, with the words:
    "There shall be an authority, to be called the Independent Television Authority."
    That is coughing it out of the vasty deep. It is just saying to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers)—who, I hope, is consulting his bishop about it, as I think he needs a little spiritual care about this—and saying to the limited number of people who have an enthusiastic interest in this matter—I hope that it is in order, as the words were carefully chosen—"Do not worry, boys, 'There shall be an Authority'." There is no thought about whether there will be an Authority, no thought as to whether it
    208
    is a practical proposition, no thought whether it is possible on the passing of the Bill and the Royal Assent, but just, "There shall be an Authority."
    3.45 p.m.
    That is where we start, and it is so childlike, so thoughtless and so characteristic of any Government when it goes in for legislation that it has not thought about. That is one of the things we did not do in the Labour Government; we thought about our legislation. We had a good argument for the legislative pro gramme and the future legislative pro gramme. It was very good. But this Government, surrendering and capitulating to a miserable little collection of back benchers who have squeezed them, have landed themselves in a situation in which they say, "There shall be an Authority," and they assume that there will be an Authority. The Leader of the House is sitting there, light-hearted, smiling and happy. I warn him that in about nine months' time, if the Bill is passed—it will not be passed if we can get our way—he will not be smiling any more, but will be in the soup. I hope that I shall be here to witness him being in the soup, because that will be a pleasant sight for me.
    This is a foolish Bill. I put it to the Committee that it is better to use the words, "On the appointed day." It is the custom in many Acts of Parliament to provide that the Minister shall appoint the appointed day. I do not say that all Acts of Parliament do that, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) can find an exception to the rule; but it is quite common in Acts of Parliament, especially when one is not certain of what is to happen, to provide for an appointed day.
    The Amendment in page 3, line 25, provides that the appointed day shall be specified in an order by way of a Statutory Instrument; that is to say, an order laid before the House and capable of Challenge by the House. Why do we suggest that? We suggest it because we are apprehensive that when the Government want to operate the Act they will not be ready to operate it. The first argument is that it is silly to provide that, "There shall be an Authority" without any elasticity as to the date, and there ought to be elasticity. The second argument is that when the Government

    209
    propose to implement the Act, that decision ought to be put before Parliament and Parliament ought to be capable of making a challenge as to whether, in the circumstances, it is practicable to operate the Act. We should want to know what advertising revenue the Government had in sight, what were the contracts, and to whom they had been let, in respect of the programme companies, and what were the financial prospects for the Television Authority.
    I submit to the Government that all these are really reasonable propositions and that, in the nature of a Bill of this sort, where the outcome is uncertain and where the outcome and administrative problems are speculative, it is not wise merely to say, "There shall be an Authority." Where one is certain that a Bill can operate when it becomes an Act, it is all right to say, "On the passing of the Act, or on a stated day, but we cannot be certain in relation to this Bill. It is highly speculative, both administratively and from the point of view of possible financial and commercial business. Therefore, I recommend this Amendment and the associated Amendments to the favourable consideration of Ministers and of the Committee.
    Sir Herbert Williams: I have in my hand a copy of an Act of Parliament of which the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) claims the parentage, though he was not a Member of the House when it was introduced. It is the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, in which it is stated:
    "For the purposes of this Act there shall, as soon as may be … established a public authority. …"
    That would seem to me to be open to the same criticism as has been made by the right hon. Gentleman about this Bill.
    I do not mind the right hon. Gentle man joking about it; in fact I very much enjoyed it, because it is quite wrong to think that this Bill has been welcomed. The right hon. Gentleman accuses the Government of vacillating, but the bulk of this Bill has been invented to placate a whole lot of sloppy-minded people who do not wish to get on with the job. I could have produced a shorter and much more effective Bill than this Measure, which is a baby in swaddling clothes.
    210
    What is the objection of the right hon. Gentleman? It is quite clear that he and his colleagues are saying that if this matter is started, it will be stopped if and when they return to office. They may have some ambitions about the next General Election, provided they can establish authority in their own party. But in the meantime it is perfectly obvious that if we get this matter started before the next General Election no party will be able to stop it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is what terrifies the monopolists. They do not want competitive television to be in operation before the next General Election, and the whole object of this Amendment is to cause delay, to put off the appointing of the Authority for 12 months in the hope that the necessary organisation will take so long that the first programme under the Authority will be delayed.
    I do not mind if it is a commercial Authority instead of an independent Authority. I hope the right hon. Gentle man succeeds with his Amendment in that connection. Of what would it be independent in any case? I think it would be better if it were a commercial Authority. I am in favour of commercial competition, but that is in passing. The whole object of the right hon. Gentle man is to delay what may well happen at the earliest possible moment when this Bill becomes an Act so that we may have some alternative to the present dreary drip—I do not know whether the expression "drip" is the right one to use about something which one looks at. I do not possess a television set and what I have seen on other people's sets has not interested me very much. But let us have some competition and the opportunity for the exercise of some imagination, which is one thing the right hon. Gentleman has denied to the British public.
    If this Measure goes through, the right hon. Gentleman is not bound to look in, except on occasions when one or other of his right hon. or hon. Friends may be performing, and he may wish to find out what they are up to next so that he may be able to impose the appropriate disciplinary action at the next party meeting. I hope that this Amendment will be decisively rejected, because its whole object is to delay the operation of commercial television.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: The few remarks of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) were mostly irrelevant. Obviously he has not read the Amendments. It is entirely up to the Postmaster-General whether he creates an Independent Television Authority immediately this Act is passed. He can do so immediately after it receives the Royal Assent if he so wishes. The Amendments which we are discussing suggest that there shall be flexibility so that the Postmaster-General can decide whether to institute the Authority immediately, or whether to do so some time within the next 12 months. He is not bound to delay the creation of the Authority.
    The quotation of the hon. Member for Croydon, East from the London Passenger Transport Act was quite irrelevant. It is not analogous to the present Bill because the phrase there is, "as soon as may be"mdash;which provides flexibility. It was not necessary to create the London Passenger Transport Board until it was considered practicable to do so and until conditions were right.
    Sir H. Williams: I have read the Amendments and the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) should read other parts of the Clause. Obviously the Authority will not start to function until the remuneration of the members of the Authority has been decided.
    Mr. Davies: Again the hon. Gentle man is quite wrong, as he usually is. When boards were created under previous Acts, the names of the persons serving on the boards were sometimes given to the House, and they started their preliminary consultations before their remuneration was decided, and some weeks before it was announced in the House.
    It is quite a common practice for Acts of Parliament to provide for an appointed day or for a vesting date. It was so in the case of the National Coal Board and the British Transport Commission. When the National Coal Board was created, the relevant Act received the Royal Assent in July, 1946. The vesting date was 3rd January, 1947. The Transport Act of 1947 received the Royal Assent on 6th August of that year, and the vesting date was 1st January, 1948. That did not prevent the members of the boards from being chosen by the Minister
    212
    and their names being announced in the House, and preliminary consultations and work being undertaken. I suggest that a similar procedure might take place regarding the creation of an Independent Television Authority.
    We are entitled to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General why there is all the hurry. Why must the rush forward so rapidly with the creation of this Authority immediately after the Bill becomes law? Is it of such great urgency for the economic condition of the country that we should have an independent Authority created immediately after the Royal Assent is given to this Bill? The Authority is not wanted. Commercial television is not wanted in this country at the present time. It is wanted only by a few hon. Members on the back benches opposite, and, in spite of what has been said by the hon. Member for Croydon, East, the Government have given in to pressure from their back benchers.
    One reason why there should be flexibility in the creation of this Authority is that there have been substantial changes in Government policy which have to be assimilated and prepared for. The present Bill differs considerably from the original White Paper, and the Bill which will eventually become an Act will differ substantially from the Measure now before us. That is not because hon. Members on this side of the Committee or hon. Members opposite have put down Amendments, but because the Assistant Postmaster-General has put down a number of Amendments modifying the Bill. If there are to be substantial changes in the Bill before it receives the Royal Assent, there should be an interval of time during which the proper preliminaries can take place and preparations made for the carrying out of the functions of the Authority.
    First, the Postmaster-General must select the personnel to serve on the Authority. It will not be easy to find the right people. They are to have certain qualifications, although admittedly there are Government Amendments on the Order Paper abolishing some of the qualifications. Those will be the subject of later discussions. But it will be difficult to find people with the right qualifications, and it is important that they should be found. It would be unfortunate if the

    213
    Assistant Postmaster-General were forced hurriedly to choose these people and had not ample time to give consideration to the matter and to ascertain that they had the right qualifications and were not disqualified from serving. The Bill states that a large range of people would be disqualified from serving on the Authority, and we hope to strengthen it in that connection as it proceeds.
    4.0 p.m.
    As my right hon. Friend pointed out, it will not be at all easy to set up the Authority. There will be a number of difficulties in the way of the rapid creation of a commercial television network. There is already a shortage of technicians and a shortage of equipment. The Assistant Postmaster-General will be responsible to the House for both the B.B.C. and the new Authority, and it will be his duty to see that there is a fair apportionment between the two bodies—the Corporation and the Authority—of what is available.
    If he rushes ahead, as he would have to do if he did not accept the Amendment, it may well be that the Authority will attract people from the B.B.C. and will obtain equipment which the B.B.C. should first obtain in order to complete its coverage throughout the country. The B.B.C. now has only an 80 per cent, coverage and will have only 84 per cent, when its present stations are completed.
    Those are valid reasons why the Assist ant Postmaster-General should give serious consideration to these Amendments. There is a further reason: there is provision under Clause 9 for loans of £2 million to be made to the Authority, but there is a proviso that only £1 million can be loaned during the first year of the Authority. If the Authority is created after the passing of the Act and planning has not previously taken place, several months will have to be spent in planning the establishment of the stations, acquiring the sites, planning the building of the transmitters and masts and obtaining the equipment. All this will take a considerable time, and by the time the Authority is ready to start its construction and to borrow money, several months will have elapsed and it will not be possible for the £1 million to be spent in the time which remains—the balance of the first year during which the money has to be spent.
    214
    The hon. Gentleman is prejudicing the chances which the Authority has of using in the first year the money which he is willing to lend it and thereby prejudicing the prospects of obtaining that money. There is therefore a financial reason why he should consider a delay in bringing the Bill into operation.
    It will not be easy for the Authority to get going. Indeed, it is very much easier for an existing Corporation like the B.B.C., which already has a trained staff of technicians and all the necessary experience of a going concern, to go ahead with an extension of its present services at a great speed than for a new authority to get going. The Assistant Postmaster-General should bear that in mind.
    We are not tying his hands by the Amendment; all we are doing is to give him greater flexibility. Surely he would prefer to have that. When the Bill be comes law, surely he would prefer to give consideration to the matter with his colleagues and consult those who know about these questions so as to decide exactly when the Authority should start. The only condition will be that he must start within 12 months. Why cannot he take time to consider all the relevant factors after the Bill has received Royal Assent? He would lose nothing by accepting the Amendment; in fact he would gain. If he does not accept it, we are bound to suspect that the motives which inspire him to proceed with this indecent haste are those which we have attributed to him on so many occasions— pressure to get on with the job from a small group of hon. Members who sit behind him.
    Mr. William Warbey: The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) and myself has been put down in order to call attention to the need for postponing the operation of the Bill. The Amendment is in page 1, line 5, at the beginning, to insert:
    "On the first day of September, nineteen hundred and fifty-six."
    I do not wish to suggest that there is any difference of opinion between my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and myself, on the one hand, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewis-ham. South (Mr. H. Morrison) and others who are concerned with other Amend-

    215
    ments. Hon. Members opposite will not be able to take comfort from my speech by discovering a new split in the ranks of the Opposition. The only difference between us is that those who support my Amendment take a more optimistic view of the flexibility and spirit of conciliation which might be expected from the Government in this matter.
    We put down the Amendment to help the Government. We know the very great difficulty they are in. In fact, they are under very great embarrassment be cause this is a Bill which nobody likes—not even those who have pressed hardest for it. It has met, I suppose, with the most uniform degree of opposition from all the most influential people in the land which any Bill presented to the House has ever met. Every education authority, a large number of church dignitaries, many noble Lords and the whole of the Press oppose it, and many friends of the Government wish they would drop the Bill altogether.
    We are providing them with an escape from the guerilla band behind them who have been urging them on all this time. I have no doubt that right hon. Gentle men opposite have wished time and again that someone would disarm those who are holding the pistols which are being pointed at their backs all the time on the Bill. Here is a chance for that disarming to be done. We are not asking for the Bill to be dropped, but merely that its operation should be postponed for a couple of years. A great deal needs to be done during those two years.
    I suppose the Government can claim that the principle of the Bill has received the support of the House and that the principle of commercial television was accepted on Second Reading. It is quite true that they got their vote for it, but they know very well that that was be cause they put on the Whips. If they had taken the advice of "The Times" and other sections of the Press, they would have allowed a free vote on Second Reading. All they can claim is that by putting on the Whips they managed to secure a majority on Second Reading, but the fact that they had the votes of Members of Parliament does not mean that they have the votes of the people.
    216
    "The Times," this morning, reminds right hon. Gentlemen opposite that "beyond the Commons lies the country," and it must be a rather uncomfortable thought for hon. and right hon. Gentle men opposite. The fact that this issue may have to be presented to the people will give them many anxious thoughts indeed, and I would remind them that this issue never has been presented to the people. If the Amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and myself was accepted, then they would have to put the issue to the test of the people and find out whether or not there is any sup port for their conception of a sponsored television Authority, because that is really what it is, in effect.
    There is another reason for accepting this Amendment, and it is that, once we accept the principle of a thing, it is very important to time its operation properly. The country is faced with a great scarcity of resources of all kinds, and timing, therefore, becomes a question of deciding upon the priorities in the use of those resources.
    In this field of television, there is a scarcity of transmitting equipment, a scarcity of studio space, a scarcity of trained technical staff, a scarcity of trained producing staff and a scarcity of financial resources, and, with all these scarcities, surely, the important thing is to see that the organisation which is starting to do this job is, first of all, given the opportunity of doing that job properly before someone else comes along and starts scrambling for these scarce resources.
    After all, the B.B.C. is only just be ginning its work of establishing a television service. It has still a great deal to do, and it will do that job a great deal better than this commercial Authority will ever do it. The B.B.C, first of all, has the acknowledged duty of providing coverage for all or practically all the people in these islands. That is a tremendous task, and one which is not yet completed. Are we then to deprive the B.B.C. of some of these scarce resources and thus prevent it from carrying out that important task?
    The B.B.C. also has the task of providing an alternative television service, which is desired by the people generally,

    217
    including hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Thirdly, the B.B.C. has another very important task to perform if it carries out effectively the terms of its Charter and if it does what is required by thinking opinion in the country; namely, the task of establishing a schools television service.
    I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the history of this question of a schools television service. It is now well over two years since we had the first pioneer experiments in school television, which took place on a closed circuit to six schools in the county of Middlesex. After that experiment took place, there was an investigation and a report by the School Broadcasting Council, and also by the Education Committee of Middlesex County Council, and both these bodies produced reports saying that the experiments had proved to them the educational value of a schools television service. [Interruption.] Are there some hon. Members who wish to interrupt?
    4.15 p.m.
    Captain L. P. S. Orr: I was only wondering how the hon. Gentleman relates the argument he is putting forward about a schools television service to the Amendment on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Warbey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot have followed very closely what I was saying. I hesitate to take up the time of the Committee, because, after all, we are all anxious to get on; it is a long and complicated Bill, there are a large number of Amendments, and, at best, the Bill will have a rather stormy passage. Therefore, I do not think it helps very much if hon. Members who have not been following the debate raise points by interruptions, but, for the sake of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I will briefly repeat the point I was making.
    It is, quite simply, that the B.B.C. has an obvious duty to provide a schools television service, and that, in order to do that, it will need to make use of studio space — [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is no longer interested. The B.B.C. will have to use studio space, producing and technical staff and equipment and also financial resources to provide a schools television service. It will not be able to do so if it is to be
    218
    faced with a challenge from commercial television for the next two years.
    I am not saying that only on my own authority, but on the authority of the British Broadcasting Corporation itself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members will refer to the Press report of 3rd April this year, they will see that discussions took place between the B.B.C., the School Broadcasting Council and the Ministry of Education on the question of following up to the next stage in the establishment of schools television, and now, after two years have passed since the first and successful experiment—two years of long delay—when we have at last reached the point when a large number of local education authorities are extremely anxious to co-operate with the B.B.C. in establishing a school television service, we find that the B.B.C. is forced to say that it cannot contemplate establishing a schools television service in the near future because it will have to devote its scarce resources of studio space, staff, and so on, to meeting the challenge of commercial television.
    That is the issue which I am now putting forward, and I hope that we shall have a reply from the benches opposite, because this whole question has been evaded all through by the Minister of Education, the Assistant Postmaster-General and other Members of the Government who have been challenged about it. I challenge them to deny that if, in fact, they rush ahead with this commercial television proposal, it will destroy the possibility of making proper educational use of television in any foreseeable future, and that, the schools television service will be postponed to the Greek Kalends as a result of their surrender to purely money-grabbing interests.
    I know that there are right hon. Gentlemen opposite who think very highly of the educational work done by the B.B.C. In the Beveridge Committee's Report, the Minister of State, in his Minority Report, praised very highly the B.B.C.'s broadcasts to schools and went so far as to say that, while he favoured the setting up of a competitive service to the B.B.C., educational broadcasting should be left solely in the hands of the B.B.C.; in other words, even the Minister of State was not prepared to trust educational services to any organisation. He wanted it kept where it was safe—in

    219
    the hands of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
    The view is generally held that in the educational field the B.B.C. does an excellent job and ought to extend its work as soon as possible into the television medium. It is felt, however, that if, within the next year or two, it has to face the challenge of commercial television it will not be able to do this work. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, and not force us to conclude that they have sacrificed the interests of the children to those commercial interests which, instead of providing the children with sustained educational pabulum will put before them in their own homes degrading and trashy stuff.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammons): I am sure that we are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) for the amusing speech with which he opened this debate. Nevertheless, all these Amendments seek to intro duce an element of delay which is very difficult to appreciate, so perhaps I had better explain what, in fact, they would do.
    The first Amendment would lay down that there should be an appointed day, not later than 12 months after the passing of the Act, when the Authority should come into being. The second would provide that the Order setting up the Authority should be subject to annulment, in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament. I think that the vital point of these Amendments comes in the second. If it were accepted it would mean that a Statutory Instrument would have to be laid before both Houses before the Authority could start work. That Instrument would be subject to annulment under, I think Section 5, of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946.
    That would mean that, from the laying of the Order, Parliament would have 40 days in which to pray against it if it so wished. That 40 days would take no account of any time during which Parliament was dissolved or prorogued, or during which it was adjourned for more than four days. Assuming that the Bill is passed into law in June or July of this year, the existence of the Authority itself might well be held up until
    220
    the end of the year, or even later. During that time the Authority could not enter into contracts either with the programme contractors or to purchase equipment. The Amendment, therefore, is a means of deferring for a further period the decision to get on with the job. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey) was more definite in what he wanted. He wanted to make it two years.
    I contend that the principle of having an appointed day is inappropriate to a Bill of this sort. In many Bills it has been necessary to fix an appointed day, but it has not been necessary to fix an appointed day for any Authority to come into being so much as to fix a date for taking over the assets. That, I think, is the essential difference between this and any other Bill. Even under the nationalisation Acts, such as the Trans port Act, 1947, there was no delay in appointing the Authority itself.
    Another instance when it may be useful to use the device of an appointed day is where a Bill is of such a character that an interval is required between the setting up of the Corporation and the date on which the Act comes into effective operation. That is not true here. An interval may also be required for other reasons. The common instance is where the Authority is brought into being but a delay is needed so that regulations can be made for dealing with specific things in the Bill.
    My point is that this Bill is not of that character at all. We are not taking over any assets. We are creating a new authority. I cannot see any reason why there should be any interval between the passing of the Bill and its coming into operation, or any interval before the Authority may be brought into existence.
    The suggested Amendment under which the House would have the opportunity to pray against the Bill is not only wholly unnecessary but most unusual. It would mean that we should need yet another debate before the Act came into operation. I should have thought that if ever there was a Bill which had been discussed ad nauseum it was this Television Bill.
    If I may say so, I think that the device of delay which the right hon. Gentleman suggests is inappropriate. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Broxtowe for his solicitude for the future

    221
    of our party, and also for the programme companies. I suggest that it is quite in appropriate for a Bill of this sort to have an appointed day, and I regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: I have listened very carefully to the Assistant Postmaster-General's explanation. I think that he will, on reflection, discover that the Amendments really help him. The first states that "On the appointed day" and, as a result of the second Amendment, the Clause would read:
    "… the first day of September, nineteen hundred and fifty-six."
    I suggest that had the Government really known what they were going to do in this matter a date would have been included in the Bill. The fact is that they have been entirely undecided. Having yielded to the pressure of certain interests on the other side—to which I have referred on three other occasions—this Bill is brought forward. Why not have put in an appointed day? In my humble sub mission, the reason is that at first they decided, in principle, that there should be commercial television, but had not the slightest idea how it should be done. In other words, they did not know whether channels were available on which trans mission could take place were available.
    Despite many questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) it was not until the second White Paper was issued that we had an assurance as to the wavelength on which the transmission was to take place. On Second Reading we learned that this was to be done on two channels now available on Band III. That means that many people are to be put to in convenience. Before these two channels can be made available many people have to be transferred from Band III to Band II. That will take time.
    Captain Orr: Can the hon. Member tell me who it is proposed to transfer to Band II?
    Mr. Hobson: I understand that it is largely the ambulance services. Some one has to be removed so that the two channels shall be available—that is what we are told. Certainly, they have to be removed if there is to be complete coverage for Northern Ireland or for Scotland on commercial television—let there be no doubt about that. These are real reasons
    222
    why there should be delay before the coming in of the Act, and I hope that the Government will give consideration to the problems I have mentioned.
    4.30 p.m.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Brox-towe (Mr. Warbey) raised the question of the B.B.C. second programme. Is the B.B.C. not to be allowed to go on with its plans for a second programme until the establishment of the Independent Tele vision Authority becomes an accomplished fact? The second programme of the B.B.C. is to be on Band IV, and if we are to believe the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) there will be some delay in bringing it into operation. My latest information is that the B.B.C. already has a transmitter which can operate on Band IV. Why should it not have the chance of establising a second programme? Surely it would be generally conceded by the Committee, in fairness, justice and equity, that the B.B.C. should have this chance.
    I am convinced that it is because of the difficulties experienced by the Government in their consultations with the technical officers of the Post Office, and, perhaps, of the B.B.C., that they have not stipulated the date upon which the I.T.A. should become active. I do not want to go into details about the difficulty of obtaining adequate finance, but the independent commercial organisation must be financed from the licences. Many things must be done to cover those sections of the programme which are not profitable to the programme companies.
    Knowing hon. Members opposite, I am convinced that they would have included an appointed day if they had thought it practicable to do so. We say that it is practicable to make 1st September, 1956, the appointed day, for the reasons we have given. It is largely because there has been a technical difficulty about the allocation of channels and the transfer of people from one band to another that no appointed day has been named. I hope that the Committee will feel that it can reasonably accept the Amendment, which is put forward in a most helpful spirit and which we consider to be practicable.
    Mr. Edward Shackleton: I want to refer to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) about the possible use of wavebands. In his

    223
    position as chairman of another vested interest group—the Mobile Radio Users —he is an expert in this matter, but whether people have to be moved to Band II or Band IV, the fact remains that a certain amount of disorganisation will result. This factor must be taken into account when the Bill has been passed and the Postmaster-General seeks to implement it, and I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will give a clearer explanation of this aspect of the matter.
    The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that once the Bill is passed there will be an Authority; indeed, the Bill says so, but in view of the extraordinary turns and changes in Government policy I am wondering whether, when the time comes, he will be able to find anybody who is willing to serve on the Authority. We would like to know that, and before the Bill comes into operation we would also like to hear what arrangements he will impose on the Authority. We should be told about some of the discussions which have taken place and the prospects of setting up programme contractors.
    We know that the Postmaster-General has had many conversations with potential programme contractors. Like the Government in other respects, he does not hesitate to anticipate laws which the Government hope Parliament will pass. In this case I suggest that he does nothing more to anticipate the decision of Parliament. Let the Bill be passed and then, when he knows what the law is, let him think about setting up the Authority, and give the House the opportunity to vote against the final proposals. This may save him some embarrassment. Other wise, if nobody is willing to serve on the Authority, he will find himself in the position of not being able to carry out the wishes of Parliament, and we want to save him that embarrassment.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): That is a little wide of the Amendment which is before the Committee.
    Mr. Shackleton: With respect, Sir Rhys, I think it is precisely on the Amendment, which deals with the question whether there should be an appointed day. That is the point to which I am addressing my remarks.
    224
    On this matter Parliament has had to concern itself repeatedly with fresh sets of proposals. Even now we do not know whether the purposes for which the Authority is being set up will be those contained in this Bill, or whether other purposes will be attached to it in the course of the debates here and in another place. We do not even know whether the Bill will be passed into law in this Session. The Postmaster-General should wait until the Bill is passed before he assumes so gaily that he will be able to set up the Authority. I hope that the Government will reconsider the Amendment and accept the principle of an appointed day.
    Mr. Ede: I should not have intervened in this debate but for the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). When he produced, out of the hat, so to speak, his somewhat anaemic rabbit, which he held up for the admiration of the Committee, I thought his performance was a little too slick, so I examined both the hat and the rabbit. No two Measures could be more completely different in this respect than the London Passenger Transport Act of 1933 and the Bill which is now before the Committee.
    The hon. Member for Croydon, East stopped reading his extract at the point which was most convenient to him. If only he had gone on a little longer, it would have become apparent that the whole London Passenger Transport Act depended upon a series of appointed days.
    Sir H. Williams: Not in relation to the appointment of the Board, because the appointing trustees were set up by the Act.
    Mr. Ede: That is just the difference between this Bill and that Act, which provided not that the Board should spring from the mind of the Minister concerned but that there should be appointing trustees, who had to select the members of the Board. It was only after they had acted that the then Act could come into operation.
    Sir H. Williams: There is an appointing trustee under the Bill—the Post master-General.
    Mr. Ede: Under the terms of the London Passenger Transport Act the appointing trustees had to satisfy the requirement that they would not bring any bias into

    225
    their appointments, whereas nobody would suggest that the Postmaster-General, or the Assistant Postmaster-General, is devoid of bias in this matter. The provisions of the London Passenger Transport Act in this respect evoked some comments from the late right hon. David Lloyd George, to the effect that whatever the Measure was it was not Socialism, because, among other things, the arrangements for the appointment of the Board endeavoured to keep it out of politics, and, in the result, did so fairly success fully. On the assumption that it is at least as desirable that the Authority in this case should be as remote from party bias as was the London Passenger Trans port Board, I should have thought that it would have been right to adopt similar arrangements for the appointment of the Authority.
    As I understand it, the effect of the Clause as now worded will be that from the moment the Bill becomes law it will be possible for the Postmaster-General himself to make the appointments, and the only way in which his action can be challenged will be by moving a reduction of his salary on the Estimates, or by a specific Motion of censure on him and the Government for the way in which the power is exercised. His action will be an administrative act, and those will be the only ways in which it can be challenged. I really think it would be desirable to have some machinery by which the House and the country can be assured in this matter, for absence of bias in the people who are to be the governors of the new organisation is of the utmost importance.
    This is not a matter which would involve very long delay. There should be, when the Bill becomes an Act, arrangements by which the selection of the people who are to serve can be made in a short period by appointing trustees, similar to those provided for in the London Passenger Transport Act. I express my sincere thanks to the hon. Member for Croydon, East for calling my attention to those circumstances.
    Sir H. Williams: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that I was present when that Measure was going through Parliament. I took part in consideration of it as a Conservative back bencher. The National Government led by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald accepted the proposal where by the appointments were made, which
    226
    was a proposal distinct from that of the right hon. Gentleman's party, which was that the appointments should be made by the Minister. Good or bad, it was a different proposal from the original proposal favoured by the right hon. Gentle man the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison).
    Mr. Joseph Reeves: I support the Amendment on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey). It would be to the credit of the Committee if it were to accept the Amendment. It would ease the position of the Government very considerably. More and more people are beginning to realise the significance of this Bill, and they are reacting to it in a way which, were I responsible for it, would alarm me considerably. They are beginning to realise more and more now that this is a leap into the dark, and that they have had no opportunity, as an electorate, of expressing their views on the matter.
    This is a very complicated Measure, and by it we are frustrating one of the finest pieces of work for which this country has been responsible not only in sound radio transmission but in television. The Amendment would give the Government the opportunity of having second thoughts on the matter, and I want to put forward some reasons why they should be given that opportunity for second thoughts.
    The people of the country are proud of the work that the B.B.C. has been doing in the past few decades. The B.B.C. has been above party political warfare. It has been above the battle, and there has been no criticism of the B.B.C. on that score. It has sometimes been felt that the programmes could be improved, but the principle of this great national service has been accepted by the whole population. Whenever Commissions have investigated the B.B.C. those Com missions, on all occasions—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The work of the B.B.C. does not come into question on this Amendment, which is about an appointed day.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Reeves: Unless I am very much mistaken, that is the whole consideration behind the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has already

    227
    indicated that the B.B.C. is under a considerable disadvantage merely because the Bill has been brought forward, quite apart from the fact—
    The Deputy-Chairman: That may be true enough, but all that this Amendment proposes is to alter the Clause by providing for an appointed day.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that we are considering the first two Amendments together, and my hon. Friend is making his case why the operation of the Bill should be delayed, which is the effect of the second Amendment.
    The Deputy-Chairman: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Amendments he will see that all they do is alter the date of operation of the Bill.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: By an order.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, but it is still only an alteration of the date.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: The third Amendment that we are considering provides for the order to be laid before the House, and that would involve some delay.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, but it is all to do with the coming into force of the Bill.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: It would involve delay, and the delay would be one of the reasons for the Amendments.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That can be advanced as a reason, but I do not think we can go into the whole subject of the effect on the B.B.C.
    Mr. Warbey: We understood, Sir Rhys, that my Amendment and the other Amendment would be taken with the first Amendment, and the purpose is to delay the operation of the whole scheme for two years. Surely we are entitled to give the reasons why there should be that delay? One of the reasons is that the B.B.C. has very important work to complete, and that it should be given the opportunity of doing so for two years before it has to face the challenge of commercial television.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That may be true, but that is a very different thing
    228
    from having a general debate on the work of the B.B.C., which is not in order on this Amendment.
    Mr. Reeves: I did not intend to spend the whole of my time in referring to the work that the B.B.C. has been under taking during the past years, but I do feel that it is exceedingly important for the people of the country to realise how damaging this Bill will be to the work which the B.B.C. has in hand.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is what I have objected to. That would have been quite proper on the Second Reading of the Bill, but it is too wide a subject for debate on this Amendment.
    Mr. Reeves: Some of my hon. Friends have already indicated that there will be a scramble for equipment on account of this new competition which the B.B.C. will have to face. In the ordinary way the B.B.C. would have completed its programme. It has made all manner of arrangements to complete its programme to cover the country with a very high frequency service to provide television services where there is none as yet.
    The B.B.C. has also put forward a scheme to provide a second programme, and much of this will be severely handicapped because competition with the new Authority for equipment is bound to happen, probably at the expense of the B.B.C., and in many ways in co-operation with the B.B.C., because the Authority will not be able to operate without the co-operation of the B.B.C. So the B.B.C. is vitally concerned in this matter, and how on earth we can discuss television or broadcasting in any way without referring to the work of the B.B.C. passes my comprehension.
    The Deputy-Chairman: But we are not discussing that. We are discussing whether "On the appointed day" should be inserted in the Clause.
    Mr. Hobson: On a point of order, Sir Rhys. We are discussing three distinct Amendments, one of which stipulates 1st September, 1956. It is our contention, in advocating why there should be that date, that interference with the B.B.C. is involved in respect of the wavelengths which the Authority will be granted. I suggest it is in order to argue on these lines as one reason why the date should be 1956.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is making a point very different from the speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves).
    Mr. Reeves: I suppose, Sir Rhys, that when we speak our terminology is bound to differ. We may put our points of view in ways which may not appear to you to correspond, but I can assure you that what I am trying to say is exactly what my hon. Friend has just said. I do ask you to be lenient.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member may be saying that, but; he is not doing so nearly as skilfully as his hon. Friend.
    Mr. Reeves: To begin with, Sir Rhys, I have not been a Minister, as my hon. Friend has been. I have not had to stand at the Dispatch Box. and I have not the accomplishments which my hon. Friend possesses, but I assure you that the idea which I am trying to put forward is the one which my hon. Friend expressed in a few words.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe indicated that he was concerned about the school television ser vice, the B.B.C.'s progress upon which has actually been suspended. That is a terrible thing to have happened, so it seems to me, in view of the fact that the new Authority is not likely, even in the wildest dreams of those who support the scheme, to put forward a plan for a school television service. The fact that the B.B.C. is to be hampered in this way is a very strong argument for the Amendment.
    There is not the slightest doubt that there will be a great scramble for equipment. All those who are in the industry, those on the fringes of the industry and those who have been associated with broadcasting and television, know that there is a great shortage of specialised equipment.
    Also, as the result of Government policy, the B.B.C. has been held back for four years. It has had its plans but it has not been possible, on account of the restrictions on capital expenditure, for it to get on with its schemes. Now on account of the lack of studio space, cameras and equipment generally, this school television scheme is to be can celled or scrapped. Some very interesting experiments were undertaken, a pilot
    230
    scheme was arranged, and the results of it have been made known. There is not the slightest doubt that it would have been a great educational asset if the B.B.C.'s school television service had gone forward.
    I urge the Government to think again about this scheme, and first give an opportunity for the people of the country to be consulted. They have never had an opportunity of deciding whether there shall be commercial television here. Our people have always been proud of our progress in the field of television and radio, and they ought to have an opportunity of expressing their views. The Amendment would provide a delay of two years, during which the country could be consulted. I urge the Committee to support the Amendment.
    Captain Orr: We have already spent far too long up this rather silly Amendment. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is rather silly?"] Be patient, and I will tell the Committee. Because of that fact, I intend to be very brief, but the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), a former Assistant Postmaster-General, and his hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), who sits beside him, arguing the necessity for delay, produced some technical arguments about which I ought to make one point. The hon. Member for Preston, South argued that if these Amendments were not carried, and if there was not provision for delay, there would not be time to examine the possible inconvenience to users of mobile radios. The hon. Member for Keighley referred to the same point.
    The suggestion was that the coming into operation immediately of the provisions of the Bill would inconvenience, for example, the ambulances. That point should be dealt with, as it is one of sub stance and importance. It is not the coming into operation of the Bill or its provisions that have inconvenienced the ambulances or will inconvenience the users of mobile radios. The fact is that the users of mobile radios and ambulances have been inconvenienced because of something quite different—because of the policy of the Post Office in putting them into Band III in the first place, for which the hon. Member for Keighley was himself responsible.
    Mr. Hobson: That is a very fair point, and it is perfectly true that I share a certain amount of personal responsibility for that decision. Let me hasten to assure the hon. and gallant Member, however, that at that time it was not contemplated that there would be a second programme of the B.B.C. on that particular wave length.
    The second point I wish to make is that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will refer to the Stockholm Convention, which dealt with the allocation of wave lengths, he will see that there is a specific protocol which gives the British Post Office the power to allocate these wave lengths to the mobile services, and it was something which the mobile services readily accepted, and were only too pleased to do so. By going into Band III, we were able to make available channels for defence purposes, about which I do not propose to say anything.
    The allegation which the hon. and gallant Member has made has been made across the Floor several times, and I am happy to repeat the assurance given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), in reply to a supplementary question, that the Post Office has a perfectly legal right to have mobile radios on Band III.
    5.0 p.m.
    Captain Orr: It is true that the Post Office has a perfectly legal right to have users in Band III, but that entirely depends upon how we interpret the inter national Conventions which they have signed.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: On a point of order. Are we discussing the appointed day for putting an ambulance in Band III. or what are we discussing?
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. The hon. and gallant Member is going too far away from the Amendment.
    Captain Orr: I do not think that you were in the Chair at the time, Sir Rhys, when the hon. Member for Keighley advanced as a reason for having an appointed day the fact that, if there were not that provision, certain users of radio would be inconvenienced. I am addressing my argument to rebutting that contention and pointing out that the inconvenience would not arise as a result of the Bill but as a result of the hon. Member's own policy.
    The Deputy-Chairman: As long as the hon. and gallant Member confines his argument to that it is in order, but as I understood him he had gone far afield and was discussing the bands themselves.
    Captain Orr: I was discussing the point that it is not the coming into operation of the Bill which is likely to inconvenience the ambulance authorities. It is, in fact, the policy of the Post Office, and that policy was to put them into Band III in the first place when the Atlantic City Convention of 1947 specifically stated—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. and gallant Member is back to the Convention.
    Captain Orr: I think I have now made the point. I wanted to have it on the record.
    Mr. Hobson: The Atlantic City Convention did not deal with short waves.
    Captain Orr: I am not sure whether I can reply to that intervention.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I pointed out that the hon. and gallant Member cannot continue to discuss Band III.
    Captain Orr: I hope that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will stick to the point and reject the Amendment. Let us get the Authority started at the earliest possible moment; let the prospective programme contractors know where they stand; and let us get the new television which the people want on the air as soon as possible.
    Sir Leslie Plummer: We know that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) does not like the Bill. He has made it clear over and over again that he is antagonistic to it, but it is a bit much that he should filibuster like this while we are doing our best to help the Government get the Bill through. If this is an example of what we are to have through the stilly watches of the night, with the vested interests that do not like the Bill holding it up like this, I think that we shall have a rather thin time over the next few months.
    I shall not follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I shall not filibuster, but I shall put some relevant points to the Assistant Postmaster-General for his consideration. The Assistant Postmaster-General has deplored the Amendment on

    233
    the ground that it would delay the introduction of the Authority. He says, in effect, that this is a very bad thing indeed. I ask him to reconsider that statement. The Committee must face the fact that the compelling motive behind the Bill is the most competent and the best organised pressure group that this country possesses, and that is the advertising profession.
    Indeed, the Bill is before the Commit tee today because of the efforts of that pressure group. Otherwise, we should not have heard about it at all. I happen to know from experience, and there are hon. Gentlemen opposite who have shared that experience, how extremely skilful the pressure group is.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General and the Government will be faced with the problem of finding competent, disinterested people. I think that the Assistant Postmaster-General admits that they have to be disinterested by the very terms of the Bill. Indeed, some of the Amendments on the Paper in the names of my hon. Friends go even further in strengthening the determination of the Assistant Postmaster-General that the members of the Authority should be disinterested people. If they are disinterested they will be innocent. They will be innocent of the advertising business and of the publicity business. They will be drawn into the position of members of the Authority for other reasons.
    This is where the pressure group will go to work. If the pressure group finds that the Authority is being set up as it were against the clock—that is to say, that the Government were imbued with the belief that our economic life would fall in ruins around our feet unless we had commercial television almost immediately—then, of course, the pressure group will be able to go to people who were confused, worried and anxious about the future, unarmed with experience that some of us have had, and it would be able to exercise the maximum possible influence upon them. The pres sure group cannot really conduct the compaign successfully over a long-term period. That cannot be done; it can only be done over a short term. There fore, let us have a short-term period.
    What is to prevent the Government deciding to nominate the members of the Authority, to appoint them subject to
    234
    Parliamentary approval, to see that they go to work, to pay them and to let them have a year or two to learn the business? After all, this is a most important business. It will be the most important propaganda weapon that the country possesses—or one of the most important. There is no reason why the people who are in charge should not understand it because they have not got the experience. They should not be subject to the pres sure group technique, and they should have time to understand what the thing is all about.
    In that way we should defeat the machinations of some of these gentlemen who have been going round the country talking as though they are on the inside of the track. One of these gentlemen has been going around saying that he has got the monopoly for a certain part of the country. He has been making speeches to that effect. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Who is he?"] His name will probably be divulged as the Committee proceeds with its work. He may be able to go to the Authority and to say, "Long before you came on the scene I was in touch with the thing." The Assistant Postmaster-General must protect the Authority from that. We must not have the Authority starting off in such sinister circumstances.
    For that reason—because if this wretched Bill is to go on the Statute Book it might as well be operated as decently as it possibly can be—let the Government have time to find the right people. Let them have time to bed those people down in tine job. Let them clear up some of the highly suspicious characters that are now lurking on the fringes of this business. Let them set up an Authority that will have the respect not only of the House of Commons, which is important, but of the public in whose interest this Bill must be produced, not, of course, in the interest of the advertisers.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I rise with some diffidence because I do not want to carry on the debate for too long. We are anxious to make some progress, but we must have a more satisfactory answer to the case which has been advanced from this side of the Committee. I must say that I thought that the Assistant Postmaster-General treated the matter very lightly. He did not attempt to deal with the argument which has

    235
    been advanced. I hope that during the Committee stage he will try to deal with the points put forward so that the maximum amount of light can be thrown on this matter.
    The Home Secretary is sitting there, and I understand that he has a special responsibility in this matter. His responsibility, as I had when I was Post master-General and responsible for television policy, is to see that things are going right; but I must say that on this Amendment we have not been treated fairly. The Assistant Postmaster-General showed a reluctance to tell Parliament what is to be done. One of his arguments is that there is no need to have an appointed day, and that there is nothing to tell. I should have thought that there was a very great deal to tell. We ought to be fully informed of what is to be done under this Bill before it comes into operation.
    As the Home Secretary knows, this matter has been frequently discussed. There have been eight or nine debates about television, and the matter has changed its form every time we have had a debate. Each of the White Papers has differed, and even now this Bill differs from the White Papers. I do not know what contacts have been made between the Assistant Postmaster-General and other people, but I see some very strange Amendments on this Bill. We really ought to know what deals, if any, have been made behind the scenes. The operation of the provisions of this Bill require, more than in any other Bill, the insertion of an appointed day and an Order to be brought before the House before it operates.
    The Home Secretary knows that many things have to be settled. He knows, first of all, that the authority of the Postmaster-General has to be exercised before this Authority can be appointed and can operate. He has to decide for how many hours a day there shall be television by this Authority. He has to decide which wavelengths it shall have. We have been told in which band it is, but we have not been told precisely on which wavelength it will operate, or on how many wavelengths it will operate.
    I do not know why we have not been told. The Postmaster-General has a responsibility, under the Bill, to decide
    236
    what are the natural breaks for the insertion of advertisements. He has the authority and responsibility for deciding how much the members of this Authority should be paid. He must also decide what allowances can be given to certain members of the Authority when they are about the Authority's business. The Home Secretary is a very good House of Commons man, if I may say so without appearing presumptuous. Surely he will agree that these are matters that ought to be discussed on the basis of an Order of this House rather than on a Motion of censure or upon the question of raising the salary of the Postmaster-General or of the Assistant Postmaster-General.
    There is a whole range of matters about which we ought to have proper information before this Authority commences to work. In addition to that, the purpose of an appointed day and of an Order of this sort is to give the Minister an opportunity of telling the House whom he is to appoint. While it is not in the Order itself, we are generally given an indication whom it is intended to appoint. By the terms of this Bill, the Postmaster-General is prohibited from appointing so many people, that we should want to look at whoever he does appoint with a great deal of attention. These are matters that ought to be before the House, and the purpose of an appointed day and of an Order is to get a full disclosure to the House of what it is proposed to do under this Bill.
    5.15 p.m.
    We might be told that apparently the Postmaster-General is now in discussion with programme companies and, as we know, he is not supposed to have any contact with programme companies. They are supposed to be completely in dependent of him and responsible to the Authority. All these things are happening and have been hidden from the House, I think that as these matters loom very large in the public mind, and as this instrument is capable of doing very great damage to the public mind as well as very great good, we ought to take the utmost care to examine everything that is being done.
    In those circumstances, the Home Secretary ought to give us an assurance about these matters. He ought to give us a much more substantial reason why

    237
    this Amendment is not to be accepted. If he feels that he is not obliged to do that, I for one will be very sorry, and we shall have to divide without having heard the Government's case. That is the position. I should much prefer that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should make a statement so that we can consider the matter. If he does not do that, we must notify him beforehand that we must have a Division so that the country may know exactly where we stand.
    Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he is going to make any response to the request of my right hon. Friend? We had a rather short and, I thought, rather thin reply from the Assistant Postmaster-General. We have not so far debated this Amendment at undue length. We are trying to be reasonable about it. But I think that it would be a matter of courtesy to the Committee, and indeed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), that the Home Secretary should make a considered statement, especially in the light of the other speeches which have been made sub sequent to the remarks of the Assistant Postmaster-General.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): As the Committee knows, I am always willing to respond to a request put in that way. I hope that the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) will not take it amiss that I did not rise at once. I thought that he was defining the differences between us rather than seeking further information. I am very glad to attempt to deal with some of the points that have been made.
    It is right that one should bear in mind the general run of the arguments that have been advanced, because, as is not unknown in the somewhat carefree atmosphere that gets into speeches in Committee, some deviationism on the line of argument does take place. I will, therefore, try to follow the general line as I see it, and I hope that no one will take it amiss if I do not cover it all.
    The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who moved the Amendment, dealt with it from the point
    238
    of view of, I think, three general approaches. First of all, he said that the Authority cannot reasonably function until the programme companies are in being, and I join issue with him on that point. I think it is essential that the Authority must do a great deal of preliminary work both on the technical side and on the side of choice of programme companies, and the lines on which con tracts are to be drawn, and so on. There fore, I should say that it is essential from the Authority's point of view that it should come into being very quickly.
    The right hon. Gentleman's second point showed a concern for a body of people whom I did not think up to this stage in our discussions to have torn his heart-strings very badly. Whenever I have listened to the right hon. Gentle man—and I have listened with great care and enjoyment to every speech that he has made on this subject—it always seemed that when the word "advertiser" touched his vocal cords it was more in a spirit of antipathy than sympathy that he mentioned them. Today he made a most sympathetic approach to the position of advertisers, and he said that they would not be assured of value for their money unless there were a delay in the appointment of the Authority. I do not think that the sorrows of the advertisers which wrung the right hon. Gentleman's heart were really relevant to the existence of the Authority, except from the point of view that if the advertisers desire to advertise—this has generally been said from the benches opposite—the sooner the Authority is in existence the sooner they will be able to operate.
    The third body of persons who excited the sympathetic apprehension of the right hon. Gentleman were the investors in the programme companies. Again, I am glad to see the width and warmth of his sympathy in that regard. He said that they might be in a difficulty in understanding what was to happen. The way to put them out of that difficulty is to appoint the Authority early and let them know that the programme companies have at any rate got something to which they can go.
    That was the line of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and I do not think that there was a great deal of substance in it.

    239
    The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who is well known to us as an authority on public corporations, and whose book on that subject I am sure a great many of us have read with enjoyment and pleasure, was con fusing two aspects of the matter, the appointment of the Authority and the vesting date. He and I took part in long discussions on at least one nationalisation Bill which he will remember, although it is now seven years ago. I would remind him that the system was to appoint the Board but to delay the vesting date in order to go through the necessary preliminary machinery. That is the real answer to the matter.
    A great deal of the objection, with the greatest deference to the Chair and to the hon. Members concerned, closely approximated to a Second Reading approach. I am not casting any aspersions.
    Mr. William Ross: Then why say it?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentle man need not get so worried. The real objection which hon. Members have stated has been to the existence of commercial television at all. They have said that they hate it coming into being, and, therefore, if it can be delayed a couple of years, so much the better. That argument is closely akin to the argument which has already taken place earlier.
    The right hon. Member for Caerphilly put forward the argument that the Committee had not got information as to matters which come within the purview of my noble Friend the Postmaster-General himself. As a general principle, if administrative acts are placed upon a Minister, Parliament has about half a dozen solid opportunities of questioning the administrative acts. It is a perfectly usual thing to leave it to the liveliness and concern of hon. Members to keep Ministers on the straight and narrow path.
    The right hon. Gentleman's other argument referred to the general advisability of the appointed day procedure. In the utmost friendliness, I ask him to consider that carefully. After all, sometimes it looks as if one party is in for a long tenure of office; sometimes it looks as if it will be another party. We have both seen parties with apparently relatively
    240
    long tenures of office in prospect, and we have seen changes come. Let hon. Members make all the party points they want —I am the last person to complain about that—but let us try always to bear in mind what we really want from the point of view of the working of the House and its legislation.
    If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were really to consider it, not in relation to a Bill which they do not like, but as objectively as any of us party politicians can consider a point, the regular process of putting in an appointed day for the first step—not for later steps, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East mentioned—would have the effect only of slowing up the legislative force of what we do. As I have heard the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) so often say when he was the Leader of the House, the difficulty is not the speed of action of our machinery but that, in many cases, it is slow in modern times.
    We have had a very good discussion on this matter and hon. Members have advanced many points on it. I have tried to show why we have been unable to meet their views. However, as we have had a discussion which has been full and good-tempered, I hope that the Committee will now come to a decision and that we shall be able to proceed to the interesting point which is to be discussed next.
    Mr. Donald Chapman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not said anything about the school television service. Has he any remarks to make about that?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I feel that that is a Second Reading point. The question is whether one wants competitive television if there is any danger that it will affect the school service. That is a matter on which opinions can differ. It is not really very relevant to the narrow question of the delay which the Amendment would entail.
    Mr. Shackleton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us his opinion?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will give my opinion frankly. I think that it is so important to get competitive television that I should put it first. That is my opinion, but, as I have said, it is a point

    241
    on which we can have differing opinions. As to the general point, I do not think that one should pursue it at this stage. I hope that I have now met the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for responding to the appeal which I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) addressed to him. He has made a considered reply. However, I am afraid that he has not convinced us that our Amendments are wrong, although we are obliged to him for his courtesy. In the circumstances, I must advise my hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Before we divide, may I mention that there has been no reply to an important matter which has been raised by several of my hon. Friends? I have not taken part in the debate, but as a result of listening to it I have been made more uneasy than I was before. Accusations have been made against the Assistant Postmaster-General that he has been meeting representatives of vested interests who have been bringing pressure to bear with regard to what should take place in this House. I think that before we have a Division, the
    Assistant Postmaster-General should reply to those accusations.
    Mr. Warbey: I do not want to detain the Committee, but it seems to me that the Home Secretary was at last driven to say something on the school television service which was very much against his will. He tried rather to avoid it by suggesting that it was a Second Reading point. This is strictly a Committee point. What we are saying is that the Committee should postpone the operation of the Bill for two years, so as to give the B.B.C. a chance to do the work which it ought to do.
    I think that the Home Secretary said quite clearly—and if we are misrepresenting him at all, I think that we ought to give him the opportunity of saying more about it—that in his view and in the view of the Government it was more important to get commercial television going to provide an opportunity for advertising and for the exploitation of a new medium, than to provide an educational service by television for the schools. If that is so, I think that he should have an opportunity of saying more about that.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 246: Noes, 270.

    Division No. 81.]

    AYES

    [5.34 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Adams, Richard

    Carmichael, J.

    Finch, H. J.

    Albu, A. H.

    Champion, A. J.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Follick, M.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Forman, J. C.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Clunie, J.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Collick, P. H.

    Gaitskell Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Cove, W. G.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Baird, J.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Glanville, James

    Balfour, A.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Bartley, P.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

    Daines, P.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H

    Grey, C. F.

    Benson, G.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Beswick, F.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Blackburn, F.

    Deer, G.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Blenkinsop, A,

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hannan, W.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Boardman H.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    Hargreaves, A.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Bowden, H. W.

    Edelman, M

    Hastings, S.

    Brockway A. F.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon A. (Rowley Regis)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Hobson, C. R

    Butler. Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Holman, P.

    Holmes, Horace

    Morris, Peroy (Swansea, W.)

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Moyle, A,

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Murray, J. D.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Strauss Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Orbach, M.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Oswald, T.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Janner, B.

    Padley, W. E.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Paget, R. T.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Pannell, Charles

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Parker, J.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Jones, David (Hartlepools)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Pearson, A.

    Thornton, E.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Timmons, J.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Popplewell, E.

    Tomney, F.

    Keenan, W.

    Porter, G.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Usborne, H. C.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Vlant, S. P.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Rankin, John

    Weitzman, D.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Reeves, J.

    Wells, Peroy (Faversham)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Logan, D. G.

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    West, D. G.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Rhodes, H.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Richards, R.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Mclnnes, J.

    Robens, Bt. Hon. A

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    McLeavy, F.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Wigg, George

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Willey, F. T.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Ross, William

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Royle, C.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Mallalieu J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Short, E. W.

    Willis, E. G.

    Mason, Roy

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Woodburn, R. Hon. A.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Yates, V. F.

    Monslow, W.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Moody, A. S.

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Morley, R.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Wallace.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Buohan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Bullard, D. G.

    Drewe, Sir C.

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Bullus, wing Commander E. E.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Duthie, W. S.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Campbell, Sir David

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Carr, Robert

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Channon, H.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Fell, A.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Cole, Norman

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Colegata, W. A.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Cooper-Key, F. M.

    Fort, R.

    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Foster, John

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Bavins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Crouch, R. F.

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Bishop, F. P.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Boothby Sir R. J. G.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Bossom Sir A. C.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A

    Davidson, Viscountess

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Deedes, W. F.

    Glover, D.

    Braine, B. R.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Godber, J. B.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MoA.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Doughty, C. J. A

    Gower, H. R.

    244

    245

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Grimond, J.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Russell, R. S.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col, W.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Scott, R. Donald

    Harvey, Air Cdr. A. V. (Macclesfield)

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E

    Shepherd, William

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Heath, Edward

    Marples, A. E.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Snadden, K. McN.

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Maude, Angus

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Speir, R. M.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Mellor, Sir John

    Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

    Holland-Martin, C. J

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Hollis, M. C.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Stevens, G. P.

    Holt, A. F.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Hope, Lord John

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Neave, Airey

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Horobin, I. M.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Summers, G. S.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Sutoliffe, Sir Harold

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Noble Comdr. A. H. P.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Nutting, Anthony

    Teeling, W.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Odey, G. W.

    Thomas, P. J, M. (Conway)

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S,

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Thorneycroft. Rt. Hn. Peter (Mon mouth)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Osborne, C,

    Tilney, John

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Page, R. G.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Turton, R. H.

    Kaberry, D.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A, H.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Wall, P. H. B.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Lindsay, Martin

    Profumo, J. D.

    Linstead Sir H. N.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Llewellyn D. T.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Redmayne, M.

    Wellwood, W.

    Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Rees-Davies, W. R

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Longdon, Gilbert

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Wills, Gerald

    McCallum, Major D.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Mr. Vospor and Mr. Allan.

    Mr. Shackleton: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out "Independent," and to insert "Commercial."
    I hope that this Amendment will appeal to the Home Secretary, because it is upon a fairly important point. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government carefully to consider our arguments. The Amendment is not being moved out of mere malice to commercial television, or to programme producers and others, but because it contains a point of real substance concerning the accuracy of the name that we give to this I.T.A.
    246
    I notice that the Title says that the Bill seeks to
    " make provision for television broadcasting services in addition to those provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation."
    There is no word there suggesting independence. It might be rather more accurate if this new service were called the "Additional Television Authority," or, if one wishes to keep the letters "I.T.A.", the "Irrelevant Television Authority." [An HON. MEMBER: "What about ' Impossible '?"] One of my right hon. Friends suggests 'that it might be called the "Impossible Television

    247
    Authority," and that might prove to be the most accurate description of all.
    It is completely wrong to use the word "independent" in this connection, be cause if there is one thing that the proposed Authority will not be, it is independent. I doubt whether any authority which has been set up in this country is more completely at the mercy of the Government of the day than this proposed Authority will be if the powers in the Bill are exercised. Under Clause 6, the Postmaster-General will have complete power to order what shall be broadcast. He will be able to order that certain things shall be broadcast and to prohibit the broadcasting of other things. The attitude of many hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway shows clearly that they also agree that the word "independent" is inaccurate as a description of this Authority.
    Part of the line taken by the Government to sell this thoroughly unsatisfactory scheme is to use smooth words which they hope will calm people and make them happy. They shy away from the word "commercial" as though it were indecent. I strongly agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who said that he would support the Amendment. If the Government do not accept the Amendment I hope that the hon. Member will join us in the Division Lobby. I hope the Government will accept it. The word "commercial" is accurate, and it is not dishonourable. Why should the Government object to it? The Government have commercial interests. Do they think the country are likely to be frightened if this is called a "commercial" broadcasting system? That is what it is. There is enormous virtue in having an accurate description of the proposed Authority.
    It might be argued, in reply, that the Independent Television Authority is not in itself commercial, but is merely incharge of commercial programmes; but we know that it is not independent; nor are the proposed programme companies likely to be truly independent in the sense in which that word is normally used.
    5.45 p.m.
    I have another and a rather stronger reason why the Government ought to change the name "Independent." One of the great strengths of this country in
    248
    foreign affairs has undoubtedly been the reputation that the British Broadcasting Corporation has achieved for accuracy and objectivity in its broadcasts. The Drogheda Report makes that clear. We therefore have the strongest reason to avoid anything likely to endanger that reputation for impartiality.
    The moment we set up what is to be called the "Independent Television Authority" we suggest that the B.B.C. is not independent but is purely a Government propaganda machine. We know quite well that the so-called "Independent" or "Impossible" Television Authority will provide a service similar to that of the B.B.C., although I doubt whether it will do it as well as the B.B.C. It will not be more independent in its presentation than the B.B.C. has been. I would, however, like to call the attention of the Home Secretary to words which appear in the Drogheda Report, because they convey the real substance of the argument against the use of the word "independent." The Report says:
    "The British Broadcasting Corporation emerged after the war with a unique reputation for the quality and objectivity of its programmes."
    Later, the Report refers to
    "the great reputation which the British Broad casting Corporation earned during the war,"
    and, finally, says:
    "The conclusion is that the popularity of the British Broadcasting Corporation External Service depends, above all, on its high reputation for objective and honest news reporting."
    The Home Secretary and the Government should look very closely at the effect of establishing a new Authority with the title "Independent." Have the Government consulted the Foreign Office and those other Departments concerned with presenting the British case abroad and asked their opinion? I hope he will give consideration not only to an accurate and honest title to the Authority, which, after all, is something the Government should try to achieve but, also, if they give it a propaganda title they should not give it a title which is likely to do harm to this country.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope hon. Gentlemen will not take it amiss if I rise now, because the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) is not a Second

    249
    Reading point. It is not one that approaches the difference that divides us on the main issue. It is, as he said, a narrow but important point and, there fore, I think it would be convenient to consider the arguments either way at an early stage.
    The hon. Gentleman said, first, that the title "Independent Television Authority" was inaccurate and, secondly, it was an undesirable one. I am sorry he referred to Clause 6, because I am sure he would not wish to make a bad point. It is one that has been made by the propagandist association whose name for the moment escapes me, but which is associated with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). Obviously, hon. Gentle men opposite know the one to which I am referring.
    I want the hon. Gentleman to consider this seriously, because I know he would not want to give a bad reason for it. He said that under Clause 6 the Post master-General had the right to ask the Authority to publish matters and to abstain from publishing. But that is something which exists in regard to the B.B.C., and, as I pointed out on Second Reading, its purpose is twofold. It has to publish police messages and things of that sort which are of necessity to any Government. The prohibition is issued at times of national crises and emergency to prevent a discussion of matters that may be in a very delicate position at the time. There has never been any suggestion that that would be used as a means of programme control.
    Mr. Chapman rose—
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I cannot give way now. This is a very important point, and it is important that it should be realised that this is part of the Government machinery which every Government requires and is not an attempt at control. The second point made by the hon. Member for Preston, South was whether "independent" is accurate be cause of the financial assistance that is to be given to this Corporation. I think that is very important, particularly in view of the fact that the equipment for the Authority is being provided from public funds and also because of the provision of finance. It is suggested that because of those things the body will not be independent and will not
    250
    be free of Government control. Therefore, it is essential that it should be made clear that although there is Government finance the Corporation is not to be Government controlled in the sense that the Government will have power to determine how it does its work. It will be independent and free.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said is a very strange doctrine. A sum of £750,000 a year is to be given as a grant in addition to which all the capital investment of the Authority is to be provided by the Government. Are the Government not going to control that which they finance?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is exactly the point—the Government are not going to insist that because the Authority gets that money it should act under the control and supervision of the Post master-General except in relation to the points that are laid down by the Act. That ought to be made very clear. The whole purpose of this Bill is to select an Authority that can be trusted to do the job itself. That shows the importance of emphasising its independence by the title which we select.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Preston, South in one of his statements, that there is nothing derogatory in the word "commercial." It is a word of which we as a country ought to be extremely proud, because so much of our position depends on it but the reason why I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment is that we think "Independent Television Authority" is a better title than "Commercial Television Authority."
    We are all agreed that since it was founded the British Broadcasting Corporation has been independent. Its independence is a matter of pride and admiration to us all. But the B.B.C. has 30 years' tradition behind it. Everyone inside and outside this country knows of its independence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, they do.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Not outside.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman will restrain his patience he will hear occasionally the particular reason for things before he interrupts from a sitting position.
    Mr. William Ross: I have not interrupted.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman conducts a conversation from a sitting position which is contrary to the usual method of debating to which we are accustomed in this Committee. He can sit as long as he likes so long as he sits, and if he will wait a moment or two it might save him making these interruptions which must be fatiguing in that position.
    Mr. Ross: It is more fatiguing to rise.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The point I am making is that the B.B.C. is independent, is known to be independent and has a 30 years' tradition of independence. As I endeavoured to indicate in another connection, it is also important to emphasise that the new Authority will be independent and that no other body will control its functions.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the B.B.C. is known to be independent, is he referring to the foreign aspect of the B.B.C.'s work, because I would remind him that that is very important? Do the people in Germany, Italy, Japan and in other countries think of it as being independent?
    6.0 p.m.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, I think it is. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman suggests the contrary.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: It is often doubted.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am surprised at that. I know Europe fairly well and I have been in practically every country in Europe since the war. I have never heard it mentioned that the B.B.C. was not independent. I am sorry that my experience has been so different—
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I have broadcast on the overseas programmes.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. We can only form our views on our own experience. My reading of the Drogheda Report, quoted by the mover of the Amendment, gave me the impression that the very experienced members of that Committee also thought that the B.B.C. was known abroad as an independent
    252
    body. That was the impression I had from the passage quoted.
    The point I am making is that the B.B.C. has a unique reputation for independence and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this point, because its independence is as well known as its objectivity throughout Europe. Certainly, among all the people I have met in Europe since the war that has been the impression given to me, and I am surprised that the suggestion should come from the other side of the Committee that the B.B.C. has anywhere in Europe a reputation for anything but independence. However, the right hon. Gentleman may develop that point. The reason why we are anxious that this title should be maintained is that we want to see the new body known as being independent, so that in that way it starts with the position which the B.B.C. has so well acquired over its 30 years.
    Mr. Shackleton: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that he is using an argument now that the word "independent" should be used in the same way that the Russians use the word "democratic"?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentle man is beyond me on that point and the fault is mine if I do not appreciate the profundity of his argument. The Bill makes this Authority genuinely independent. It prevents it being controlled. My second argument is that it is a good thing that it should be known to everyone that the Authority is in this position.
    The hon. Gentleman quoted the Drogheda Report on that point, which emphasises the importance of the B.B.C. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I am not going as far as the Drogheda Report which offers a compliment with one hand and suggests the removal of certain services with the other. I am saying that the B.B.C. should continue in all its power, but that the new Authority should be in the position of having its independence established to the world.
    The other aspect of independence is that the Authority is distinct from the programme companies, being in a special position. It is the instrument by which we want to see a proper safeguard constituted, and it is important, when some thing is made a safeguard in that way, that it should be quite clear that we want

    253
    it to be independent, to work under the guidance of the members of the Authority, and not to be in any way the instrument of Government. Therefore, although I sympathise with what is in the mind of the hon. Gentleman, for those reasons we cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Mitchison:
    "What's in a name? … a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet."
    And, of course, a skunk by any name still smells as nasty and we do not alter its nature or its smell by calling it an in dependent racoon. Therefore, I prefer to call it a skunk.
    This object that we are about to create is apparently to be called the Independent Television Authority. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who is a master of highly intermittent logic, asked just now what it is independent of? I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here—he is also a master of highly intermittent attendance, but I will come to that again in a minute. I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that, at first sight at any rate, it does not strike me as a notable instance of independence.
    One would think that television would be a good thing to which to hitch oneself. Yet "The Times"—and "The Times" is not given to wild ideas—had a leader this morning wondering whether it might not be broadcasting also. So we cannot be too certain about television. Then there is Authority. The one thing it certainly is not is an Authority. That, too, I will come to in a minute. I am forced to think that we are back on the old description of the Board of Trade: there never was a board and there is not any trade. Following that notable instance, we are to call this object the Independent Television Authority.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to demonstrate to us that it really was independent. Well, independent of everybody? We can hardly say that, but let us see. It is to be independent of the Government. The Government are to have nothing whatever to do with it. The fact that the Assistant Postmaster-General has already had conversations with heaven knows how many programme contractors illustrates the absolute in dependence which the Authority will assume. More than that, some of my
    254
    right hon. and hon. Friends always thought that the power of hiring and firing, as it is commonly called, had something to do with the independence of the man on the job and that he must regard as his master, at any rate for the moment, the person who had the power of hiring and firing him.
    Now who hires and fires the members of the Authority? The Postmaster-General. He appoints them. He, in consultation with the Treasury, decides what to pay them, and he appears to have in the appropriate part of the Bill an absolute discretion to force them into resignation whenever he thinks fit. That, of course, shows how independent are the members of the Authority. But there is a bit more to it than that. I wonder how they can be independent of the programme contractors. Here are these people who, as has been pointed out, are running a business, the funds for which appear to come from two sources. One is the Government, the other is the programme contractors. That shows, of course, how independently the Authority is financed. It must be independent of both its paymasters. There we are, that is all right from the financial point of view.
    Next we come to what the Authority is to do. After all, the Bill contains quite a number of provisions as to what is to be done with regard to these programmes. Broadly speaking, the programmes will consist of two things: first, material which is not sufficiently con trolled in my opinion but which is fairly controlled by the terms of this Bill; and, secondly, advertisements. In the long run, if one goes back through a smoke screen or two, the advertisement providers will pay for the whole of this shooting match. To suggest that this Independent Television Authority will be independent of the advertising interests in this country is a feat of exact formal logic of which I find myself quite incapable.
    Whatever one says about it, the plain fact is that the one thing that this body is not is independent. It depends on the Government partly, on programme con tractors partly and on advertising in terests and, of course, quite properly, partly on the terms of this Bill. One asks oneself, "Why do they want to call it 'The Independent'?" They might just as well have called it "The Blue."

    255
    I am not sure that it would not have been rather more appropriate to call it "The True Blue." Why choose "The Independent"? From time to time there is a certain perverse nicety about the Home Secretary which may have led him to take part in choosing and defending this particularly inappropriate word.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman really appears to have looked for the most unsuitable word and then to have taken pleasure in defending this most absurd title. His has been a most agreeable performance in that way and when one listens to him one feels that he must be right. Occasionally, and I was disappointed that he did not do it this time, he brings us all to a higher plane, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) put him off by making irreverent interruptions. I think he just took a professional pleasure in defending the most impossible name for this creation.
    I leave out the "television" part of the title and merely say that this is a plain commercial stunt. Why not call it a commercial stunt? Lest the Government think that I am being too nasty about it too soon, I should like to tell the Committee a little story. Hon. Members will remember that a short time ago there was a very important match between Bishop Auckland and Crook. Hon. Members should do what I did, go through Crook. There they will find an inn which has a very simple title. It is simply called "The Commercial, Crook." It is an example of borrowing the word "commercial," which can be used so innocently when applied in Crook and which could be used truthfully here. It would put the right label to this thing we are starting to create.
    I leave the word "Television" alone for the moment. We must have a little peg in the middle on which to try to hang the rest. I come to the word "Authority." It is quite true that the Amendment does not deal with "Authority" and I must confess that there was a certain element of idleness in that, because if one alters that word here one has to alter it about 1,000 times in the Bill. Printers may be overworked with a Bill of this sort. Really, "Authority" is just as bad. This is certainly not an Authority worth talking about and all that it will depend upon
    256
    for the enforcement of its very turgidly expressed duties is the contracts of programme promoters, who can break them once and twice with impunity. I hope the Home Secretary will rise to a higher sphere and call a skunk a skunk and his Authority "Commercial" and not "Independent."
    6.15 p.m.
    Sir Thomas Moore: I do not propose even to try to follow the series of witticisms which we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and which, on the whole were well received. Further more, as they had so little to do with the Amendment which we are discussing it might possibly take up the time of the Committee unduly. But I think that it would be appropriate, in connection with this Amendment, to recall the two pamphlets to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has referred and which we all received when this subject was first broached. One pamphlet read "Britain Unites Against …" and so on.
    Mr. Chapman: Commercial television.
    Sir T. Moore: I will come to that in a minute.
    The other was called "Britain Unites to Demand …" and so on. The subject on which Britain was so strangely united is comparatively immaterial to my argument, but I should like to recall the further phraseology of these titles. Those who were against called it "Commercial Television." Those who were in favour called it "Competitive Television." I think that it will be clear to everyone in this Committee that the purpose of using the word "Commercial" was to create prejudice and bias in the mind of the reader (before further arguments were even considered. In my opinion, this Amendment seeks to do exactly the same thing and for the same purpose and, therefore, I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend will adhere to his decision to resist it.
    Although probably it would be out of order to discuss it I would have preferred to come straight out in the open and call the Authority the "Competitive Television Authority," because that is exactly what we mean. The introduction of this Measure is apparently regarded by hon. Members opposite as an attack on the B.B.C. I have had the utmost admiration

    257
    for the B.B.C. for the last 30 years, since the days of that ramshackle affair on Savoy Hill. I have watched its progress under the inspired leadership of Lord Reith. Let us be agreed on that. No one owes more than the British people to Lord Reith for creating this instrument and I think that Sir William Haley has also done a great deal in later years—
    The Chairman: I do not think that we can discuss these personalities on this Amendment.
    Sir T. Moore: The impression conveyed by the other side of the Commit tee was that we on this side are hostile to the B.B.C., and I had to take the opportunity of paying tribute not only to the B.B.C. but to those who created it.
    It is quite right that the B.B.C. should not be used as a medium of advertising. The B.B.C. appeals to a mass audience. These new programmes are supposed to appeal to a more selective audience according to income groups, tastes, up bringing, and so on, and, therefore, if the programme buyer does not find the selected programme suitable to popularise his goods he will transfer to another programme, just as, in the case of news papers, people who advertise in them select either a good paper or one with a wide popular appeal; they do not, for example, select the "Daily Worker." One assumes that this process will go on under the new system.
    It was, on the whole, wise of the Government to choose a word that was not strictly commercial in its implications. But advertising or commerce is the very lifeblood of the nation of shopkeepers that we are. Therefore, why should we not have competition and call it competitive? However, as the bigger in this case includes the less, in view of the Government's decision to use the word "Independent," I think they have included within that general term the implication, at all events, of competition as well.
    I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will persist in trying to maintain what is in the Bill. I am not altogether a lover of the Bill. I should have preferred the scheme as was originally out lined in the White Paper. Having com promised to the very limit of even his good natured ability, I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend will not com-
    258
    promise any more but will stick by what is in the Bill and give us a medium which will help the industrious among our people, and which we so badly need.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I should like to take up one or two points made by the Home Secretary, which I thought were thinner than he usually uses in support of his arguments. One of his arguments —and here he was quite correct—was the fact that the Government's power to give directions to the I.T.A. is exactly the same as that which the Government have of giving directions to the B.B.C. But that does not support his argument. It means that the B.B.C. is as independent as the I.T.A., whereas if "independent" is used in the Bill it implies that this new Authority is independent in some way that other television authorities in the country are not independent. One cannot get away from that; it implies that com parable bodies are less independent.
    I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this does have an effect on the power of our overseas broadcasts. Our overseas services have an immense reputation. I am particularly proud of them, because from time to time I speak on them and I know that they have a great reputation and important audiences. One of the things they always have to contend with, however, is the feeling in the minds of many listeners that, in its overseas broadcasting, the B.B.C. is an instrument of Government policy.
    There are enemies of the B.B.C. in the world broadcasting other programmes and trying to counter what the B.B.C. is doing. They are all the time trying to spread in the minds of listeners in Europe and other parts of the world just the point that the B.B.C. is not independent. By implying in this Bill that the B.B.C. is in some way less independent than this other body, the Government will be aiding the enemies of the B.B.C. who are trying to spread that idea abroad. This is an important point. Maybe we could compromise on some word like "competitive" or something else, but this is a matter of substance which the Government really should consider and perhaps come back to the House with a proposal on Report stage.
    Another argument which the Home Secretary used, and which struck me as odd, was that because the Government

    259
    are financing this body, it is therefore important to stress its independence. Surely the Government finance all sorts of public bodies without thinking it necessary to call them independent. Does the Home Secretary intend to introduce new Bills adding "independent" to the names of all public bodies to which the Government give money in case anyone should think they are not independent? The right hon. and learned Gentleman is tacking "Independent" on to this body because he has a bad conscience. He has not had a bad conscience, nor has any previous Government about any other of these public bodies.
    He is not calling this body "Independent" because otherwise people would realise that it is dependent on the Government. The reason is to conceal the fact that its programmes will be dependent on advertising revenue. That is the real reason for using the word "Independent." The right hon. and learned Gentleman devoted his speech mainly to defending the word because it would guard against the idea that there was control by the Government. His real purpose, and the purpose of those who drafted the Bill, is to conceal the fact that almost all the programmes produced by the I.T.A. system will be dependent on advertising revenue.
    Why are the Government so coy all of a sudden? In the beginning they were much more honest. The Postmaster-General used these words in another place in May, 1952:
    "sponsored or commercial broadcasting … I am neither shy nor coy about … those words."
    That is what he said when introducing this proposal, as contained in the first White Paper. He was not shy or coy about using the word "commercial"; he gloried in it. What has happened? Why have the Government suddenly become coy in this matter? When the Postmaster-General was yearning to call it "commercial," he said that he wanted to have such words; he did not wish to conceal the intentions of the Government behind this smokescreen of words.
    The Government have found that their proposal is very much more unpopular in the country and on its own side of the House than they expected, and they are trying to use calm, smooth and mis-
    260
    leading words. My main argument, however, rests upon the importance of our overseas broadcasts in this matter, and I ask the Home Secretary to consider that point very carefully indeed.
    Mr. F. Blackburn: When I listened to the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), I thought we were having a little free enterprise— private enterprise—on the other side of the Committee, and that the hon. Member intended to move an Amendment of his own to change the name from "Independent" to "competitive." But as his speech progressed, he managed, by some mysterious process, to link "independent" and "competitive" together, although we did not exactly understand how. But it is obvious that the hon. Member for Ayr, who is the only Member on the opposite side of the Committee who has spoken on this matter, does not like the word "independent" either.
    I do not think I have ever listened to a speech by the Home Secretary that has been more unsatisfactory or less convincing than the speech which he made on this Amendment, because he certainly did not convince anyone that there was anything independent about this proposed new Authority which is to be set up. I come from a part of the country where we have the reputation for calling a spade a spade; at times, in fact, we give it a rather blunter definition. To call the proposed new Authority an independent authority is the perfect example of a euphemism, by which an unpleasant or offensive thing is designated by an in direct and milder term. Certainly this Television Authority is to us on this side of the Committee an unpleasant and offensive thing, and it is also offensive to a number of hon. Members opposite because it is not independent enough.
    When I looked up the word "Independent" in the dictionary I found three different definitions. I suppose that if I had looked at other dictionaries I could have found others. One definition was "Not dependent or relying on others." Surely this new Authority is dependent, both for finance and for the programmes, upon others. It is dependent on the Government for finance and on the programme companies for programmes, and, I suppose, upon the B.B.C. Therefore, surely we cannot say that it is independent.

    261
    6.30 p.m.
    The second definition was, "Affording a comfortable livelihood." No doubt it will afford a comfortable livelihood for some people, but I doubt whether that was the definition which the Government had in mind when they decided to designate this Authority as independent. The third definition was, "Belonging to the Independents." I am certain that none of the religious organisations would care to be associated in any way with this Authority, and certainly not with its name.
    The most important point is that a second authority is being set up to per form functions similar to those carried out by another authority. If it is decided to set up a second authority, the name given to it should indicate the difference between the two authorities. If the second authority be termed independent, then surely that implies that the first authority is not independent. No matter how much the Home Secretary wavers about the point, I do not think he can get away from that aspect of the matter. Whether or not he thinks that people abroad all recognise that the B.B.C. is independent does not matter at all. Stressing that this Authority is an independent authority puts emphasis upon the fact that the other authority is not independent.
    I think the Home Secretary has made a serious mistake by resisting this Amendment. I hope that he will have second thoughts about it. I am surprised that the Conservative Party is ashamed and hesitant about using the word "commercial." If they are not satisfied with that word they can find some other word, but we certainly can not say that this is in any way an independent television authority. I hope that the Home Secretary will think again about the matter.
    Mr. George Darling: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) is not in the Chamber. His has been the only speech from the Government back benches, and I suppose we can take it that the concentrated wisdom of the party opposite— apart from the Front Bench speakers— is contained in his words. The hon. Mem ber raised an interesting point. He said that he would like to call this body a competitive television authority. I think it as
    262
    well if at this stage we get clear in our minds what these words mean.
    The hon. Member for Ayr did not want competitive television. Hon. Members opposite do not want it, and we on this side of the Committee do not want it in those terms. We wish to see alternative programmes provided. The word "alter native" means different. We wish to see different programmes provided. We do not wish to see both television services— that of the B.B.C. and whatever the new one may be—going to the Cup Final and putting out a programme so that viewers may see who can do it best. We want one service at the Cup Final and one somewhere else. That is not competition in the accepted sense, and we should make clear what we mean by that term. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not continue to use the word "competitive" in the sense in which they have been using it.
    I wish to refer to the statement laboured by the Home Secretary, that out of his great experience of travelling on the Continent he had never met anyone who thought the B.B.C. was not an independent broadcasting corporation. This is an example of the appalling ignorance—if I may say so—with which the Government have approached this whole business. I spent eight years in the B.B.C. news department and many of them in the overseas news department. One of the greatest problems then—and it is still one of the greatest problems confronting the B.B.C. overseas news service—is how to persuade listeners in other countries that the B.B.C. is not run by the Government. Every junior sub-editor has drilled into him that he must so write his reports of Government business, of what goes on in the House of Commons and reports about Government statements, and so on, that no listener abroad can possibly believe that it is being put out by a State-governed broadcasting authority. But, in spite of all the work being done so care fully in this regard, it is frequently found that when the B.B.C. is quoted in over seas newspapers, or by broadcasting organisations overseas, it is referred to in terms which indicate that the B.B.C. is considered to be a British Government broadcasting service.
    I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friend that to call another television authority an independent authority will

    263
    tend to prove to people overseas that the B.B.C. is not independent. It will prove to them what they have believed for a long time, that the B.B.C. is a Government service and that it is not independent. I am greatly shocked that the Home Secretary should have made the statement which he did, though no doubt he made it in good faith. He said he had not met anyone abroad who believed that the B.B.C. was a Government service. Had he got in touch with the B.B.C. he would have found, as I have said, that any junior sub-editor in the overseas news department could have told him that the B.B.C. is constantly up against this problem.
    The Government might have consulted the B.B.C. not only on this matter, but on other matters. We might then have had a proper understanding of television, and what this Bill means. I do not mean by that to accept the B.B.C. point of view or to put it over, but to gain an understanding of the technical problems of which some of us have had experience. This is a serious matter for the B.B.C. If the Government take the step they are now proposing to take of calling this other authority an independent authority, it will make the work of the B.B.C. over seas a hundred times more difficult than it is now.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: This is really a storm in a teacup. I do not think that people abroad will be concerned about the name of this new organi sation any more than we in this country are concerned about the names of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporations. Names can have little significance to people overseas. What they will judge will be the quality of the programmes.
    Mr. Chapman: I was very disappointed with the reply of the Home Secretary. I thought he was not on strong ground in his objection to the use of Clause 6 by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston. South (Mr. Shackleton). As he will see when all the Amendments are printed, there will be an attempt to bring Clause 6 in line with the present limitations on the B.B.C. As Clause 6 is drafted at present, it gives to the Government many more powers than they have over the B.B.C. I should have thought that my hon. Friend was justified in saying that, as the Clause stands at present, it gives to the
    264
    Government many more powers than they possess over the B.B.C.
    It was not with that minor aspect— which the right hon. and learned Gentle man tried to make into a major aspect— of his reply with which I was concerned, but with the general avoidance of the real principle of naming the Authority. We had—I am encouraged by it—on the Money Resolution some very heavy admissions by the Assistant Postmaster-General about the extent to which the Authority would have any independence at all.
    Following an estimate which I had made earlier in the debate, the hon. Gentleman said in column 1748 of the OFFICIAL REPORT on 29th March, 1954, that the £750,000 which the Government were going to give annually to the I.T.A. was based on a calculation that there would be one hour's television per day free of the influence of advertisers. I dispute what has been said by some of my hon. Friends who have, to some extent, tried to say that the body is Government-financed. There is certainly a measure of Government money in it, but, on the admission of the Assistant Postmaster-General, there will be only about £2,000 per day free of advertising revenue for the Authority, giving at the most one hour per day of television free from advertising. On that assumption, we are told that this is to be an independent Authority. It is certainly not independent of the advertisers.
    Two further limitations upon the Authority's independence have become clear in recent debates. In the speech to which I referred just now, the Assistant Postmaster-General said that it is not envisaged that the Authority will use any of the £2,000 per day to maintain studios or to provide its own outside broadcasting organisation. All that will be done—this is a limitation resulting from pres sure by back benchers—by commissioning programmes from other people. To that extent it will not even have the independence of being able to put on programmes of its own choosing and with its own facilities in the way that the Bill originally envisaged.
    Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Surely the hon. Member voted against the Authority's having any money at all. How can he now suggest that it

    265
    should put on more programmes and have its own studios and outside broadcasting organisation?
    Mr. Chapman: said in that debate that the £750,000 was a flea-bite, and that if we were to have commercial television, I wanted it fully responsible for its programmes and able to be judged by the programmes which it would put on with out public subsidy. That was why I voted against the provision of that amount. The independence of the I.T.A. is limited, firstly, in that it will not main tain studios and so on, and, secondly, in that, according to a subsequent Amendment, it has only to arrange for parts of programmes and will not itself put them on.
    To come to the question of the extent of dependence upon commercial advertising, my case is that, far from avoiding the word "commercial," we ought to call a spade a spade in these circumstances because of the kind of people on whom the service will have to depend. I am fortified in this view by some admissions made by the Assistant Postmaster-General on the Financial Resolution. Perhaps I can now develop a number of the points which I put to him on that occasion, and I hope that I shall tempt him into replying to them again.
    6.45 p.m.
    First of all, the £2,000 which the Assistant Postmaster-General says should provide one hour of television free from commercial advertising will probably not be sufficient at all. The £2,000 is the cost to the B.B.C. at the moment of putting on a television programme. By the time we have added in the profits which the programme companies will want to make—my guess is that they will be so scared by the business and find it so insecure that they will demand a high rate of profit—I estimate that the cost of a programme-hour of the network once it reaches something like the national coverage which the B.B.C. has at the moment will be not £2,000 but more like £3,000.
    The raising of £3,000 per hour from commercial interests is something which we cannot countenance being called "independent." It will be a substantial sum to be raised from very big advertisers. We have been told by Government spokesmen throughout the debates on the
    266
    Bill that advertising should be limited to about five minutes per hour. We thus have the situation, which has been admitted, that about £600 per minute will have to be raised from advertisers in order to keep the show going. That is what we are told is "independence."
    Who will be able to afford about £600 a minute? They will be the big commercial interests, the interests after which we want the scheme named so that people will really know what they are paying for. I said on the Money Resolution that concerns will want to advertise six or seven times a month, and my guess is that the I.T.A. will want guarantees of two or three good minutes every time, minutes taken by separate advertisers, in order to be sure of a steady substantial income. We shall thus need concerns which want to advertise six or seven times a month at about £600 per minutes; in orders words, concerns which can afford to spend £4,000 to £5,000 per month on television advertising. That is what the show will depend on. The concerns will have to put down the amount of money which I have suggested in order to obtain any really big impact on televiewers. This is what we are told to call "independent."
    We have a very good indication of how many people will be able to advertise on television if we look at the concentrated nature of advertising at the present time. We have reached a situation where the people who can, on my estimates, afford £5,000 per month are those who in any case spend £100,000 to £200,000 per year on general Press advertising. By an analysis of statistics which are publicly available, we are, luckily, in a position to know who those people are and how many of them there are.
    We know the names of the concerns and the types of the products on whom the show will depend. If I give these estimates and names to the Home Secretary, I hope he will reconsider the matter and realise that this body cannot be called anything other than a commercial television authority for the simple reason that it is dependent on such blatant and, to some extent, irresponsible private interests for its revenue.
    First of all, we get not more than about 100 firms who can now afford to spend on Press advertising more than

    267
    £100,000 a year. Therefore, there are only about 100 firms in the market for this size of advertising expenditure, and, if we come to the really big firms, which, after all, will dominate this show day after day, through a minute a day or two or three minutes a week or something like that, the people who will be able to afford something in the nature of £60,000 a year, which is the estimate I make, number only about 26 today. There are only about 26 firms who are in the advertising market in a big way.
    Of course, these firms are headed, as we would all expect, first of all, by the petrol companies. There was a question about them in this Chamber only this afternoon. The advertising by Shell, Esso, Regent and B.P., added together, comes to something like £1½ million on Press advertising alone; at any rate, that is the figure for last year. They are followed by the detergent kings whom I have mentioned before—£433,000 spent by Tide, £417,000 by Persil. Then, there follow all the variations on that original theme—all the same products with a different name, and all advertised at a prodigious rate—over £300,000 a year, or at least over £200,000 a year, each.
    I do not want to make a general attack on advertising. What I want to say is that if we have to depend, as we know we have in this case, on people like these for the revenue for our new commercial network, then let us give it the name which really suits the people involved in it and on whom we shall have to depend.
    We can go on to deal with rest of the list—Mars Confectionery, Nestle Pro ducts, Cadbury's, Batchelors' Foods, Quaker Oats cereals and so on. We are going to have this sort of stuff drummed into us minute by minute, hour by hour, probably for weeks and months, simply because these are the big names in advertising today, and because they will be the only people able to afford substantial time on this new meduim.
    Why do I object to them? I object to them on the ground that they are not in their advertising performing a socially useful service. None of this advertising is socially useful in the sense in which I now want to define it. If an advertiser puts forward a new product with real differentiation and with a
    268
    real contribution to our standard of living and our chance of getting an improved product into our homes or into our personal use, then that is useful. Secondly, it is useful when there is real competition between advertisers, and that competition tends to bring down the price of the product. Thirdly, it is useful if it is bringing forward something really new into the market for the first time and enabling it to make its way and displace other products more established.
    The real point about each one of these advertisers is that none of them are doing that. In the words of a pre-war re port of the National Institute for Econo mic and Social Research, they are not really doing that kind of socially useful advertising, and I should like to quote from Dr. Mark Abrams, in summarising the results of that inquiry.
    The Chairman: I do not think that has anything to do with the name of the Authority. The hon. Gentleman is going rather too far.
    Mr. Chapman: If I may just quote what Dr. Abrams said, I think it will be relevant to this debate. He said:
    "Heavy and concentrated advertising expenditure is found in commodity groups where there is sustained and intense competition between three or four 'leaders' to hold and expand their share of brand conscious markets."
    In no sense is it really socially desirable, and what we object to about the whole of this Bill, and particularly the name of the Authority, is that it is really concealing this fact from the general public. These are the people on whom we shall have to depend, because they are the big people conducting this wasteful advertising just to keep their share of the brand conscious market.
    I personally think it is about time that we gave the new Authority the name that they will instinctively give to it, because it will be a commercial show, dependent, as the newspapers are today on the big half-page advertisers, on the petrol kings, the soap kings, the detergents and the confectioners. In no case are these the people to control our new medium, and there is no reason for calling it an independent Authority, but every reason for calling it what the public will very soon find it to be.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: I find it very hard to understand the Home Secretary's rejection of the Amendment; indeed, I was very disappointed by the view expressed in his reply to the speeches in support of it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been at great pains to draw a distinction between the very real differences of view that exist between his side of the Committee and this side on the principle of public service or commercial television, but, at the same time, he emphasised the common views that have been held particularly in relation to the B.B.C.
    I do not see how there can be any doubt whatever that the name of this new body, if it is to be the Independent Television Authority, is bound to damage the wonderful overseas services which the B.B.C. have put out. If we needed any further evidence, it came from the speech of my hon. Friend who worked for many years in the B.B.C.'s overseas service.
    The gravest charge that can be made against the proposed title for the new body is that it will cause damage and confusion amongst many millions of over seas listeners to the B.B.C. services—
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but there seems to be a non sequitur here. The hon. Gentleman says that many listeners to the B.B.C. overseas ser vices will be affected. Does he mean viewers? If he means listeners, then I must tell him that none of those listeners will hear or see anything of the Independent Television Authority. It is restricted to television, and it is also restricted to television transmitters in this country, so that it will not travel overseas and overseas listeners will not hear anything of it.
    Mr. Thomson: I do not think that is the point we are making. It will become known throughout the world that a new broadcasting and television corporation has been set up with the title of Independent Television Authority, and that this Authority will be operating in competition with the B.B.C. television ser vices; therefore, the overseas listener to the B.B.C. who has this information will immediately conclude that the B.B.C. is not an independent corporation but a Government corporation.
    Mr. J. E. S. Simon: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the existence of the Independent Labour Party makes people think that the Labour Party is peculiarly dependent?
    Mr. Thomson: I think, Sir Charles, I had better resist the temptation to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman into such a very interesting side lane.
    The real gravamen of our charge is in relation to the damage which the new service will do to the B.B.C. in respect of its overseas services, but I think also in the domestic scene the proposed title, to put it at its best, is misleading, and, indeed, even deceitful. We might well debate this again on Thursday when discussing the Merchandise Marks Act. I cannot understand how a Government which puts into operation the Merchandise Marks Act should act in relation to this Bill on exactly the opposite principle. Here we have a fine example of misleading labelling.
    7.0 p.m.
    I know, of course, that, in regard to the kind of labels which make something respectable which is not wholly respectable, the party opposite has a great deal of experience behind it. In our political his tory which had a long period of a so-called "national" Government. That was a fine title to conceal the fact that we were being governed by the Conservative Party. In local government we have several high-sounding titles to conceal Conservative Party activities. In one local government election in which I took part five Independent candidates were proposed. Each sent us an election address stressing how independent he was. The only trouble was that each address contained the same language and the same printer's and election agent's names.
    Her Majesty's Government are using this same rather shabby practice in relation to this Bill. They have an uneasy conscience. They know that this proposal has aroused great concern throughout the country and that opposition to it far transcends party lines. They therefore want to disguise what they are actually doing. The use of the word "independent" in relation to this Television Authority is ludicrous.

    271
    Whatever word one might have chosen, "independent" is surely in many ways the least applicable. The body is neither independent of the Government, on the one side, nor of the business interests behind it, on the other. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has pointed out, by Clause 6 Government supervision of the Authority will actually in some ways be greater than that in relation to the B.B.C. Earlier in the debate we had the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) talking about the present Bill mollycoddling the new Television Authority. We can therefore have no doubt at all that it is not as independent of the Government as is the B.B.C.
    My hon. Friend gave some very interesting financial figures, but I thought him unduly modest in his estimates. An estimate was given in the "World's Press News" by Mr. John MacMillan, director of Feature Programmes Ltd. He judged that a 30-minute play in which there would be three minutes of advertising time would cost certainly not less than £2,500. In terms of purely advertising time, that works out at £44,000 per hour. As my hon. Friend has said, one can realise how much that will limit the kind of advertiser who will be backing the new Authority. In fact, the Authority will be even less independent of the financial forces behind it. It will be in the pockets of big business—and of the kind of big business which is the least socially useful.
    When discussing the Government proposals for commercial television, the "Manchester Guardian" pointed out:
    "Suppose a programme company goes along to an advertiser and says it is going to produce an opera. The advertiser is not interested but says he will buy time for a variety show. If the programme company then decides that operas are a drug on the market, and the thing to do is endless variety shows, has the advertiser control of the programme?
    This is no different from sponsoring as it is usually understood."
    In other words, the new Authority will be anything but independent of the advertisers.
    We sometimes talk rather glibly about our free Press. The fact is that the national Press has become such a big business that it is no longer free for any one except millionaires. It is calculated to need about £2 million to launch a new
    272
    national newspaper. That seriously limits the freedom of the Press. In the same way the use of the word "Independent" as the adjective to give to the new Authority is sheer humbug and hypocrisy, designed to hide from the public the true nature of the proposition put forward by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I had not intended to intervene in this debate as we have no television at all as yet in Cornwall. So I can say that I have approached this Bill with a certain degree of independence. It seems to me that hon. Members opposite are so obsessed with ideas of nationalisation that they assume that the words "dependence" and "independence" can refer only to Corporations as between themselves and the Government. Surely that is not the ordinary or natural meaning of either word.
    When considering an Amendment to a Clause, it is surely no bad thing to see what the Clause and the title say. According to the title, this is a Bill to:
    "Make provision for television broadcasting services in addition to those provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation. …"
    Clause 1 (1) says:
    "There shall be an Authority … whose function shall be to provide … television broadcasting services, additional to those of the British Broadcasting Corporation …"
    It also says that the Authority shall be called the Independent Television Authority. Clearly that must mean that the Authority is to be independent of, and something quite separate and different from, the British Broadcasting Corporation. All this argument about whether the Authority is dependent on advertisers or on the Government has really nothing to do with the Clause at all. For the Authority proposed to be set up by this Clause, "independent" is quite clearly an appropriate term. Incidentally, if as suggested we substituted the word "commercial" there would be an immediate confusion with the Columbia Broadcasting Corporation in America. These authorities are inevitably known by their initials and there would be confusion if we had another "C."
    Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: To refresh my memory and to give the Committee the benefit of Webster's definition of "Independent," I went to

    273
    the positive sense of the word, which is "dependent." Webster's definition is that which depends on something else for support or for what is needed. The definition given of "independent" is "not dependent." Therefore, as the pro visions in the Bill make definite arrangements for Government subsidy of this so-called independent Authority how, in the name of the English language, can such an Authority be called independent? As a Welshman, I rise in defence of the proper use of the English language, and against its misuse by a Scottish Home Secretary and a Scottish Minister for Welsh Affairs. If I were bold enough I should address him in Welsh, but I do not want to put him to that trial at this stage.
    In this Bill, as in most others, there is a Clause which contains certain interpretations. To remove any doubt as to the intended meaning of the term "independent" an interpretation should be included in that Clause. I am not sure how the Government would manage to convey its appropriate meaning, because I have been unable to find any meaning which is consistent with the generally accepted definition. The apparent meaning of the term as incorporated in the Bill is the direct opposite to the dictionary definition. I want to put a few questions to the Minister, to which he ought to reply for the sake of the English language; for the sake of his own record, and certainly for the sake of the general public and any member of the legal profession who might be called upon to deal with legal disputes arising out of the operation of the Bill after it becomes an Act.
    I ask the Minister to define the Gov ernment's interpretation of the word "independent" within the scope of the Bill, and then take steps to incorporate it in Clause 16, along with the other interpretations. That would remove any doubt that might still remain in the minds of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and it might result in a certain clearing up of the muddy waters of indefiniteness in the minds of the Government.
    Mr. Ross: It is typical of the Government that when they get themselves into an indefensible position they call for a Scotsman to get them out. Since the Secretary of State for Scotland was not
    274
    available, I suppose they did the next best thing and called for the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) deplored the use of the English language on this occasion, but I deplore the fact that cold, Scottish logic seems to have deserted the Home Secretary. He went to great pains to deny that this term was any reflection upon the B.B.C., but we cannot consider any title which is given to the new Authority without contemplating the purpose for which it is being set up.
    Clause 1 states that the Authority shall provide
    "television broadcasting services, additional to those of the British Broadcasting Corporation. …"
    The very fact that in Clause 1, which calls the new Authority into being, the B.B.C. is mentioned and the name "Independent Television Authority" is given to the new body, by implication defines the B.B.C. as dependent. The arguments of my hon. Friends on that point have been quite justified.
    The Government had to find a name for the Authority, and they had to face the obvious fact that nobody likes commercial broadcasting. They must have said, "There has been an uproar in the country, so we shall not call it the Commercial Television Authority; we want to prove that it is independent of the advertisers. Let us call it the 'Independent Television Authority' ". I congratulate the Government on one matter. When one is setting up a new authority one wants to find a familiar set of initials, and I am glad that the Home Secretary and the Government have resisted the strong temptation to call this organisation the "Independent Television Management Authority."
    7.15 p.m.
    But "independent" is the one epithet that is surely inappropriate in this case. The Home Secretary tried to brush off references to Clause 6, but he just could not do so, because the Authority has to be subject to direction from the Post master-General for its broadcasting of certain events; it has to be subject to direction which will prevent it from broadcasting certain other events; it is subject to direction as to the time and duration of its broadcasts, and in its transmissions, it is required to use certain processes, installations and stations,

    275
    besides being subject to direction as to the siting of those stations.
    It is certainly not independent of the Government. They have gone out of their way to grant it £750,000 a year. My hon. Friend the Member for North-field (Mr. Chapman) has proved quite successfully that £750,000 a year is not sufficient to make the Authority independent of advertisers or programme contractors. The Authority will be dependent upon the Government for its creation, for its composition, for certain of its finances and for the way in which it carries out its duties—for which the Post master-General has a continuing responsibility—and upon the programme contractors for the other and main part of its finances.
    Surely the Home Secretary will resurrect his interest and logic and accept the Amendment, or admit that the Authority, whatever else it may be, is not independent. Let him be honest and accept what the whole nation will call it, the Commercial Television Authority.
    Mr. Warbey: The Committee is engaged in the rather arduous and odious exercise of attempting to find a name for an unborn child. In view of the rather sordid genesis of the affair, I should have thought that that was especially dangerous. What we might get is an abortion, or, at the very best, a still-birth. I should like to make two alternative suggestions. We might call it the Impotent Television Authority, in view of the fact that it will be at the mercy of two masters—the Post master-General and the advertisers—or the Inadequate Television Authority, because it will not give the people any thing like the full alternative service, covering all parts of the country, which they desire.
    There is a simple point of syntax in the Amendment, which I do not think the Home Secretary has grasped. In the original version the adjective "Independent "qualifies the noun" Authority." We propose to qualify not the noun "Authority," but the word "Television." Why qualify the word "Authority"? There is no need to do so. It can be left just as "the Authority." What we do need to qualify is the kind of service which will be provided. It will be a television service, but what kind of television service? Surely the adjective will
    276
    depend upon the primary function of the service.
    The primary function of this television service is surely to enable some people to make money. I do not think that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will quarrel with that definition. I think that that is its primary function. It is the only reason why it is to provide this form of alternative television. It is the only reason why hon. Members opposite have pressed for this kind of service and organisation. It is so that advertising agents and certain large-scale advertisers can make money out of a television service.
    It may be a perfectly legitimate occupation, but I should have thought that the correct description of such an exercise was "commercial." What now we norm ally mean by the word "commercial" is activity of which the primary purpose is to make money, rather than to provide a service in the public interest. Since that, on the words of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, is the essential function of the service to be provided by this Authority, let us try to choose the correct name for it.
    Mr. Hamilton: I think we had the right to expect a few more contributions from the other side of the Committee on the subject of this Amendment. There are on the other side people who, in the interests of truth, would approve the description of the Authority as the "Commercial Television Authority." The last word to use, the word we should avoid, is the word "independent." I think the Home Secretary would agree that no nation, no organisation, no individual today, in our modern civilisation, can be truly independent.
    The Home Secretary in his speech was putting a case in which, I think, he did not sincerely believe. Suppose he said, "I appreciate the Amendment, but we have chosen the term 'independent,' and so I can see that the people will not be deceived by it, I hope that the description will be left just as it is." I could appreciate that argument. He, however, is a legal luminary, who is advised by equally legal luminaries, and I should have thought that in the interests of accuracy they would, if they had decided not to use the word "commercial," at any rate have sought to avoid the use of the word "independent."

    277
    It is rather appropriate that we should be discussing this Amendment on this day, because it so happens that in Scot land at the moment we are, and in the next week or two throughout Britain we shall be, having local elections, and there will be candidates all over the British Isles posing as Independent candidates. I would define an Independent candidate as a Tory who has not the decency, the guts, who has not the regard for truth, to call himself what he is—a Tory. The Conservative Party, whenever it finds that its label is a disadavantage to it, hides behind the label "Independent." That is exactly what it is doing in this Bill.
    The most important point the Home Secretary must answer is the one made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) about the probable effects of this misnomer on overseas opinion. We all appreciate the tremendous stakes involved in the cold war. The B.B.C. is a powerful weapon in our defence in that cold war. Any thing which is likely to weaken that weapon or to detract from the influence of the B.B.C. ought to be examined very carefully, and I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to think seriously again about this matter and, if he is not prepared to accept the word "commercial," to think of some other term, and, above all, to avoid the inference that somehow the B.B.C. is entirely dependent on Governmental control.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: We are coming now towards the end of the debate on this Amendment. Nothing I have heard during the debate has convinced me that the Amendment should not be pressed. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), as the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself suggested, moved the Amendment in a very responsible way and attacked the problem in a very sober fashion. We had a long reply from the Home Secretary. The further he went the more I thought his arguments supported the case that had been put from this side of the Committee. That was the impression he made on my mind. He was followed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who made one of the most delightful speeches that was, I think, enjoyed on both sides of the Committee.
    278
    My hon. and right hon. Friends have put forward very substantial reasons why the Television Authority should have a suitable description. I am afraid that the last shot the Government have had in finding a description for this Authority contrasts very unfavourably with the truthfulness of either the Postmaster-General or the Lord Chancellor, or of the right hon. and learned Gentleman him self. It was not until the Bill was published that we saw the title "Independent Television Authority." In previous debates on the subject of the service to be provided it was referred to as sponsored television. That description was dropped, and it became competitive television. Then it became commercial television. Now it has become independent television. Any one but the last of those descriptions would have been more accurate than the last and the present one. The most unsuitable title of all is that of "independent."
    If the Authority is supposed to be independent, in what respect is it independent? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted that financially it is dependent. It is not independent financially. It gets £750,000 a year of its running costs from the Government. Its capital expenditure also it gets from the Government. Do I understand that it is now the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if the Government subsidise this concern, the concern thereby becomes more independent? I should have thought that from the financial point of view the right hon. and learned Gentleman was on hopeless ground in arguing that this was an "Independent" Television Authority.
    7.30 p.m.
    Can it be argued that it will be in dependent in its operations? The Bill provides for all sorts of restrictive conditions for the functioning of this Authority. The Bill provides for how the Authority shall do its job. It provides when it shall do its job; it provides what it may televise. In this sense, operationally, it is to be as dependent, if not more dependent, on the Postmaster-General than is the B.B.C., because in the B.B.C. we have built up a tradition of independence. This has no tradition behind it; this is a new thing. The balance of the programmes is to be decided upon, not by the Authority, but

    279
    by the Postmaster-General. No programme with a political objective or a religious objective is to be allowed. This Authority, in its operations, is not and cannot be described as independent.
    In what sense is this Authority to be independent? Independent of what? It will not be independent of the Government financing it, nor of the Postmaster-General's control. Worse still, it will not be independent of the big advertisers who will in the last analysis determine what is to be broadcast because we will only have the programmes for which they will pay. I should have thought this was the last sort of title to give to this Authority. I wonder why it was done? I could understand the objection to calling it "the sponsored television authority" in case that aroused too much public apprehension. I could understand why it is not called a "competitive television authority" because it is the only one and will be competing with no one.
    The first idea was that we would have television authorities scattered all over the country each competing with another. One has only to read the speech of the Lord Chancellor in another place to realise that. We were told there was to be maximum competition, but now there is none. In transmission there is to be no competition at all, hence the Government dropped the title of competition and it now becomes "independent" to hide the fact that it is not competitive and so that people will not gain the impression that it might be sponsored.
    In the argument he brought forward the right hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with the independence, the known independence, of the B.B.C. He paid a very high tribute to that characteristic of the B.B.C., both abroad and in this country. Here was an independent body, accepted as independent on the word of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If there is erected side by side with that body a body known as the "Independent Television Authority," does it not by inference give an Impression, or cast doubt in people's minds as to the independent character of the B.B.C.? I should have thought that an obvious conclusion.
    The point has been made that people on the Continent would not be affected by this. I was astonished at the intervention of the hon. Member for Hendon,
    280
    North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) as I thought he was the skilled adviser of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and would know that European link-ups will probably be one of the most important features in publicity in this country and they should should enterprise in this respect. But to the degree that they show enterprise on the Continent, to that degree do we get the mix up between the B.B.C. and this Independent Tele vision Authority.
    Having listened to all that has been said, I am rather surprised that the Government have not accepted this Amendment. It is a reasonable Amendment which would remove apprehension and doubt, and it is a correct description of this proposed Authority. It will be a commercial authority; the work it will be doing is commercial work. The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) spoke of advertising as being the lifeblood of this nation of shopkeepers. The Authority will have a commercial job and not an educational job. What it will be concerned about is the pushing forward of commercial interests and not the delights or requirements of the viewer. I should have thought that on every argument put forward on each side of the Committee the conclusion must be forced that this title, "Independent Television Authority," is a wrong one and that the Amendment ought to be accepted.
    Having heard the views which have been put forward in good humour, and as everyone has approached the problem realistically—I do not think there has been any waste of words about the matter [Laughter.]—I should have thought not. After all, the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was the longest, and he was the second speaker. I am not complaining about that; I think it is right that it should be so. I doubt whether it can be said that there has been any unnecessary delay in examining what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was a narrow but very important point. My hon. Friends have approached the problem sensibly, and I wonder whether he has anything further to say about the matter? Has what has been put forward in the debate had any influence on his mind?
    We must come to some understanding in this Committee. If what has been said on this side of the Committee is not

    281
    to be considered, we may as well be told now. If this is to be a successful Committee, doing a useful job, what is said from this side ought to have some consideration. But, if we are to be dismissed willy-nilly and the Government are to use their majority and rush into the Lobby, let us know straight away and we shall know what tactics to adopt. We want to use this opportunity sensibly and to improve the Bill, although we are against it. We want to provide in the Bill adequate safeguards in the interest of the nation and to do our job responsibly. I wonder if the Home Secretary has anything to say in reply to the debate?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think that the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) or any hon. Member in the Committee can complain about impatience, seeing that we have spent two hours on this point—
    Mr. Hamilton: It is a very important point.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not draw any general conclusion on the attitude of Her Majesty's Government from the opinions which I express be cause, as I said, I tried to approach this matter frankly and I gave the House my opinions. If I remain of the same opinion, I am sorry but I am bound to say so. I am sure that the Committee will do me the credit of agreeing that I have listened carefully to every speech made in the debate.
    There is one point of great importance. Let us have no doubt that we all agree on the independent position of the B.B.C. The independence and objectivity of the B.B.C. is so import ant that I should not like any suggestion to go out from our controversy today that reflects on it. I was rather surprised that there were doubts, which were obviously honestly expressed, about that being recognised in Europe. I certainly pay attention to what was said,
    but I was surprised when the right hon. Gentleman expressed those doubts.
    Of course, I will consider that point, but at the moment it is important that we should have in mind that this television will not be seen abroad. It will be in no sense in competition with the B.B.C.'s sound services, although I myself believe that the B.B.C.'s sound services have such a reputation for independence that it would not matter even if it were. But it will not be.
    From our point of view it is important to indicate that the new Authority will be independent of the B.B.C. I have tried to show—and I will not repeat what I said earlier—why, in my view, it will be independent of the Government. I do not accept the suggestion which some hon. Members opposite made that anyone with whom one is in financial relations enters into a position of dependence on one, or that one becomes dependent on him. One has to look at the whole picture.
    I want the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey) to bear in mind that the difference between us is that he said that our intention in doing this was to allow people to make money.
    Mr. Warbey: The primary intention.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: We do not agree. That is not our intention. Our primary intention is to do two things: first, to give the people an alternative programme, and secondly, to see that that alternative programme is given by a body which is independent of the existing monopoly. That is our primary purpose. That is why we attach importance to independence.
    Do not let there be any misapprehension. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that we have doubts. We have no doubts. A General Election in which one of the important matters would be whose finger is to be on the knob, is something of which we have no fear at all.
    Question put, "That' Independent' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 234.

    Division No. 82.]

    AYES

    [7.45 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Asshcton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

    Amery, Julian (Preson, N.)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Amory, Rt. Han. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Arbulhnot, John

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Bishop, F. P.

    Black, C. W.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Pilkington, Capt. R A.

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Hope, Lord John

    Pitman, I. J.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J A

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Braine B. R.

    Hormby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Horobin, I. M.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Profumo, J. D.

    Bro[ill]-., Jaok (Govan)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Buchar -Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Rees-Davies, W. R

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Renton, D. L. M

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Carr, Robert

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Channon, H.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Cole, Norman

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Russell, R. S.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Kaberry, D.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne).

    Kerr, H. W.

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Lambert, Hon G.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

    Lartgford-Holt, J. A.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Crouch, R. F.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Shepherd, William

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-— Northwood)

    Lindsay, Martin

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Spearman, A. C.M

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Speir, R. M.

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Drewe, Sir C.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

    McCallum, Major D.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Summers, G. S.

    Fell, A.

    Macleod, Rt. Hon: Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Finlay, Graeme

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Teeling, W.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Fort, R.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Foster, John

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Marples, A. E.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Maude, Angus

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

    Tilney, John

    Gammans, L. D.

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Turton, R. H.

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Molson, A. H. E

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Glover, D.

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Vane, W M. F.

    Godber, J. B.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Gough, C. F. H

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Vosper, D. F.

    Gower, H. R.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Neave, Airey

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Wall, P. H. B.

    Harden, J. R. E

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Nutting, Anthony

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Wellwood, W.

    Heath, Edward

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon, W. D.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

    Wills, G.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Page, R. G.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Holland-Martin, C. J

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Legh

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J.

    Adams, Richard

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Bartley, P.

    Albu, A. H.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Bacon, Miss Alloe

    Bence, C. R.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Balfour, A.

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    284

    285

    Benson, G.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Beswick, F.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Rankin, John

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Reeves, J.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington).

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Rhodes, H.

    Boardman, H.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Richards, R.

    Bottomliey, Rt. Hon. A. G

    Janner, B.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Bowen, E. R,

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Brown, Rt Hon. George (Belper)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Brown, Thomas (Inee)

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Ross, William

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Royle, C.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Carmichael, J.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Keenan, W.

    Short, E. W.

    Champion, A. J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Clurrie, J.

    Kinley, J.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Collick, P. H.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Staler, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Cove, W. G

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Daines, P.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Logon, D. G.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Morrigomery

    McGhee, H. G.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    McGovern, J.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Mclnnes, J.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Deer, G.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Dodds, N. N.

    McLeavy, F.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwioh)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Edelman, M.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Thornton, E.

    Evani, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Marquaml, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Timmons, J.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mason, Roy

    Tomney, F.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Finch H. J

    Messer, Sir F.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Usborne, H. C.

    Follick, M.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Viant, S. P.

    Forman, J. C.

    Monslow, W.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Moody, A. S.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Morley, R.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Weitzman, D.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mort, D. L.

    West, D. G.

    Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Moyle, A.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hen. D. R.

    Mulley, F. W.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Grey, C. F.

    Murray, J. D.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Whirteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Grimond, J.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wilkins. W. A.

    Hall, Rl. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Orbach, M.

    Willey, F. T.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Oswald, T.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Padley, W. E.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Hannan, W.

    Paget, R. T.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Hardy, E. A

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

    Hargreaves, A.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Williams, W. R (Droylsden)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Parker, J.

    WiIIiams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Hastings, S.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Willis, E. G.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pearson, A.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

    Popplewell, E.

    Yates, V. F.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Porter, G.

    Younger, Rt. Hon K.

    Holman, P.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Holt, A. F.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Houghton, Douglas

    Proctor, W. T.

    Mr. Bowden and Mr. Holmes.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "provide," to insert "now."
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I think it might be convenient
    286
    to the Committee to discuss this Amend ment with the Amendments in page 1, line 8, after the first "of," insert:
    "and within one year from the passing of."
    In line 8, after "and," insert "to maintain."

    287
    In line 15, at the end, insert:
    For the purposes of this subsection the expression "now" means "within one year from the passing of this Act."
    Mr. Mitchison: The object of these Amendments is to deal with the time when the Authority must provide its services. The Assistant Postmaster-General, by virtue of his office, is an expert on time. He is constantly engaged in securing the timeliest delivery and the timeliest collection of our correspondence, and I have noticed that he does it with great regularity. We are suggesting that it would be a good thing to have in this Bill a provision as to when the Authority is to do its job—that is to say, to do its job of providing the services.
    The Authority has to maintain its services for 10 years from the passing of the Bill, and, therefore, if there is no time limit, it can spend half the 10 years adding bit by bit to what it is providing, and some of what is provided will only be of any use for an extraordinarily short time. We suggest that the time to pro vide them is now. We use the word "now" not only in the ordinary sense, that they should begin at once, but in the sense understood by our expert on time, the Assistant Postmaster-General.
    When this matter was under discussion in connection with the cost of various services and the programmes which might be provided by the Authority now or by the B.B.C. now, the Assistant Postmaster-General gave us what we may regard as the Post Office reading of "now" for present purposes. He said that it means when the commercial people are in a position to do this, and he estimated that that would be within a year of the passing of this Bill.
    Therefore, we duly adopted in the last of the Amendments which you have mentioned, Sir Gordon, the Post Office's or the Assistant Postmaster-Generals definition of "now," and we have provided that the work should be done within a year. The other Amendments merely put forward that proposition in another form, in case, on reflection, the Assistant Post master-General may feel that his definition of "now" was only to be applied in that particular instance and could not be regarded as permanent. There might, indeed, be difficulties in the collection and delivery of letters now. I find myself
    288
    tripping up over this word; one uses it so often, and there it is used in a different sense.
    Be that as it may, it surely is reason able that there should be a time limit not only to make the Authority begin its job at once—and upon that I feel certain that all hon. Members would be entirely in agreement—but also to let the Authority get on with the job and set a limit to the process of putting up one station or another. That is the more necessary be cause at the end of the Clause as it runs, the services are to be provided in a very vague form
    "for so much of the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands as may from time to time be reasonably practicable."
    That, of course, is subject to amendment, and we shall come to that matter later.
    In the Bill in its present form, at any rate, what appears to be contemplated is an Authority which will begin its work at no particular time and which may go on from time to time, and yet which has all the time a limiting period of 10 months, subject only to the quite unnecessary provision that Parliament in this as in other cases may extend the time. That is the present position on the matter, and it seems to me to be the purest common sense and the most ordinary sound practice that there should be a limit of the sort.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Hobson: This Amendment is in the form of a challenge to the Assistant Postmaster-General, because one cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman, speaking on such an occasion as this, would make a specific promise without having very good authority for doing so. We are anxious that, once the Bill becomes law, it should be put into operation. The whole Committee shares that desire—a desire to make the Bill work. That is always our duty in Committee. It is therefore incumbent upon the Assistant Postmaster-General and part of his duty to tell us precisely how it could be implemented now.
    We have considerable doubts about it, but before I come to the doubts I want to point to one advantage which would follow if our Amendments were accepted. The Assistant Postmaster-General continues to receive Questions from hon. Members who have had complaints from local authorities about their ambulance

    289
    services and the wavelengths which will be available to them. To accept the Amendments would be to remove these doubts and to allow the necessary steps to be taken for those wave-lengths to be changed. It would remove uncertainty.
    Is the hon. Gentleman sure that the two channels on which these broadcasts are to take place are available? It seems to me essential that the hon. Member should accept the Amendments. It may be that there are doubts whether the Bill can be implemented now. For instance, there will be a delay in obtaining the necessary transmission apparatus. The manufacturers must be awaiting the passing of the Bill before beginning to make the apparatus. We shall also need the gadgets required to alter television sets. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it will be possible to have television simultaneously in London and in Birmingham?
    These are all very important points. The hon. Member must know the answers, otherwise he would not have said that it could be done now. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has performed a public duty in tabling these Amendments in order to remove these doubts, and it is with great interest and a certain trepidation that we await the Assistant Postmaster-General's comments on the Amendments, which are designed, in the true tradition of the House when it is in Committee, to make the Bill work.
    Mr. G. Darling: As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) said, the purpose of the Amendments is to make it quite clear that the Government and Parliament, and all the other people interested in this business, have not spent the last two years arguing about this subject for nothing.
    The discussions have been going on for a long time, and it is about time that we had a second television programme. We all want it; there is no difference between us on that issue. We all believe that viewers should have a choice of at least two different programmes throughout the viewing period every day. We should be much happier if all viewers had more than two programmes from which to choose, and we hope the day will quickly come when they have that choice. We want diversity and the widest possible range of good programmes, and my hon.
    290
    Friends and I believe that the technical difficulties can be surmounted and that our resources will allow us to start a second choice under a public service system with no further delay.
    If it were not for the advent of the commercial interests which have created all the controversy which is holding up planning and development, we should now have a workable plan before us and would know the development steps which were to be taken to provide a second service. Instead of having a plan and knowing where we are, instead of having the steps carefully set out before us so that we know what developments are to take place, we have complete chaos, and the whole business is beginning to smell. The Government cannot come out into the open and tell us who is negotiating for programme contracts. All kinds of shadowy characters are going into the back door of the Post Office to talk things over with the Postmaster-General, taking part in what are apparently secret talks. We know nothing about them and we can only suspect the worst.
    How different it would be, how much more honest, clean and straightforward, if all these matters were being arranged in public by a public corporation in order to provide a public service. But right hon. and hon. Members opposite were brought up in this hole-and-corner atmosphere, which is how they conduct their business affairs, and as long as they are in office I suppose our public interest will be tainted by all this private and anti-social jiggery-pokery. We there fore say in the Amendments that there must be a time limit on this business; it must come to an end.
    If I may change my metaphor, we must insist that the private horse trading which is going on shall come into the open. We therefore seek to put into the Bill this requirement that within a year we must know what is going on and we must have a proper television service provided by the Authority, if the Bill is passed and the Authority is set up; or at least there must be a substantial coverage throughout the country by a second television programme. We think the time limit which we have chosen is reasonable. After all, hon. Members in the House and in Committee, the Government, all the technical experts and all the questionable commercial interests which the Government

    291
    have brought in, have been discussing this second programme for about three years, and it is time we finished the talking and started the programme.
    I understand the Government's difficulties in having any sort of time limit placed upon the Authority and its work. We know that the Government are more concerned with making these business deals than with providing a public service, but we on this side of the Committee are concerned about the viewers; theirs is our only concern. We therefore say in these Amendments that the horse trading which is going on should come to an end and that we should see the horses paraded in public with the price tags on them.
    On behalf of the viewers, we are interested to see that a second programme is provided within a year of the passing of the Act. Hon. Members opposite may argue that if this group of Amendments were carried the effect would be to restrict the area of the Authority's power to what it can start within a year. I do not object to that as a secondary purpose of the Amendments, but they have another purpose, probably more important. The first purpose is to get the Authority started. It is time that it started on its job of producing television programmes, and it should waste no more time in fixing up. deals with questionable commercial interests.
    From that, the second purpose naturally follows: it is to speed up the Authority so that it extends its service. If the Authority is not compelled to act with speed, we fear that the second programme, which we all want and which we hope the Authority will provide when it is set up—although there is no certainty about that—will be restricted for some time to only two or three big centres of population. We think that such a restriction would be grossly unfair.
    It would mean as a result, both of wasting time in all these negotiations that have been going on and in bringing in this complicated Bill, which no one wants, and in the seeking to avoid on the part of the programme companies and their associates the less heavily populated areas in which the advertising interests are not greatly interested, that more than half of our television viewers would not get a second programme for a very long time.
    292
    We want to avoid that. Even though the taking of television to places outside the two or three main centres of population may be an unprofitable business for the Government's friends, we must insist that all the citizens of this country shall be treated fairly and equitably.
    We know that is an alien doctrine so far as the Government are concerned. The Government take the view that the television second programme should be radiated only to those people who live closely enough together to constitute a profitable market for the Government's friends. We say, therefore, that the Authority ought to be judged upon its plans and achievements of the first year, but it cannot be because of the restrictive influence of the advertisers who do not want to go into the sparsely-populated areas. If it cannot provide nation-wide coverage in the first year or produce plans for it, we shall want to see set up some other authority which can take whatever measures are suitable to make sure that there shall be a full coverage for the second television programme. I think that these Amendments which will achieve all these good results ought to be accepted.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) has suggested that there must be a smell somewhere. Certainly, those of us who have sat on these benches for some four or five hours are dubious about the turn which the debate has taken. The whole of the first part of the afternoon was taken up with Amendments which sought to delay the introduction of the second programme and this last series of Amendments is now seeking to speed the arrival of the second programme so it would seem that with the same people speaking on both Amendments they cannot be completely sincere.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have never seen so many fish come out of the weeds so quickly.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for giving way. Does he not realise that once the Authority is constituted we expect it to start its job and get on with it? The question is when it should be constituted.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: On this point of speed we are all anxious that it should get on with the job. But surely we could hold up a yardstick to measure the speed. I have been checking the historical facts and I find that the B.B.C. was instructed to go ahead with its television service, with all the organisation which the B.B.C. had behind it after 15 years of existence, in 1935. It took 18 months before there was one station on the air and at the outbreak of war, in 1939, there was still only one station on the air.
    Mr. Hobson: That is most unfair. The hon. Gentleman has the technical know ledge to know that at that period television was in its infancy.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete my argument. It may have been necessary to proceed slowly before the war but after the war the Sutton Coldfield station did not come into existence until December, 1949, which was four years, the Holme Moss Station did not come into existence until 1951, which was six years and the first Scottish station at Kirk o'Shotts until 1952, which was seven years. It is distinctly fishy that when a new Authority is to be set up hon. Members opposite expect it to spread the second television programme throughout the country within a year in view of the record in spreading the first programme.
    I would make this second point. We shall achieve greater speed—and this is a very important point—if we make use of the existing B.B.C. transmitter mast for this second service. There is no reason why this new corporation, the I.T.A., and the B.B.C. should not share capital re sources and make use of the same steel and the same sites.
    Mr. G. Darling indicated assent.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am glad that hon. Members on both sides agree with this point.
    I should also like to point out that it is much more difficult to provide national coverage on Band III. It is a technical fact and we cannot change the character of the waves. That being so, I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that if we do open up an alternative service on this plan transmitters will be used which are as high a power as possible so that the
    294
    reception for the public is as nearly com parable with the reception which they get on Band I. Unless these transmitters are of high-power reception will be indifferent. We all desire to see an alter native programme for the viewers of this country and we want to see it provided efficiently and well.
    Sir L. Plummer: The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) has put a point which I think is worth following, and that is the possibility of the I.T.A. using the B.B.C. masts. I hope that he is not suggesting that the I.T.A. should be given something by the B.B.C. I am quite sure that he will agree that if the masts are used, a proper contribution should come from the I.T.A. towards the cost of upkeep and, indeed, the capital cost.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing indicated assent.
    Sir L. Plummer: The hon. Member agrees. We can now put down an Amendment to that effect for discussion later, so no doubt we shall have the support of the hon. Member.
    I think this shows that we have made very considerable progress tonight and I hope that that progress will be continued. I am, however, puzzled by two things. One is that the hon. Member for Hendon, North should have attacked the Assistant Postmaster-General so bitterly by suggesting that it is quite unconscionable to expect that this scheme could be put into operation in one year, and the second is that the Assistant Postmaster-General has not risen to support this Amendment.
    One of the problems about not having enough newsprint, and the question of the importation of newsprint, is that debates in this House cannot be reported fully, and it has escaped the notice of the readers of the newspapers that the Assistant Postmaster-General has been consistent on one thing since December, 1943.
    When I say that for as long as five months there has been some consistency on the part of the Assistant Postmaster-General about the Bill, my hon. Friends will recognise that, to use an American expression, I am saying a mouthful. The Bill's progress has been marked by hesitancies, confusions and changes, but the Assistant Postmaster-General has been clear on the point ever since he

    295
    made it on 14th December, 1953, that he wanted a second programme straight away. He altered it slightly on 25th March, this year, when he said that he wanted a second programme now. That reminded me of the slogan that we used to see chalked on the pavements during the war, "Second front now." The hon. Gentleman wants a second programme now.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General spoke on this point at ten o'clock on 25th March and maybe was not adequately reported, but at 8.20 tonight I can give the newspapers an opportunity to remind their readers of what he said then. He argued that if we were to have a proper service, a second programme could come about only through commercial television. He said that we could have a second programme now through the B.B.C., by putting up the licence fee to £5—or was it £6, or £7? The point is that there would be a considerable increase in the licence fee. Alternatively, the B.B.C. would give a second programme some years ahead, about 1957, while keeping the licence fee where it is. Thirdly, we could have an alternative commercial programme now.
    The hon. Gentleman was as specific as he could possibly be. I do not want to misquote him, so I will give the reference. He said:
    "… when the commercial people are in a position to do it … and that, I estimate, to be within a year of the passing of this Bill."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1954; Vol. 525 c. 1554.]
    It really is too bad for the hon. Member for Hendon, North to say now that that cannot be done. Why did he not rebuke the Assistant Postmaster-General at the time? The hon. Gentleman has technical knowledge, but so has the Assistant Postmaster-General. [An HON. MEMBER: "I doubt it."] No. I am coming to the defence of the Assistant Postmaster-General now. By no stretch of imagination could he be described as ignorant or innocent.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents me as saying that it could not be done. I said I could not under stand how hon. Gentlemen opposite could now press for speed when, earlier in the afternoon, they were arguing for no I.T.A. at all.
    Sir L. Plummer: That is not the point to which I am addressing myself, which is about the ignorance or innocence of the Assistant Postmaster-General. I acquit the Minister of those things. He is an experienced man and he is sup ported by a capable and expert Department. He must be armed with the know ledge that has been given to him by the advisers in his office that within a year of the passing of the Bill, at no cost except a mere £10 million, we could have a second programme, and could have it now.
    Suppose we accept that. Nobody can argue that we are attempting to introduce an element of delay. The Government, by putting the Whips on today, decided that there should be no delay. The Authority is to be set up, and the job is to go ahead. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) said that the Bill was designed against sloppy people who did not want to get on with the job. All right. We want to get on with the job. We want to urge the Assistant Postmaster-General to implement the undertaking he gave to this House on 25th March, 1954, that the second programme could come within a year.
    If it does not come within a year, what happens? First of all, the public will have been deluded. They have been told that the two other choices open—increase of licence fee to £5, or postponement of second programme until 1957—were not worthy of consideration, because the second programme could come now, that is within a year. I am sure that the Assistant Postmaster-General's Department does not want to delude the people, but wants to get on with the job. It would be a betrayal of the B.B.C., which is trying to make its plans now on the basis that the requirements of the I.T.A. will be met within a year.
    Suppose this matter slops over into two years or three years, because of shortage of material, technicians and buildings. The B.B.C. will never know where it is, simply because the proposed Authority has not been told by the Assistant Post master-General to get on with the job in the way he indicated to us it would be told.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General argues for commercial television because he believes that it is in the interests of

    297
    the economic life of the country. If that is so, the matter brooks no delay. It is one on which we should all work over time to get it through, not in a year but in six months. We do not want to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to do the impossible, but we must presume that he knows how the equipment, technicians, buildings, etc., are to be correlated and the programme companies started.
    He must be aware of all this. Private conferences have taken place, and I do not want to quote some of the speeches of the gentlemen outside this House who were present at those conferences. We know that advertisers, would-be applicants for work, have been told exactly what the terms are going to be. I wish we in this Committee had as much information.
    This Authority must get on with the job. I would, therefore, paraphrase a remark which was once made to me in Canada and say to the Assistant Post master-General if he is not going to play the piano will he please get off the stool?
    Mr. Philip Bell: I intervene for a moment to say how entertained I was by the reminiscences of "Start the second front now." I am not sure that the Home Secretary of that splendid war time Administration must have welcomed those signs "Second front now." Many of us thought, and perhaps the then Home Secretary himself thought, they were not inspired by sincerity, but whether they were due to sincerity or not, they were foolish. We all know how foolish it was to say, "We must have a second front now" without investigating the whole position, and also the corollary is that if we cannot have a second front now there is a good reason why we should not have it later. It may be that we agreed that we should pursue this venture as fast as possible, and if we cannot do it now there is no reason why it should not be done later.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Hobson: I am following the hon. and learned Gentleman's point with great interest, and he is putting it with logic. If that is so, why did he not support our Amendment about 1956?
    Mr. Bell: The reason was that I did not think it was an important Amendment. The important Amendments to
    298
    this Bill, as no doubt hon. Members are well aware, stand unashamedly in my name.
    This Amendment does not ensure that there will be coverage for the whole country, and that the whole scheme should not be judged by the first year. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will not have failed to notice that all that is required to be done by this Clause is to cover as much of the United Kingdom as may, from time to time, be reasonable and practicable. The Authority may there fore within one year say that it was, in fact, only practicable to put up one station. It was suggested by one hon. Member that this whole scheme would be working in one year, but this Amendment does not ensure that any greater area will be covered. I appreciate that hon. Members opposite are in a difficult position.
    Mr. Mitchison: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman—
    Mr. Bell: No, the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot ask me. I must teach hon. Members opposite the lesson I learned here from a most experienced Member of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who said that interruptions were to explain something which was doubtful but not to carry on a sort of cross argument interrupting arguments.
    Mr. Mitchison: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not heard the argument.
    Mr. Bell: If the hon. and learned Gentleman did not understand what I said, I am prepared to repeat it.
    What I am saying is that this Amendment does not, in fact, secure that within one year, as has been suggested, there would be coverage. This Amendment merely says that something must be done within one year.
    Mr. Mitchison: I do not understand that argument.
    Mr. Bell: I do not expect the hon. and learned Gentleman does. He will excuse me if I remind him of the saying, "I can find an argument but I cannot find due appreciation of it." I was suggesting that hon. Members opposite were in this difficulty, that they themselves—and I do not blame them at all—regard the whole of this scheme as a hole-and-corner busi-

    299
    ness and anti-social jiggery-pokery. That is an original phrase extracted no doubt from the vivid imagination of the hon. Member who used it. This original phrase handicaps any hon. Member opposite in deciding on the wisdom of this Clause, because if one is against this Bill it would be very difficult to address honest and reasonable arguments as to when this scheme should be put into operation. The Committee no doubt will judge how far hon. Members opposite surmounted that difficulty.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) said it was very foolish to put down Amendments suggesting that the I.T.A. programmes would come into operation in one year. If it is foolish, then he is condemning the foolishness of his hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General and also the Postmaster-General. No doubt he has a lot of destructive Amendments down to the Bill, and that may have been his intention.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) said rightly that the real purpose of this Amendment is to challenge the Assistant Postmaster-General, to give him an opportunity to face up to some of the things he said to us and to the public which we regard as extremely misleading, not to say dishonest. For example, it will enable him either to repeat his statement that it would involve the B.B.C. in a £5 licence fee to do what the I.T.A. is to do, or to admit that it was a dishonest statement to make.
    This arises out of the Amendment, because the basis of the idea that it would cost the B.B.C. a £5 licence fee is that it would have to provide a second television programme in one year. Therefore, as the hon. Gentleman was comparing the B.B.C. with the I.T.A., the I.T.A. would also be able to do it in one year. The Postmaster-General, however, when pressed strongly in the other place on 2nd March, 1954, gave the assumptions which had underlain the statement that it would cost a £5 licence fee for the B.B.C. to do as well as the I.T.A. within one year. It must have been embarrassing for the Assistant Postmaster-General when those assumptions were given in public, because
    300
    they showed that his earlier statement was really a cheating statement and that it was designed to mislead.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order, order. I do not think that "designed to mislead" is in order.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I am sorry, Sir Rhys. Naturally I entirely withdraw the words, which came out without thinking. I will say that the assumptions disclosed by the Postmaster-General showed that the remarks of his hon. Friend had been extremely hazardous, because the Postmaster-General showed that the assumption underlying the statement of his hon. Friend was that the B.B.C. would produce a five-hour a day second television programme, and that it would start in the summer of 1955; in other words, at the same time as our Amendment would make the programme of the I.T.A. start. Of course, the assumption naturally was that the I.T.A. could do the same, because the Assistant Post master-General said that it would cost a £5 licence fee for the B.B.C. to do the same as the I.T.A.; in other words, he was assuming that the I.T.A. could pro duce a five-hour a day second programme start in the summer of 1955.
    Does the Assistant Postmaster-General still maintain that this is what the I.T.A. can and will do? Does he, therefore, stand by his statement because, unless he says that the I.T.A. can give a five hour a day programme starting in the summer of 1955, he cannot maintain any longer that it would cost the B.B.C. a £5 licence fee to do the same. If, indeed, he thinks it is possible for the I.T.A. to do this, then he can accept the Amendment, because it merely says that it shall do what he says it can and will do. On the other hand, if he refuses the Amendment on the grounds that it is putting an impossible burden on the I.T.A., he must withdraw his allegation that it will cost the B.B.C. a £5 licence fee to do the same as the I.T.A. He has those two alternatives, and it is for him to decide which he chooses.
    Mr. Gammans: I shall deal first with the technical point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), who asked me if two channels were available and what were their frequencies. The answer is that there are two channels available. I gave the

    301
    frequencies to the House in answer to a Question a few months ago. Speaking from memory, they are 186 to 191 and 191 to 196 megacycles, though I would not like to be bound by that statement.
    I was rather surprised that this Amendment was moved, because it is the exact opposite of the Amendment which was moved first this afternoon. On the earlier one we were chided for attempting to go too fast; now we are being exhorted to go faster.
    We were also told, for example, that this I.T.A. programme might affect the B.B.C. in the provision of its further stations. I would tell the Committee that the B.B.C. has already ordered transmit ting equipment, which is being manufactured, for the whole of its remaining programme, whereas the I.T.A. has not come into operation at all. Nor has it gone into the market in any shape or form. The point was made that the possible setting up of the I.T.A. and the fact that it would order equipment might impede the progress of the B.B.C. The answer is that it will not.
    Mr. Mitchison: Before the hon. Gentle man gets into the ether will he enlighten me on this point? I thought that we were discussing on the previous Amendment when the Authority should be constituted. Are we not now discussing whether the Authority should get on with the job within the time limit allowed to it or whether there should be no time limit at all?
    Mr. Gammans: We were previously chided for attempting to go too fast. We are now exhorted to get on with the job and I was asked whether or not I stuck to the expression of opinion which I gave some time ago when I said that I thought that the new Authority would be on the air within one year of its being constituted. I still stick to that opinion.
    I think that it will be on the air, but I am not willing that the Authority should be tied down by Act of Parliament to be on the air within that time. It would be most foolish of me to accept that. There are so many uncertain factors in the whole of this scheme that I should be foolish to bind the Authority to get on the air within a year when something might come along to prevent their achieving that. We must realise what
    302
    must be done. Arrangements will have to be made with the programme contractors and it may be that masts will have to be erected though, as I said before, technically there is much to be said for the Authority and the B.B.C. sharing some masts purely on business terms. Outside broadcasting equipment has to be purchased by the programme contractors, and so on, and it may be that sites for masts and transmitting equipment will have to be bought. In those circum stances for me to accept a mandatory obligation for them to get on the air within the time which I think they can get on the air would be foolish in the extreme and contrary to all sensible legislation.
    It is our desire and intention—and I think that this will reassure the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) —to get on with the job. I hope that the Authority will get on with the job very quickly and that there will be no delay of any sort. All that we are now arguing about is whether we should make that mandatory upon the Authority in an Act of Parliament and I must resist an Amendment to that effect.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman used the term "on the air." I under stood that the kernel of the controversy was the provision of an alternative programme generally. That is something different from being on the air. The Authority could be on the air with one station or one transmitter but that would not be providing an alternative programme, which might involve three or four transmitters at least. The hon. Gentleman should apply his mind to this problem again.
    Mr. Gammans: In the first instance, we did not envisage more than three stations being in operation and I assumed, on the best information at my disposal, that that would happen within a year of the Authority being set up and the Bill becoming an Act of Parliament.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sorry to chase the hon. Gentleman on this matter. I do not like to interfere unduly, but when he speaks of three transmitters, does that mean transmitting one programme or three secondary programmes? Is there competition between the transmitters?
    Mr. Gammans: I think we are on a point which has nothing to do with the Amendment and which we shall have plenty of opportunity to discuss later. I am trying to keep within the rules of order, but I shall be delighted to give the right hon. Gentleman what I hope is a satisfactory answer when the time comes.
    There is one other point about the Amendment which has not been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. As I understand, this Amendment would do something more than hold the Authority down to a rigid time-table. It would specify that what it did not do in the first year it could not do at all. I do not know whether that was meant or not—[An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] It was meant; I am very glad to have that admission.
    Sir L. Plummer: Would not "by product" be the phrase?
    Mr. Gammans: This is an Amendment which the Government could not possibly accept, because it cuts right across the whole plan of development we have announced in respect of this television Authority. I would be the first to admit that we are going into a new field and we should proceed with a certain degree of caution, as we have always said we would, and there should be no attempt to spread over the whole country at one go. If we attempted to do that we should certainly require far more money than is proposed. The intention has always been that the Authority should spread from its own resources as the demand arose and as it had authority to do so. There fore, I could not possibly accept this Amendment which puts the hampering provision on the Authority that what it did not do in the first year it could not do at all.
    Mr. Mitchison: We took the year, of course, from the hon. Gentleman. He appreciates that there is a time limit of 10 years and it is only during those 10 years in which the stations will be set up. Does he suggest that the Authority will be starting facilities during the whole 10 years, so that those facilities can be used only for a month or two?
    Mr. Gammans: That is making a whole lot of presuppositions we ought not to make here. It is presupposing
    304
    that if the new Authority were transmitting a satisfactory programme anyone would dare or want to stop it. The idea is that during the 10 years there should be gradual extensions. I hope I have replied to the various points which hon. Members have made, but, for the reasons I have given, I regret that we cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The story of this argument arose in this way, if I remember rightly, and I do not think the Assistant Postmaster-General comes out of this series of discussions at all well. In fact, I think he comes out very badly and his reputation has suffered as a result of the statements which have been made. The argument he was making was that if the B.B.C. was to complete its second television programme arrangements it would have to impose a licence fee of £5.
    Mr. Chapman: £6 and £7 were also mentioned.
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, £6 and £7 were also mentioned. The purpose of the argument was that we had better not let the B.B.C. do this, otherwise the licence fee would go up. But when he was pinned down he had to admit that it was on the assumption that the second programme would be, so to speak, almost immediate —a second different programme, and five-hour timing.
    Then the hon. Gentleman went on to discuss the commercial people, and drew a favourable picture of what they could do, because they would have the advertising revenue, plus the little grants-in-aid which the Government proposed to give them. He then said that they could do it now. The word "now" was used. He having used that word, it was used against him. and he then argued that when he said "now" he meant in 12 months.
    Now it appears that he does not mean a full second programme. He means only three stations in popular centres. This is what Lord Ashfield used to call, in omnibus language—and what Ernest Bevin used to call, when pirate buses competed against the London General buses—"creaming the traffic." That is what the Government are doing. They are creaming the television traffic for the commercial people and the private profit makers.

    305
    To give the Assistant Postmaster-General a chance to live up to the rather sweeping statement which he had made before, namely, that the commercial people could do it now, without an in crease in the licence fee, except this £1 increase—and there is apparently a B.B.C. interest in that as well—and he having interpreted the word "now" to mean "within 12 months," we have put down an Amendment to say "now" and to define it as "12 months." That is to say, we have adopted the very language used by the Assistant Postmaster-General, language which he used after a lot of wriggling and evasion, for which he ought to be thoroughly ashamed. Why he stands at that Box I do not know. I should have thought he would have been so covered in shame that he would transfer himself to the back benches where he naturally belongs—if he belongs there.
    We put down these Amendments, and out of consideration for the dilemma in which the Assistant Postmaster-General finds himself, we even obliged him further by defining "now" as "within 12 months," which seems curious, but we have followed the words of a Minister of the Crown. Nevertheless, this Under-Minister has the assurance—I understand it is all right to use that word. In the first Session of Parliament in which I served there was a Conservative Member sitting on this side of the House who said, "Speaking for the railway companies, which I represent in this House." I subsequently referred to the hon. Gentleman having had the impudence to say such a thing, and Mr. Speaker Whitley jumped up and said, "Order. That is language which should not be used in this House."
    I can never understand what one can say in this House and what one cannot say. I have heard much worse words than that used in this House about hon. Members, but I understand that I can say that the hon. Gentleman has the assurance to say the things that he has said. Hon. Members and the Assistant Postmaster-General will know what I mean.
    The hon. Gentleman has said these things and we embodied in the language of an Amendment to the Bill the very things which the Assistant Postmaster-General, speaking at that Box on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, has said
    306
    will happen. Then he resists them, and on what ground? On the ground that the promise he has made may not be well based—which is a confession of sin.
    In those circumstances, we feel that the Assistant Postmaster-General is not altogether playing the game with this Committee. We think that, after further discussion—and whether we shall obtain more information from it I do not know —the proper thing would be for the Assistant Postmaster-General to apologise for the various misleading things that he has said. If he fairly and cleanly apologises and says that he did rather mislead the House earlier I will under take to advise my hon. Friends not to go to a Division on the Amendment.
    Mr. Chapman: The Assistant Post master-General has advanced a line of argument which started on 14th December, 1953, when he not only introduced the red herring of a £5 licence fee but said:
    "The second abjection is that it would mean a very big increase in the fee, possibly up to £6 or £7 a year."
    The hon. Gentleman has not stuck to the figure of £6 or £7 since, but what he said was misleading even if it was not designed to mislead.
    The hon. Gentleman said that there would be three alternatives which he tried to persuade us would be mutually consistent alternatives from which we could choose. He said that we could have the Independent Television Authority to do the job now; secondly, we could have the B.B.C. to do it now, in which case we should have to have a licence fee up to £7; and, thirdly, that we could wait until 1957. One of the interesting things about his 1957 thought was that one got the impression that even then it would involve an increase in the licence fee, and that we could avoid the increase, if, instead, we handed the job to the I.T.A.
    The alternatives are in no circumstance the mutually consistent and equal ones that he made out. Let us take what he meant about I.T.A. doing the job now. He said:
    "The B.B.C. programme includes a figure of £3, with the envisaged programme of development lasting 10 years. I say that if the second programme is provided now by the B.B.C. it will entail a licence fee of £5."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1953; Vol. 522 c. 50.]

    307
    The direct conclusion to be drawn from that is that he envisaged the £5 licence fee as something to do with the whole of the 10-year programme, and he was saying that in contrast to that, the 10-year programme could be carried out by the I.T.A. within its first year of existence. There is no other conclusion to be drawn from the debate of 14th December—out of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) says that the Assistant Postmaster-General did not come with any glory—than that he was saying that the I.T.A. could do in the first year—or now—the programme which the B.B.C. envisaged taking 10 years to complete after 1957. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to avoid that point.
    When it comes to the alternative of leaving the matter until 1957, the Assistant Postmaster-General has failed to point out, or has deliberately failed to point out, that by then the natural growth in the number of licence fees will cover the cost of doing it. In the coming years we shall not need a licence fee of £5, £6, or £7 for the simple reason that the growth in the number of licence fees— the numbers are rising by the million now—will take care of the increase in cost, and the B.B.C.'s figure of £3 in relation to the second programme really stands. The third thing which he deliberately concealed—and I do not blame him, because it did not help his argument—
    9.0 p.m.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir R. Hopkin Morris): I do not think it is in order for the hon. Gentleman to use the word "deliberately."
    Mr. Chapman: I am only saying that the reason why he deliberately concealed it was that it did not help his argument. He need not bring out all the facts if he did not want to do so. I am not imputing dishonesty to the hon. Gentleman, but only charging him with selecting his best arguments. I hope that is in order, and that I can say that the hon. Gentleman was being very selective.
    He did something very clever. He said that, if the B.B.C. did all that now, it would cost all this money, but he did not until much later—until 25th March—say that the B.B.C. is doing another job which it could give up if it wished and give us a
    308
    second programme instead. What he said on 25th March was this:
    "At the moment, the B.B.C. is concentrat ing—and I think quite rightly—on, first of all, providing a first programme for the whole country, next on increasing the number of hours of broadcasting, and. thirdly, on improving the quality of its first programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1554.]
    We may therefore take it that, if the B.B.C. gave that up, they could provide a second programme now without any in crease in fees. Surely if it gave up extending the hours of broadcasting and improving the quality of the programme, if it gave up trying to complete national cover age, it would not need any more licence fees in order to start a second programme. The hon. Gentleman failed to point out that the B.B.C. is getting on with the job, and that it could in fact, do what he is wanting without putting up the licence fees if we took away from it some of these jobs.
    I think the hon. Gentleman has been far too agile today. If we re-read what he said on 14th December, implying that the I.T.A. could do the B.B.C.'s 10-year job in one year, and if we then take into account what the hon. Gentleman did not point out to us until 25th March, I think we may say that he has—I will not say deliberately—inadvertently misled us in trying to choose the kind of argument which would best suit his case. I am sorry that he did not make a clean breast of it. He would have had all our sympathy if he had said that he had tried to pick his arguments to help his own case, but he has really gone further now and has stuck to his guns, and, as a result, I do not think his words do him any credit at all.
    Mr. Shackleton: I want to help the Assistant Postmaster-General, and I would give him a chance to vindicate himself against the serious Parliamentary accusations which have been made against him. I must confess that these accusations have in no way been answered, and I am rather doubtful whether the suggestion of my right hon. Friend that we should not divide is, in fact, the right one. Not being a Whip, I feel free to express my opinions, and I shall reserve my own attitude until I have considered more closely what the Assistant Postmaster-General intends to do to try to restore his own reputation.

    309
    The arguments which have been set forward have not been answered. The Amendment was designed to enable the Assistant Postmaster-General to confirm and to put in statute form an undertaking which he appeared to have given to the House. We gave him great latitude, and that is why we worded our Amendment with extraordinary definition. This is the second Amendment which is concerned with the meaning of the English language, and it is sad to realise what the Government are doing, in this Bill, to the English language.
    What I am suggesting to the hon. Gentleman is that he should contrive to set before the Committee in any form he likes, by laying papers or issuing a statement, what are the exact plans of those gentlemen with whom he has been having conversations and lunches, how soon they expect to be able to provide what he has committed himself to provide, and what other facilities they hope to provide, how long it will take the Independent Television Authority to negotiate with the B.B.C. about the use of the transmitting masts, and so on.
    At the same time, he should cause the views of the B.B.C. to be published. It is extraordinary that we have never yet had an opportunity of considering the Postmaster-General's statements—including that even more elaborate and unintelligible one made in another place —and those made by the Assistant Postmaster-General which were clear in the sense that it is quite obvious that the commercial system is in no position to give any definite date when it can provide the second programme.
    I suggest that the only fair thing is that we should have an opportunity to judge. The Home Secretary, whose fairness we recognise, should give the B.B.C. an opportunity to make its claims as to how quickly it could provide this. When we have these views we might at least arrive at a new definition of the word "now," in accordance with what it meant in our language in the past.
    Amendment negatived.
    The Deputy-Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to take with the next Amendment the further Amendment in line 8 and the two Amendments in line 9.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out from "Act," to "or," in line 9, and to insert:
    "until the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and sixty-two."
    Listening to the debate on the last Amendment I wondered whether we had not come to the trouble in the Bill. My thought was that whatever the cause per haps the advice given to the Postmaster-General by the Assistant Postmaster-General is unreliable. It may be that the whole Bill is based on the fact that the Postmaster-General had matters put be fore him, in ignorance or otherwise, by his hon. Friend.
    However, we have moved from the first part of the discussion, which is when the operation of this new Authority should begin to the duration of its life before it comes back to Parliament. I do not know which of the Ministers is to deal with this group of Amendments, but I hope they will find themselves able to accept at least one, if not all, of them. I wonder whether the Home Secretary would indicate whether the first Amend ment—dealing with the date 30th June, 1962—is to be accepted. If so, I would be quite willing to concentrate on the other Amendments.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If I can help the hon. Gentleman, it is not our intention to recommend acceptance.
    Mr. Benn: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for saying that. It certainly was not my in tention to burden the Committee with a long argument on what seemed to be to me an obvious point.
    This Amendment simply provides that instead of the new Authority going on for 10 years it should continue until 30th June, 1962. Let me explain at once what this Amendment is not. Although it shortens the period of the operation of the new Authority it is not put in because of that. There are other Amendments with which I may perhaps deal very briefly in a moment which quite openly say that we think that 10 years is too long. But this Amendment's only object is to see that the Independent Television Authority ends when the B.B.C. Charter ends.
    I should like to deploy the argument for that, and as the Home Secretary was

    311
    kind enough to intervene a moment ago perhaps I might start by quoting a few of the words he used on 25th March, when speaking on the whole subject of this Bill. He said:
    "I want to make this appeal to those who are considering the Bill. I think that every social observer will have noted that the usual pattern of development in our country is that new activities have started privately and then minimum standards have been imposed by Parliament as experience grew and people knew where the requirements existed. In this Bill we are trying to impose standards before the activities have come into operation. It is not an easy task and, whatever the views of my colleagues, I ask them to bear that in mind."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1458.]
    I would commend those words to the Home Secretary again, now.
    The object of the Amendment, now that the Second Reading stage is over, is to look upon the setting up of the Authority as an experiment and to see whether it cannot be made to end eight years hence, with the ending of the B.B.C. Charter, instead of 10 years hence. This is the most obvious Amendment which could have been put down. In eight years many things will have happened in television generally and in our experience of the Authority. I am not an expert on television, but I understand that colour television will be a practical proposition and that the first colour schemes will be it. operation long before 1962.
    New developments, coming out of laboratories both here and in the United States, may make coaxial cables and the transmission of more programmes un necessary, and we see the advent of the "creepy-peepy "—the television version of the "walkie-talkie." In eight years the whole pattern of television development may have altered, and we may find that it would be very advisable to look at the whole range of television broad casting both from the B.B.C. and the new Authority.
    It is not only because of technical changes that I recommend the Amendment to the Committee. It is also because, as the Home Secretary said, that in the constitution of this new Authority we are making an experiment. One has only to look at the subjects covered by the Bill to realise that they are bound to be experimental. One reason why there are so many proposed Amendments is that the Government are legislating
    312
    for a situation about which they know nothing, because there has never before been any form of commercial television broadcasting in this country.
    It is impossible to know whether British advertisers will lower the standards, or will have to be watched, or will turn out to be perfectly responsible. We do not know whether programme contractors will operate well with the Authority. I have my own suspicions about these points, and that is why I shall support some of the later Amendments. This is an experiment, and it would be ludicrous to extend it for two years after the expiry of the B.B.C.'s charter instead of reviewing it at the same time.
    I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the history of the early days of the B.B.C. This is an example of how something which has turned out to be a great success was started far more cautiously than the Government intend to start the new Authority. First, it was almost an accident that amateurs began to pick up broadcast programmes. The British Broadcasting Company, which was, in a sense, commercial, was then set up, but for a period of only two years. After a year the Sykes Committee was appointed to examine the question, and it made a recommendation which led to a two years' extension of the B.B.C.'s charter of incorporation. It was not until the system had been in operation for four years, and a second Committee—the Crawford Committee—had considered the question, that the Charter was extended for 10 years.
    The B.B.C. was investigated by two committees and an extension of only two years was granted before the 10 years' extension was agreed to. In those circum stances, it is very unwise to provide for the new Authority to operate for 10 years without any examination. It may be, of course, that a new Government coming into power will feel that there ought to be an examination after two or three years, even though these provisions had still another eight years to run, but it would be much better to provide the machinery for a change now in the original enactment because, from the Government's own point of view, they would have a better case to make to the Committee and the country in saying that they had gone into this matter carefully.

    313
    9.15 p.m.
    My main submission is that if this Bill is allowed to operate for 10 years, then, at the end of 1961 or at the beginning of 1962, when the B.B.C. Charter is coming to an end, the Television Authority will have another two years to go, and it will be impossible to have a review of all television. The terms of reference of the Beveridge Committee were drawn in the widest possible way:
    "To consider the constitution, control, finance and other general aspects of the sound and television broadcasting services of the United Kingdom."
    The B.B.C. is, of course, the only effective broadcasting institution at present, but the terms of reference of the Beveridge Committee were deliberately made very wide, and I think this Committee would feel it was being let down if a new inquiry in about 1960 were not able to consider the Television Authority and the B.B.C. The Home Secretary has been very fair and frank with the Commit tee, and I believe that he must realise that this is a most constructive and sensible Amendment. Admittedly, it shortens the operation of the commercial Television Authority, but it does not shorten it by any appreciable extent, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentle man would admit that there would have to be another survey of the whole field before Parliament could be asked to authorise the extension of the commercial system.
    I leave this question now, hoping that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to give us a more satisfactory answer on it, and come to the other Amendments. I shall deal with them only briefly because my right hon. and hon. Friends who have their names to them have arguments that they will want to make on them for themselves. Aside from the case I have just made there is also a case for saying that even eight years is too long, and that five years would be a better period because of the technical changes that will come in the five years and because of the experience which we shall have to gain from the operation of this new Authority.
    One presumes that if the Beveridge Committee examined the question of monopoly when it was considering the B.B.C. the next committee to be set up to consider broadcasting in this country will
    314
    also be charged with the responsibility of considering whether this competitive Television Authority has really done a good job or not. It is not inconceivable that the next committee of inquiry may recommend some quite different arrangements for television services.
    The whole question of financial control will have to be considered, and whether the money is coming in in the right pro portions from the Goverinment and the advertisers. The whole question of over seas television may have to be considered, and the television links between Britain and other countries; the way in which the Authority has handled its controversial television, and the way in which it has handled what educational and children's programmes it has broadcast.
    I leave the matter like that. I believe that there is a strong case for saying that 10 years is too long anyway, and that the term ought to be five, but if the Government are absolutely resolute in trying to maintain the operation of the Authority for the longer period, then I hope that the Home Secretary will, in fairness, and out of consideration for tidiness and good order, consider our proposal that the present run of the service of the new Authority should end at the same time as the current B.B.C. Charter.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move. "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
    I move this Motion because I think the Committee is not being well served by the Ministers on the Treasury Bench. I have had reason to make fairly sharp comment, as have some of my hon. and right hon. Friends, about the conduct of the Assistant Postmaster-General. That is becoming a little boring, because it is becoming so well known. But I did not think I should have to make a protest about the Home Secretary, who is usually considerate and courteous to the House. I have, however, a serious complaint about his conduct.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) moved an Amendment and asked, as he was entitled to ask, whether the Government proposed to accept it. He had not argued the case and the arguments which he would deploy were unknown to the Home Secretary. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary at once rose and said he would

    315
    not accept the Amendment. He did not say, "Subject to the hon. Gentleman's arguments and to the debate, we are not disposed to accept the Amendment." He said, flatly, "We are not going to accept the Amendment."
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The last thing I want is to be discourteous to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and the Committee, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter from that point of view. I thought the hon. Member wanted to know whether at that stage I was pre pared to accept the Amendment so that he would know whether or not to deploy his argument. That was the question which I answered. I cannot remember my exact words, but that was what I in-tented to convey, and I hope the hon. Member accepted my answer in that sense. If he did not, and I misled him, I am very sorry. I thought the hon. Member wanted to know whether he should continue and deploy further argument. I am in the hands of the Committee, and I apologise at once if I have given a wrong impression, but I certainly intended to let the hon. Member know whether he should deploy his argument. If there was any misapprehension, I am sorry.
    Mr. Morrison: I see the point which the Home Secretary is making. My hon. Friend put a question to him. My com plaint is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer, "I will listen with care to the debate, including the arguments employed by the hon. Member, but, subject to the debate, our pre sent intention is not to accept the Amendment." He made a categorical statement that the Government were not prepared to accept the Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I listened very carefully, and this is within the recollection of my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Kenneth Thompson: The right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I am sure he is not seeking to mislead the House. My right hon. and learned Friend said that at that stage he did not intend to recommend the acceptance of the Amendment.
    Mr. Morrison: One thing I like about back bench Members on the Conservative
    316
    side is that, whenever they have a Minister in trouble, they do their best to pull him out of it. I recommend this course of action in all quarters of the Commit tee. But with great respect, the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) is wrong. This is within the recollection of the Committee. The Home Secretary said categorically that he did not pro pose to accept the Amendment.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I said that I was not prepared to recommend the Committee to accept it. I am sorry if there is a misunderstanding, but I thought the hon. Member was asking me whether at that time I intended to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Morrison: If the language were, "I will not recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment," that means the same as I said earlier. I know how the right hon. and learned Gentleman's brief is marked; it is marked, "This Amendment should be resisted," in the customary language. He followed it out. It may be that in his heart of hearts he intended to resist the Amendment, but I think the forms of respect to the House and the Committee of the whole House should be followed.
    On all occasions it is the duty of the Minister to act in the early part of the debate, when he is asked questions of this kind, on the assumption that he will listen to the arguments. He should weigh them up and consider them, because at that point the Minister does not know what the arguments are going to be. I still feel it necessary that I should have said what I have said and to move the Motion that I have moved. I gather that, since my recollection of what has happened is disputed by hon. Members opposite, it will be possibly the case that one or two of my hon. Friends may wish to call their own memory to mind and say what they think happened.
    I do not want to keep this debate going for an undue length of time, and, indeed. I was instrumental in bringing the first debate to an end before it need have come to an end, because we do not want to waste time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No. No one can say that we have wasted time. Hon. Members opposite are really very foolish, because if they talk like that it is almost an incitement to us to do the very thing which they charge us

    317
    with doing. As an ex-Minister, who has had experience in handling a large amount of legislation, I know that back benchers can sometimes be almost as much a nuisance to Ministers on the Front Bench as the Ministers can be to themselves. They should not do it.
    Therefore, I move this Motion to report Progress in order that we shall have a considered statement on this matter, because I think that it is right that, whether it be a Standing Committee or a Committee of the whole House, Amendments should not be condemned out of hand by a Minister before the arguments have been put.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Under the Standing Order, I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's Motion.
    Mr. Morrison: May I ask how it conflicts with the Standing Order?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am exercising my right in declining to accept it.
    Mr. Morrison: Would you, Sir Rhys, be good enough to tell me under which Standing Order it is not acceptable? I agree that I cannot argue with you.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Standing Order No. 26 (Dilatory Motion in abuse of rules of House).
    Mr. Shackleton: Would you be good enough, Sir Rhys, to explain to the Committee what is the purport of that Standing Order?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I have the absolute right under the Standing Order to exercise my discretion, and I have exercised it. There can be no argument about it.
    Mr. Benn: I rise on a point of order, or to speak a second time on the Amendment which I have just moved, simply to say that I greatly regret what has happened, because my object in making my original inquiry of the Home Secretary was to save time. A Member of the House who is trying to prolong the proceedings of the House does not normally offer to forgo his argument unless he gets a friendly nod from the Minister on the Front Bench. We shall find tomorrow what HANSARD says that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but I should like to acquit him of any deliberate attempt of discourtesy to
    318
    me, and perhaps I should not continue if I thought that he was not going to listen to the argument; but hope burns in the breast of even the humblest back bencher.
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg the Home Secretary to think again before he rejects the very fine offer of alternatives which this group of Amendments presents to him. The Bill provides
    "for the period of 10 years … or such longer period as Parliament may hereafter determine."
    As it is at present, I feel sure that the Home Secretary will agree with me that it is sheer nonsense to put that into an Act of Parliament or to suggest such further period as Parliament may here after determine unless we have special powers under this Bill to extend the time. Otherwise, words have no meaning what ever. There can always be a new Act of Parliament and there is no need to refer to it in a previous one. It is an untidy and unnecessary insertion in the Bill.
    I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General, for the sake of tidiness, what ever else he does, will not leave this foolish phrase in the Bill. I daresay he will be able to find precedents for it. There are any number of evil precedents in legislation. Let us hope that he will seize the occasion to improve what I am sure he appreciates is the sloppy way in which these Bills are prepared.
    9.30 p.m.
    Surely the advantages of fixing the period at the end of the B.B.C. Charter instead of at the end of 10 years outweigh the disadvantages. It is not a very great length of time, and one has to look for ward to see what the position will be. First, the B.B.C. Charter will expire and then this period of 10 years will expire. Whatever appears in the Bill, it must be obvious that if the 10-year period is to be extended that must be done by further legislation. I am sure that the Government, including the Home Secretary, would not contend that no inquiry will be needed into the work of the B.B.C. at the end of its Charter. Inquiry will be needed also into the working of this rather remarkable experiment.
    Without going into controversial statements of what the experiment is, I think it is clear that it is not only new to this country but new in this form anywhere

    319
    in the world and that, apart altogether from the technical developments which it will involve, it must have serious social consequences. They may be good consequences, from the Government point of view, or bad consequences, as we think, or there may be some mixture of the two views. The effect of the experiment on the educational system will certainly need careful consideration when there has been time to try it out.
    Is it really suggested that it is right to consider the B.B.C. Charter when it comes to an end, and later, say a couple of years afterwards, to consider the working of this experiment? I cannot believe that that is wise, and I cannot see any real reason for it. There is no magic in a period of 10 years. Probably, in the long run, it derives from the fact that we all have 10 fingers and 10 toes. That is the only point about the figure 10. Nobody suggests that during the 10 years, or anything like it, we shall go on steadily building up new stations which may have to be closed down at the end of the 10 years.
    What is the point in resisting an Amendment which would terminate the two things at the same time and thus get what we shall not get otherwise, a com prehensive inquiry into all the televising services in comparison with one another, including the B.B.C. and the proposed new body, whatever form it may then take? I beg the Home Secre tary, in no party spirit, to consider the common sense of the thing and to accept this very important Amendment.
    Whatever the Home Secretary does about it I ask him not to persist in his present attitude, but either to give us an undertaking on the matter or, best of all, to accept the Amendment. If he has come down here pre-disposed against it I would ask him to reconsider it. It does not look so important now, but when the time comes for any Government or the Minister, who is responsible for the 10 year period, to carry this out, I am quite sure he and they will be sorry in the national interest.
    That is the main point I wanted to make, but there is one other point I must emphasise. I have expressed my own objection to the Parliamentary language in this Bill. If that was done before, that is no excuse for doing it
    320
    again. But to substitute a shorter period is a different matter. That gives a warning to the people concerned that if the thing functions badly they cannot count on having the 10 years. That is a matter of prudence.
    I should have thought that it would have been advisable for something of that sort to be put in. Then the commercial interests concerned, the programme con tractors, the advertising agents and all the rest of the crowd, not to mention the shoddy gentlemen with shabby overcoats whom someone saw going in through the back door of the Post Office with the object of getting a lunch with the Assistant Postmaster-General—I do not think I will go further into that—ought to have the warning that the existence of this arrangement for 10 years depends on how it succeeds and they ought not to have an absolute promise that it is going on for longer.
    Therefore, I should like to support the alteration of "longer" to "shorter." It seems to me a less important point than the first one, the question of the B.B.C. Charter.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: May I begin my remarks by saying one word on an episode which is passed, which has just reminded me of a very profound saying of the late M. Talleyrand, "Distrust your first impulses, they are usually good." My first impulse was to help the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) by explaining whether at that time the Government intended to accept this Amendment. If I did not use the proper language and I misled the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and the Committee thereby, I am very sorry and shall be much more cautious about my first impulses in the future.
    This Amendment has been argued with considerable force, and the first point I should like to put to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East is that he has fallen into confusion between review and cessation. There is no doubt about the ancestry of this matter. Ultimately, I shall have to compare the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) with the appropriate passage in Sir James Eraser's "The Golden Bough" to see whether there should be all 10 fingers.

    321
    But the more approximate ancestry is in the Government White Paper, where it says:
    "The corporation would be set up by Statute for an initial period of, say, ten years. Its methods of working, contracting for programmes and regulating advertisements would be open to revision at any time and certainly to review before 1962 when the B.B.C.'s present Charter expires."
    There is no doubt that this implied a comprehensive review of all the broad casting field before 1962. The difference between us—I think it is a logical and sound difference—is that the review did not in any way imply that the existence of the Authority would be terminated before the 10 years were up.
    Mature consideration by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and learned Friend will show that the Authority needs the assurance of at least 10 years' security for the proper development of efficiently competitive services. Ten years must be regarded as the minimum period of security which should be granted to an Authority responsible for the development of a competitive television service in completely new circumstances. What ought we to consider in this regard? First, the cost of the plant and equipment of the Authority. I believe that alone would justify ensuring its efficient utilisation over as long a period as possible. Then, as far as the programme contrac tors are concerned, they will be faced with considerable capital outlay in pro viding studio accommodation and equipment, and they should be given a reason able prospect of long contracts.
    We have just been discussing the question of the time of operation. My hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General has said that there is every hope, and it is our earnest desire, that the process will be functioning within a year. But it is one thing to hope and desire it, it is another thing to have it made, as he explained, the subject of a legislative tie. I would remind the Committee of the first speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South this afternoon. It was a statesmanlike, if slightly pessimistic, appreciation of the responsibilities which the programme companies were undertaking. For reasons which he fully appreciates and which probably most of his colleagues in all parts of the Committee share, he wished to warn intending programme company operators of the difficulties that
    322
    might face them. One of the subjects of his statesmanlike warning was the fact that they might have to go for a period without getting a profit on their capital.
    Far be it from me, when it helps my argument, not to draw attention to the words of the right hon. Gentleman. If I remind the Committee of them, the corollary is that it is essential that they should be given a reasonable time to obtain a return on their capital and operation outlays. On that basis, which is the basis I take from the right hon. Gentleman, a maximum period of five years would be totally inadequate for this purpose, and a result of fixing so short a time would almost certainly be that programme contractors would be subject to the depressing worry which the right hon. Gentleman foresaw.
    The other point, which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering dealt with more shortly, is the possibility of putting in a period of less than 10 years, which I think attracted him. The arguments which I have endeavoured to put shortly about the air of uncertainty in which no public Authority could possibly function, apply strongly in relation to the wording of the Statute in that way.
    9.45 p.m.
    If it applied to the Authority it would apply a fortiori to the position of the programme companies. It would certainly give the impression that the period was going to be shorter unless Parliament otherwise determined. That really is an argument on this point where I admit at once that the hon. and learned Gentleman had constitutional substance. We all know and we have said so many times, that no Parliament can bind its successors and I should be the last to argue, least of all with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that that point did not have constitutional significance, but I ask him and the Committee not to press that point for the general reason which I have tried to explain to the Committee.
    We are dealing with this matter on the basis that the House of Commons has approved the principle of the Bill. It is idle to approve the principle of a Bill on Second Reading and then to take a course which means that neither the Authority nor the programme companies have any security at all. That is really the basis

    323
    of my objection to all the Amendments. There is the additional objection which I have endeavoured to put moderately to the Committee that we have drawn a distinction between review and cessation, and the fact that we object to cessation does not mean that we object to the review which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite desire.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I still find it hard to understand why the Home Secretary cannot accept the first Amendment which refers to making the two great companies come to an end at the same time. It is very important that the two should end together. There is certainly need for a public inquiry as soon as possible. We should have liked a much earlier public inquiry into the whole question of running commercial television, for, in practice, this proposal is being pushed through without public inquiry under three-line Whips and all the rest of it. Therefore, on general principle we want a public inquiry into this whole idea, on the same lines as that held when the B.B.C. was set up.
    The Home Secretary said that we were confusing review and termination and that it was not desired to terminate the life of a body before it was reviewed or a commission inquired into it, but surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman must admit that the B.B.C. will be terminated on the date which we mentioned in the Amendment and, therefore, one thing is to be inquired into which will have to come to an end and will have to be renewed or altered while the other cannot be reviewed or altered at the same time. Therefore, it will be impossible for a coherent inquiry to be held into the whole field of television and sound broadcasting.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The B.B.C. is not a statutory body. It is set up by Charter and, therefore, if the Government of the day so desire it, there is no difficulty about disposing of the time of the termination of the B.B.C. Charter.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I quite under stand that one can extend the Charter as was done after the war for five years, but it is the intention and purpose, and I think that it is in the national interest, that a great new experiment, especially
    324
    when, as the Assistant Postmaster-General said, nobody knows how it will turn out, should be inquired into publicly as soon as it is reasonably possible. If the B.B.C. is to come to an end and if there has been a Charter and a long practice in connection with the B.B.C., only interrupted by a great thing like war that an inquiry should be held before the termination of that Charter, that ought to be done in this case. We would be in favour of that happening with regard to the B.B.C. We do not wish to extend the period before there is another inquiry. Because we put down a date far ahead— not so far as the Government would like, but still a very long way ahead, eight years, or more—it does not mean that necessarily we are committed to the view that this new organisation should run for that length of time. This is an attempt to make the Bill better. It contains a principle we dislike very much indeed, but, in the proper Parliamentary way, we seek to make the Bill better although we would sooner that the thing should not start at all.
    Later, we shall come to Amendments to remove programme contractors out of the Bill altogether and those Amendments must be read with the Amendment before us now. But if, despite all our efforts, those programme contractors are there and if, despite all our efforts, this I.T.A. comes into being, we say that at the earliest reasonable opportunity there ought to be a general public inquiry which will not be incapable of discussing and making recommendations to Parliament on the whole field of television and sound broadcasting, whether competitive, commercial, or public service. We hope that when that day comes great and different proposals will be made from those which are before us now.
    Even if that were not the case, we submit that there is a real case for making the periods for the two organisations coincide. I repeat what my right hon. Friends have said. I hope that the Home Secretary, in spite of the first impulse to which he gave expression, and which, I am afraid, reflected the brief he had before him—as he came to the Committee with that brief and his mind was made up when he came to the Committee—will go away and think about this again.
    Possibly the right hon. and learned Gentleman will talk over with his

    325
    advisers and hon. Friends the points we have made, because this Amendment has been moved to help make better a Bill which we do not like, but which we would sooner were good than bad. We feel strongly enough about this matter to advise hon. Members on this side of the Committee to emphasise the importance they attach to it by taking it to a Division, unless the right hon. and learned
    Gentleman can give an assurance that he will reconsider the question.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It would be misleading the right hon. Gentleman if I went further than I went in my speech on the Amendment.
    Question put, "That 'and for the period of' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 253: Noes, 235.

    Division No. 83.]

    AYES

    9.54 p.m

    Aitken, W. T.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Fort, R.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Foster, John

    Low, A. R. W.

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Gammans, L. D.

    McCallum, Major D.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

    Baldwin, A. E.

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Banks, Col. C.

    Glover, D.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Barlow, Sir John

    Godber, J. B.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Gower, H. R.

    Macleod. Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Harden. J. R. E.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncaslle)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Black, C. W.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macolesfield)

    Marples, A. E.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Maude, Angus

    Braine, B. R.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Heath, Edward

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Mellor, Sir John

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Bullard, D. G.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Neave, Airey

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Nioholls, Harmar

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hollis, M. C.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Carr, Robert

    Hope, Lord John

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Channon, H.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Horobin, I. M.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Cole, Norman

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Odey, G. W.

    Delegate, W. A.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Orr, Capt. Capt. L. P. S.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Page, R. G.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E, McA.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Kaberry, D.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Kerr, H. W.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Duthie, W. S.

    Langford-Holt, J. A

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Redmayne, M.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Fell, A.

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lindsay, Martin

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Summers, G. S.

    Wall, P. H. B.

    Russell, R. S.

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Teeling, W.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Wellwood, W.

    Shepherd, William

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Wills, G.

    Snadden, W. MoN.

    Tilney, John

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Tunner, H. F. L.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Turton, R. H.

    Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Studholme.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Vosper, D. F.

    NOES

    Aoland, Sir Richard

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Albu, A. H.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Allen, Seholefield (Crewe)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    McGovern, J.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Gibson, C. W.

    McInnes, J.

    Attle, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Glanville, James

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Gooch, E. G.

    McLeavy, F.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Balfour, A.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Bartley, P.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Bence, C. R.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Grimond, J.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Benson, G.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

    Beswick, F.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Mason, Roy

    Bng, G. H. C.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hannan, W.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Monslow, W.

    Boardman, H.

    Hastings, S.

    Moody, A. S.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Morley, R.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Bowen, E. R.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Mort, D. L.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Moyle, A.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Holman, P.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Holmes, Horace

    Murray, J. D.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Holt, A. F.

    Nally, W.

    Carmichael, J.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Orbach, M.

    Clunie, J.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oswald, T.

    Collick, P. H.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Padley, W. E.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Paget, R. T.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Daines, P.

    Janner, B.

    Parker, J.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Peart, T. F.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Popplewell, E.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Porter, G.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Deer, G.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Rankin, John

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Keenan, W.

    Reeves, J.

    Edelman, M.

    Kenyon, C.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Rhodes, H.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Kinley, J

    Richards, R.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Fienburgh, W.

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Finch, H. J.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Ross, William

    Forman, J. C.

    Lindgren, G. S

    Royle, C.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Logan, D. G

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    328

    329

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Short, E. W.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Willey, F. T.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Thornton, E.

    Willis, E. G.

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Timmons, J.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Tomney, F.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y>

    Sparks, J. A.

    Usborne, H. C.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Stross, Dr. Bannett

    Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Weitzman, D.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Yates, V. F.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    West, D. G.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    It being after Ten o'Clock, The CHAIR MAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

    SLAUGHTERHOUSES [MONEY]
    Resolution reported,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make local authorities responsible for the time being for securing that adequate slaughterhouse facilities are available locally; to explain and amend the law with respect to the provision by local authorities of public slaughterhouses, the making of charges in respect of such slaughter houses and the grant and renewal of licences under section fifty-seven of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938; to make further provision with respect to the regulation and restriction of private slaughterhouses and the payment of compensation where a licence or registration in respect of such a slaughterhouse is refused or ceases to be in force; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

    (a) any sums required by the Minister of Food or the Secretary of State for making grants to local authorities of amounts not exceeding one-half of any sums payable by them by way of compensation where—

    (i) a slaughterhouse licence ceases to have effect in consequence of a resolution under section sixty-one of the said Act of 1938 passed by a local authority in England or Wales, or an application to such a local authority for the grant or renewal of a slaughterhouse licence has been refused, or

    (ii) (in Scotland) the registration of a slaughterhouse has been cancelled or refused;

    330

    (b) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, being an increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session.

    TRANSPORT CHARGES, &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]
    Resolution reported,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the charges of certain undertakings connected with transport and to provide for certain other matters, it is expedient to authorise—

    (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

    (i) any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in the execution of the said Act of the present Session (including any charges and expenses of licensing authorities for public service vehicles attributable to the provisions of the said Act); and

    (ii) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums required under any other enactment to be paid out of moneys so provided;

    (b) the payment into the Exchequer of—

    (i) any fees received by licensing authorities for public service vehicles by virtue of regulations made under the said Act of the present Session; and

    (ii) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums required under any other enactment to be paid into the Exchequer.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, BORROWDALE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]
  10.6 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Peart: I wish to raise this evening a constituency matter, and I am quite prepared to admit that this is a case of special pleading for the constituents of the Workington Parliamentary division, and specifically for those who live in the lovely valley of Borrowdale, which is still without an electricity supply.
  I have raised this matter on two previous occasions. I had the good fortune to have the Adjournment on this subject on 14th November, 1951, and I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary who then replied to that debate is again here this evening. I again raised the matter on 19th June, 1953, on a general Motion connected with rural electricity. I make no apology for raising it again, and I must say quite frankly that I shall continue to raise it in Parliamentary time whenever I am successful in the Ballot, as long as the work is not started and my constituents are still deprived of an adequate and modern electricity supply.
  The Minister himself, on 19th June, 1953, speaking in a debate on rural electrification, said that he would not be backward in this matter. I made an intervention, apart from the speech which I made on a specific subject, and the Parliamentary Secretary in the previous Adjournment debate, then admitted that he would not be unsympathetic if the general situation of the country improved. I assumed that he meant the Government's attitude towards capital investment and its effect on the development of electricity throughout the country as a whole, and that, if it was favourable, he would be only too pleased to embark on such schemes as that for Borrowdale. The Parliamentary Secretary specifically mentioned that in the previous Adjournment debate.
  I believe that the general position has improved in relation to rural electricity. In 1952, I understand, £5 million was allocated for rural electricity; in 1953, the figure had increased to £6 million,
  332
  and the Minister informed the House that this year we would be spending approximately £7½ million. I admit that that is an improvement, and that, despite high costs, there has been a desire to spend more of our resources on schemes which will benefit rural Britain. Because of the improvement in the general position, I believe that the time has now come for the specific case of Borrowdale, which, after all, is really a scheme for rural electrification, to be considered and implemented.
  The Minister himself raised the hopes of many of us concerned about specific schemes in different parts of the country. He likened the electricity authority to a horse which would not be pulled back. To quote his words, he said that now that the horse had a chance to show his paces they hoped that he would go for ward at a smart trot. I want the North-Western Electricity Board to go ahead at the gallop. I shall not be satisfied until the horse is past the winning post of Borrowdale. Because of the Minister's statement and because he increased the general allocation for rural electricity, I hope that we shall have encouragement for the Borrowdale scheme to go ahead.
  Moreover, the Minister said that the various electricity boards under the main authority had been long living in an atmosphere of rigid capital limitation and that they needed more freedom. He said that they needed encouragement, that that was what they were getting, and would get, from the Government. They were strong words. I am pleased when a Minister uses strong words about rural electricity, not only because of the specific case of Borrowdale, but because of the general effect upon our general agricultural industry.
  I shall not be content tonight with an expression of sympathy or to be told that we shall have the usual favourable reply. I hope that tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will give me something more definite and specific about the Borrow dale scheme. Of course, I recognise the difficulties. The development of electricity in the countryside should be concerned, quite rightly, with three very important items—national interest, defence, and productivity. All three must be considered in dealing with any particular scheme.

  333
  I know, too, the argument that it is easier to link up the urban communities. It is easier to have 300 consumers per mile linked up in an urban area than to have 10 per mile in a rural one, but I believe that the purpose of the Electricity Act in part was to bring electricity supplies to rural areas. We should emphasise that main principle of the strong helping the weak.
  Tonight, I will not repeat in detail the case for Borrowdale. The Minister knows all the details, and I hope hon. Members know the great virtues of Borrowdale. It is one of the lovely Lake District valleys. I am very proud to represent it. It is an area of great beauty, and it attracts visitors. It really belongs to the nation. In Borrowdale, we have the lovely Lake Derwentwater. Ruskin said that the view of Derwentwater from Friars Cragg was the finest in Europe.
  The House will appreciate that this area does not just concern the people of Borrowdale, the constituents of Working-ton and the people of Cumberland, but is a national concern. I am glad that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) is here—to support me, I hope, on this important matter, which affects Borrowdale and Cumberland. There we have the lovely villages of Rosthwaite, Seatoller, Stonethwaite and Seathwake. It is an area which has inspired artists and writers. Shelley, Southey, Coleridge and Lamb all found inspiration in Borrowdale.
  Even if we consider the material aspect of physical defence which I previously mentioned, Borrowdale and Derwent water had a significance in the last war. I have been reading this weekend Paul Brickhill's magnificent book "The Dam Busters." It is a wonderful book, describing the valour and bravery of the Royal Air Force. I was interested to read that Wing Commander Guy Gibson, when leading 617 Squadron, practised his flights over Derwentwater when trying to fly accurately at 60 feet above water level before going on those successful raids over the German dams of Moehne and Eder.
  It is rather interesting to note that the name of Borrowdale is mentioned in that walk of life. I am not stressing the defence point of view; I am merely arguing the amenity point of view, and pointing out that it is of national interest.
  334
  This area attracts visitors from all over the country. It is part of our National Parks area. There is even a productivity argument in Borrowdale. We have 20 farms. We have fell farms, which need electricity, and we have a quarry. We also have hotels and hostels which cater for visitors. These farms and hotels, which do so much for the country in different ways, need an adequate modern supply of electricity, and we should give it to them if we possibly can.
  There is another point which I want to stress in relation to the Lake District and Borrowdale. It also has a man-made beauty, in its farms, hedges, cottages, and bridges, and we cannot ignore the local people if we wish to preserve that beauty, because it has been created by the work of the local inhabitants. To me, that is the most compelling of all arguments. My constituents, who look after this lovely area for the nation, and who, every year, by their skill and labour, provide enjoyment for thousands of visitors from England, Europe and the world, should have modern amenities, because they are doing something which is in the national interest.
  The wives of my constituents have a right to electricity in their kitchens; they have a right to electricity for wireless and television. I know that hydro-electricity is used in many parts of Borrowdale, but that is not satisfactory in itself. We need a modern electricity supply. I am not going over all the old arguments and controversies of the past, which arose out of the clash between the amenity question and the desire to have a modern electricity supply. In the 1930s those arguments frustrated a scheme for electrification, but with good will on all sides I am certain that there will be no frustration now.
  I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is sympathetic to the question of rural electrification. From 1945 to 1950, in agricultural committees, I have often heard him pleading the case of the agricultural industry, and I know that on a previous occasion when I raised this matter on the Adjournment he expressed himself in similar terms. I hope that he will at least convey my views to his Minister, and that in view of the promises and the definite statements which the Minister made about the need to encourage electrification, he will give

  335
  every encouragement to the North -Western Electricity Board to go ahead with this electricity scheme, which is so important to this area. In other words, I want action now, and I hope it will be forthcoming.
  10.19 p.m.
  Mr. W. M. F. Vane: Although the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and I do not agree about everything, we do at least agree wholeheartedly on the question of rural electrification. I remember that we both spoke upon this subject a year or two years ago. The hon. Member specifically mentioned Borrowdale, which is a very special example, but there are many other areas in the Lake District whose inhabitants are most anxious to have electricity and have been waiting for it for many years. I represent one such area.
  Electricity boards are sometimes a little slow in acting, because when they plan to take their mains into dales such as Borrowdale there is immediate opposition on grounds of amenity. I do not think there ought to be such opposition. If only we can site the overhead lines intelligently, as frequently they are sited in Switzerland, and not necessarily site them to follow the shortest possible route, many of the amenity objections may be overcome.
  As to capital expenditure, could we not save a great deal if we planned lines in a district like Borrowdale to ensure that telephonic lines and electric mains were carried on the same poles? Would that not save expenditure of capital, and meet the objection of those who consider that any works of this nature are necessarily detrimental to the view enjoyed not only by Ruskin but enjoyed and valued by many other people since? Surely, one line, even to the most inveterate opponents of works of this sort, is less objectionable than two.
  I do not want to repeat the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, nor to prolong the debate unduly, but through personal experience of living in an area not far from Borrowdale where we have not yet had electricity, and where plan after plan has been made in the rough, I sympathise with the people who live in such districts, and I sincerely hope that the Minister may help the electricity boards
  336
  with this most important task, and that in two years' time the hon. Gentleman may be able to start a debate, not to plead for further extensions, but to ex press his thanks for what has been done to bring this benefit not only to those people but to others.
  10.21 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): One of the remarkable things we notice from time to time in this House is the solidity of old friend ships, and one cannot help being struck tonight by the renewed combination of forces directed against my right hon. Friend's Ministry through the alliance of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), for it is just 1½years ago that they were doing exactly the same thing as they are tonight.
  Mr. Vane: The same arguments.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: With the same results?
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Workington has pleaded for a favourable reply. Of course, I think I am going to give him a very favourable reply, but whether he will think the reply is favourable is a matter entirely for his opinion. It is a question upon which opinions may differ, though not from any party political point of view.
  I would say straight away with regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland said that this problem of siting the poles is, from the amenity point of view, an exceedingly difficult one. It is very largely a matter of opinion, and it is not so much a matter of individual personal opinion as a matter of general public opinion. I would remind the House of the references to the subject contained in the report of the productivity team which came over from America, and which was amazed at the attention we in this country paid to the amenity problems of increasing electricity supply. If we could in any way, not only with regard to the siting of poles, but generally with regard to the amenity problems of siting of electricity generation and transmission, simplify this, it would immensely speed up and consequently cheapen the production and dis tribution of electricity.

  337
  I say that in parenthesis, because it is not the point that was raised by the hon. Gentleman who initiated the debate. The first consolation I can offer him is that at any rate he is 2½ years nearer to getting electricity than he was when he raised the matter before. The hon. Member quoted one or two comments which my right hon. Friend made on the subject of rural electricity. I, too, have made similar comments in die course of debates. He referred to the fact that my right hon. Friend had said that he would not be backward in bringing rural electricity forward and that the general position concerning rural electricity had considerably improved. I think that is a just claim, particularly in the North-Western area.
  May I give the hon. Member one or two figures to show that during the 2½ years the North-Western Board has not been idle in this matter? In 1951–52 it connected 595 farms to the main electricity supply. There was a slight improvement in 1952–53, when it connected 621 farms. In 1953–54, the year just ended, it connected over a thousand farms, which is a very substantial in crease. The connections are continuing at about the same rate.
  The Board has now connected some 60 per cent, of the farms in this area, but it must be borne in mind that, not withstanding this improvement, some 22,000 farms and rural premises are still awaiting main electricity in the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland says, "My house, too." Most of us have been in that position at some time or another, and I can only hope that my hon. Friend will gain relief after a shorter delay than that which I and my family suffered.
  A similar story of the improvement in rural electrification can be traced to the sub-area in which Borrowdale is situated—the Lakeland sub-area. In 1953–54, that sub-area of the Board made its record number of connections to farms—224 farms; but it must be borne in mind that in the sub-area no fewer than 160 schemes are waiting. It is estimated that these will cost £1½ million. These figures show that not only the Board as a whole but also the area within the Board, the Lakeland sub-area, have a very big job awaiting them.
  The hon. Member referred to the limitation in capital expenditure and
  338
  expressed a hope that this was no longer a major factor in precluding the rapid development of rural electrification. I can assure him that it is no longer a major factor. The limitations now are of a practical character. The available manpower required for planning and for progressing, as well as for the technical work, is all being absorbed in the area and put to use. That is the primary limitation in the development of rural electrification in the area.
  Mr. Peart: Is that the specific reason for the present delay in Borrowdale?
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: No. I would not go as far as to say that. But it is the primary reason. These things take a long time to plan. It is necessary to build up the whole force so as to be able to put out the people who are physically doing the job, not only in a consecutive but also in an economic way. At both ends all the available staff which can be obtained are being put to work.
  As an illustration, the Board's expenditure on rural electrification at present is running up to and will shortly reach no less than £800,000 a year, which is a very substantial sum.
  The limitations are economic, however, as well as practical. It is the duty of the Boards to break even. They cannot invest public money in ventures which they know will be uneconomic. I am glad to say that their approach to this problem has undergone a considerable change in the last two years.
  Some of the boards are now able to offer considerably better terms to those who seek rural electrification than they were able to two years ago, and although it is of little consolation to the hon. Gentleman in raising this point, it may be that his constituents will find, when the time comes for them to be linked up to the main electricity supply, there has been a definite advantage to them in that delay.
  I want to emphasise that there has been no intentional or deliberate delay in this matter at all. In fact, the Lake District Planning Board, which is the development authority for this area, is kept in full consultation and knows full well of the action that the Board is taking and what plans it has for the electrical development of the area.
  Mr. Peart: The Minister said that there has been no intentional or deliberate

  339
  delay. That may very well be, but can he say whether there has been intentional and deliberate speed?
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Oh, yes, I would certainly say so, and I think the figures I have quoted indicate the tremendous advance in the pressure which the Board have put upon rural electrification throughout the area. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there are no fewer than 160 schemes waiting in the sub-area of which Borrowdale forms a part, and the question of priority is a matter which it must decide. It is not possible for us in the Ministry to guide it, because there are all sorts of local considerations in which the Lake District Planning Board, which has been consulted, is particularly helpful in guiding it and in giving advice.
  There is also the advice and consultation taking place through the Consultative Council, which is well informed upon this matter and has been pressing and assisting the Board in every way to get on with the job as fast as possible. It has found that there is no reluctance on the Board to get on with it as fast as possible. The Board is anxious to proceed with rural electrification in accordance with the speech made by my right hon. Friend last year, when he accorded all possible encouragement to the Board to proceed quickly with rural electrification.
  I was glad to read in one of the news papers recently from that area that the chairman of the Consultative Council is reported to have said that in his view all the farms in the area, with the exception of a few of the more isolated ones, would be connected with the main electricity supply within the next seven or eight years. That shows the very rapid progress that has been made compared with
  340
  the progress which was made in any com parable period in the development of the area.
  But the question which the hon. Gentleman wants answered is, When is this going to take place? All I can tell him about that is that the Board is about to complete a new survey which it has been conducting throughout the whole of the Lakeland sub-area. That survey should be completed very shortly, and it is going to consider the results of it immediately. Therefore, in a few months' time it should be possible—and the Board is very cognisant of the necessity and urgency of this matter—to plan a revised programme in the development of the area and arrive at a date when they can calculate upon being able to bring electricity to Borrowdale. Though the hon. Gentleman may have electrified Borrowdale as much as was good for it, nevertheless the Board will try and bring light and power into that particular area. Whether the hon. Gentleman will consider that reply favourable or not. I can assure him that—
  Mr. Peart: It is an improvement.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I am glad to think he considers it an improvement. I can assure him that the needs of his constituents are very well recognised by the Board, that the Board has made immense progress, not only in his constituency but throughout the area, in introducing rural electrification, and is determined to continue progressively as fast as it possibly can.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

  HOUSING, SPILSBY (EX-SERVICE HUTS)
  HOUSING, SPILSBY (EX-SERVICE HUTS)
  CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUNDS (DAMAGE RISKS)
  CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUNDS (DAMAGE RISKS)
  EMPLOYMENT
    Half-caste Children
    Half-caste Children
    Theatre Royal Exeter (Musicians' Dispute)
    Theatre Royal Exeter (Musicians' Dispute)
    Republic of Ireland Citizens
    Republic of Ireland Citizens
  SCOTLAND
    Tulliallan House (Repair and Reconstruction)
    Tulliallan House (Repair and Reconstruction)
    Light Industries, Midlothian
    Light Industries, Midlothian
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
    Expenditure
    Expenditure
    National Service
    National Service
  BRITISH ARMY
    Commitments and Expenditure
    Commitments and Expenditure
    Regular Recruitment
    Regular Recruitment
    2nd Training Regiment, Catterick (Pay Deductions)
    2nd Training Regiment, Catterick (Pay Deductions)
  PAPER CONTROL (CONTENTS POSTERS)
  PAPER CONTROL (CONTENTS POSTERS)
  JAPANESE TEXTILE INDUSTRY (BRITISH INVESTMENT)
  JAPANESE TEXTILE INDUSTRY (BRITISH INVESTMENT)
  NIGERIA (GROUNDNUTS)
  NIGERIA (GROUNDNUTS)
  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
    Rent Increases (Supplementary Assistance)
    Rent Increases (Supplementary Assistance)
    Sheffield Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel
    Sheffield Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL
  Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

MACHINERY IMPORT LICENCES
2.35 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Questions which stand in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Questions were as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if, with regard to the procedure of application for licences for the import of machinery of prototype not manufactured in the United Kingdom, they are aware of the serious inconvenience caused to industrialists by current delays, and if steps can be taken to ensure more swift action.]
[To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the pursuit of the policy of re-equipment of industry emphasised by the recent Budget announcements, they are yet able to restore the exemption from duty of machinery of a prototype not at present produced in the United Kingdom.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, with the permission of the House and of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, I will answer these two Questions together. Nearly all kinds of machinery are admitted from most countries outside the dollar area under the open general licence, and manufacturers do not therefore need to apply for individual specific licences. Because of our balance of payments difficulties, however, imports of machinery from the dollar area are limited to machinery which is required for an essential purpose and for which no suitable non-dollar alternative is available. Specific licences are therefore required

275
for the import of machinery from the dollar area and aplications have to be considered carefully by the Board of Trade, usually in consultation with one or more other Department. Her Majesty's Government are most anxious to minimise the inconvenience to which manufacturers are inevitably put by the existence of these restrictions on machinery imports. Continuous efforts are being made to reduce the time taken to deal with applications. For the past six months, the average time taken has been between seven and eight days, but there necessarily is a very wide variation in individual cases.
As my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade announced in reply to a Question in another place on April 1, the report of the independent committee which was set up to review the question of duty-free entry for machinery has now been received. The subject, as the report recognises, and as I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, will recognise, is a difficult and complicated one, and the report is now being considered in detail. The Government are not yet able to say when it will be published, or what action will be taken on it.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for his reply. Your Lordships will, I am sure, realise that his action in dealing with my two Questions together makes it rather difficult to get a clear understanding of the reply, which is a matter of great importance to industry. With the indulgence of the House, may I point out to the noble Lord that the Question particularly asked for some encouragement, for hope that there might be a shortening of time. The noble Lord's reply failed to give it. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether in the event of an application having been held up for four weeks, a hearing could be arranged permitting applicants personal appearance to meet queries. With regard to the noble Lord's reply to the second part of my Question, is it to be understood that the Committee are going to recommend the import duty free of machinery where no prototype is manufactured in this country? I apologise to your Lordships for the length of the question.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I repeat that Her Majesty's Government are most anxious to reduce the delay to the lowest possible time. Any suggestions that the noble Lord or any other persons interested in this subject have to make as to how that time can be reduced will, of course, be regarded most favourably by my right honourable friend. I will look carefully at the proposal which the noble Lord has just made. With regard to the second half of his question, I am afraid that I can only repeat my original answer. The Government are now examining this very complicated Report and are not yet in a position to say what action will be taken upon it.
LORD BARNBY: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. With regard to his second reply, the question of duty-free import of machinery was, it would seem, encouraged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent concession to industry, and has been months and months under consideration. Surely an early announcement is important.
LORD MANCROFT: I am afraid that I cannot accept the criticism implied in the noble Lord's supplementary question. The report has been in the hands of my right honourable friend for only a very few weeks. He fully appreciates the urgency which the noble Lord has emphasised. I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend will not waste one minute in producing an answer to this very difficult and complicated question.

BRITISH PRISONERS IN KOREA
2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government—

(1) Whether any member of the British Forces serving in Korea, who became a prisoner of war, was tried by the enemy for a "war crime" alleged to have been committed prior to capture.

277

(2) If any such trials took place, what were the charges, how were the tribunals formed, what sentences, if any, were awarded, and whether the minutes or any other account of the proceedings were forwarded to the military, or any other, authority concerned.]

THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS): My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble and gallant Earl's Question is in the negative, in the sense that, so far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, no member of the British Forces serving in Korea who became a prisoner of war was tried by the enemy before a properly constituted tribunal or other military court for "war crimes" alleged to have been committed prior to capture. I should, however, qualify this by saying that many members of the British Forces were, whilst prisoners of war and undergoing interrogation, accused of having committed certain acts called by their captors "war crimes" They were asked to confess to these "war crimes," and if they did not do so were incarcerated in punishment cells or subjected to other punishment. They were told that this was to give them the opportunity to reconsider their decision not to confess. Several British prisoners of war were told that they had been found guilty of certain "crimes" and arbitrarily sentenced to punishment, although no formal trial had taken place. The noble and gallant Earl will appreciate that these were not in fact trials for alleged crimes, but that the treatment to which Allied soldiers were subjected was a combination of threats and persecution to extort confessions for propaganda purposes.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Earl for his reply. We may assume that the Chinese and the North Koreans did not act in accordance with the Geneva Convention which they undertook in the summer of 1952 to observe. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps will be taken to ensure that our enemies do obey these orders, or follow out the usages laid down, or carry out the rules—those are three terms, I believe, which are used by lawyers. If an enemy can arbitrarily punish our troops, are we going to take no steps about it? Are we going to be content to allow them to do so?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: I have answered as well as I possibly can the Question which the noble and gallant Earl has put before the House. The question of the treatment of prisoners of war, as far as I see it, is quite another question.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I suppose I must be content with the answer, but I thought it was very much the same question—the treatment of our men who fall into the hands of the enemy, and whom International Law does not seem able to protect.

HOUSING REPAIRS AND RENTS BILL
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, it is my privilege to submit to the House for Second Reading this important Bill. I think that no one, wherever he sits in this House, can fail to realise that the housing situation—the housing problem, perhaps I should call it—imperatively demands, and has for a long time demanded, courageous action. By "the housing problem" I mean not only the provision of new houses, in which my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has proved himself an inspired and inspiring leader, but also the question of the maintenance and preservation of those houses still standing which are part of our national wealth and heritage and the problem of dealing with those houses which are not fit for human habitation but which in these dark days are still used for that purpose.
Many of your Lordships will recollect that in a debate in this House not very long ago the late Lord Morrison, a man honoured and respected on both sides of the House, made an appeal to me. He asked whether we could not get together in order, if possible, to find some means of retrieving the situation—by which he meant dealing with the housing problem which I have described. I cannot say that the Bill which I now present to the House represents any united effort of the Parties, but I submit it to your Lordships as a sincere, honest and courageous step in the direction in which we should all proceed to try to provide a decent home

279
for every family in this country. That was the objective which Lord Morrison had and which I think we all have, on both sides of the House. I submit this Bill to your Lordships as a Bill which, in a matter of great complexity, does its best, without fear or favour, for the whole community.
Since I do not wish to be controversial on this matter in any way, I shall deny myself the pleasure of reference to any such vegetable as a "mouldy turnip," or to a "gold mine," or to a "landlords' ramp" or anything of that kind. I will merely ask your Lordships to try, as I have tried, to judge this Bill impartially and see whether it does not make an honest and serious attempt to do what is best. I venture to ask your Lordships this question. We are all agreed that something has to be done. If there are any noble Lords who think fit to criticise—not in detail, because of course details there are to be criticised—and condemn in principle this Bill, then I venture to ask them to tell the House what is the principle upon which they and the Party to which they belong would found any measure to reach the goal at which we aim. I think we are entitled to know that, for at present this proposal and no other holds the field. Again in no controversial spirit, I venture to remind the House that for six and a half long years, during which this was a growing and vital problem, the noble Lords who sit on the Opposition Benches did nothing, put forward no policy to remedy this evil; and even in the two and a half years during which they have been in Opposition and therefore, having no responsibility, have been the more free to express a view, there has still not been a policy put forward on their behalf to meet this problem. With that prelude, which I hope is not unduly provocative or controversial, I come to the Bill which I submit to the House.
It falls into two clearly defined parts, both of them important and to some extent interlocked. The first Part of the Bill deals with those houses which are unfit for human habitation, though some of them are capable of being restored to a state adequate for temporary accommodation. It is barely intelligible, I think, without a brief reference to the Housing Acts upon which it is built, in particular the Housing Act, 1936, which
280
is still the law on this question, subject to one amendment, at any rate, to which I may have to refer. Therefore, if your Lordships will forgive me, because I know that this is a matter familiar to many of you, I will briefly refer to the provisions of the Housing Act, 1936, so far as they are relevant to the amendments which this Bill provides.
Under the Act of 1936 a local authority may serve a repair notice requiring the owner of a house which is unfit for human habitation to put it into a proper state of repair if it can be done at reasonable expense. That is one power which they have to-day, and it is a power which has been widely exercised; but it is always a little uncertain because there is the condition that the repair must be capable of being done at reasonable expense, a matter which will always give rise to controversy. Further, a local authority may make a demolition order in respect of a single house. It may also—and this is of much greater importance—declare an area to be a clearance area, on the ground that the condition of the houses or their bad arrangement, or whatever it may be, makes them unfit for human habitation. Having declared a clearance area, they may then make a clearance order, the result of which is that the owners of houses have (and here is the point) forthwith to demolish their houses. Of they may compulsorily acquire the houses within a clearance area, in which case, equally, the obligation is forthwith—and I repeat, forthwith—to demolish the houses. That is the law so far as it is for the moment relevant under the Act of 1936.
Between 1936 and the outbreak of the war in 1939 great strides had been made—indeed, there are people to-day who say that, but for the war, there would now be no need for such a Bill as this. There are people who say that the local authorities might have succeeded by now in altogether eliminating these slum areas. There are people, I suppose, who would say that a child might to-day have asked: "What was a slum?" When that question is asked, it will be a golden age, indeed. But came the war, and there was an almost complete cessation of work under the Act of 1936. Some trifling clearance orders may have been completed; demolitions that were begun were completed, and so on. But, practically speaking, before the end of the war there

281
was no work done under the Act of 1936. Other things were done, of course. But it is a poor consolation to all of us that the result of war was that in our great cities there was an indiscriminate blasting by the thunderbolts of war, instead of the orderly transformation of our cities by the diligent arts of peace.
At any rate the war came, and the war ended. But though the war ended, still no work was done under the Act of 1936. Again, I do not wish to be controversial in any way; I am merely stating the fact in the most objective way. It may well be that the decision that was made not to carry on with demolition orders under the Act of 1936 was a wise one. But, at any rate, the position was this: that the work of demolition was not only not encouraged, it was discouraged, and, as near as may be, disallowed. I call attention to this for the purpose of showing what is the position in which we find ourselves. On March 27, 1947, the Minister of the day issued a circular the material part of which, for my present purpose, reads as follows:
"The Minister is in general agreement with the recommendations made by the Committee and desires to make such standards effective at the earliest moment practicable. Because, however, of the need to concentrate on the erection of new houses for families without a separate home of their own as much as possible of the labour and materials available for housing purposes, it will not be practicable to require the execution of works to existing houses which would make substantial calls on these resources or, save in exceptional circumstances, to set in motion procedure for the demolition of unfit houses which would involve the provision on new houses for the persons who would be displaced from those houses."
That was a problem which the Minister had to face. He came to that decision, and nobody, I think, can complain of it; though it is easy to be wise after the event, and say that perhaps it would have been better for some part of the labour and materials available to have been directed to saving our cities. However that may be, the position is that nothing was done as a result of this 1947 circular until the end of the late Administration, and very little has been done since.
But now things have changed: there are more labour and material available, and the Government are determined to make an assault on this problem in the most vigorous way. Accordingly, a circular issued on behalf of the present
282
Minister on March 22, 1954, quotes the passage from the earlier circular which I have just read and follows it with the words:
"That advice is now withdrawn."
It goes on to urge, in the most emphatic way, that the powers under the 1936 Act should be implemented, so far as possible. But the view of Her Majesty's Government is that those powers are not adequate. Accordingly, in the first Part of the Bill which I submit to your Lordships, provision is made for more active measures on the part of the local authorities. Each local authority is required to submit within twelve months proposals for clearance and demolition. They are in particular, required in their programme to set out what they hope to accomplish in five years. For alas! it is only too true that we cannot hope that, with the best will in the world, there will not be many cities where it will take more than five years to complete the clearance of the slums. So they are required to make these proposals.
But here is the particular point where departure is made from the law as it exists to-day. I emphasised, in telling your Lordships what the law now is, that as soon as the local authority have acquired property under a clearance order, there is a positive injunction at once to demolish. The dilemma in which the Government and any local authority are placed is this: make a clearance order, observe the law as it is and at once demolish, and the inhabitants are thrown into the street and there is no adequate accommodation for them elsewhere. That is one horn of the dilemma. The other is this: make no order, and allow buildings which would be the subject of clearance orders to remain in a state of ever-continuing disrepair with, probably, ever-increasing degradation of the inhabitants themselves. That is the alternative.
How do we meet the problem? There is no satisfactory way of meeting it, but what we have done is to take power for the local authorities to do what may be compendiously described as patching; that is to say, patching a house which, according to all standards, is due for demolition, because it is unfit for human habitation, but which yet may be capable of being made temporarily adequate for accommodation. It is better, surely, that that should be done. Who with any

283
sense of realism—I think I would say, who with any sense of humanity?—would not say that it is better that that power should be taken, and the houses patched until they can be demolished—the corollary of demolition being the finding of other accommodation for the inhabitants—than to adopt either of the two alternatives I have mentioned? Accordingly, that is, if you like, a new power—not, I think, a revolutionary power—which we give to local authorities by this Bill, to patch houses. And just as they may patch houses within the clearance area, so they may acquire and patch houses otherwise fit for demolition, single houses, or two or three houses, as the case may be, which are not within a clearance area.
In submitting this Bill to your Lordships I have felt a great difficulty, because the principles can be clearly enough stated; and that, I believe, is what one should do on Second Reading. But many of the detailed provisions are of such importance that I do not feel that I should altogether leave them out, even from a Second Reading speech. One important feature of the Bill is that it simplifies the procedure for declaring a clearance area. Anybody who is familiar with this subject, as many of your Lordships are (and I see present the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who is, I suppose, more experienced and learned in this matter than any of us), will know that there is often intolerable delay in getting the clearance order made and approved, owing to the difficulty of service on the people who have an interest and so on. So, without going into details, I can say that we greatly facilitate the service of notices, and we hope by so doing, to eliminate substantial delays. I do not think that anybody need shed a tear for a slum landlord, or anybody interested in a slum, who complains that he has not had sufficient notice. This, too, we do, which will, I think, in many cases expedite the transaction. At present, under these Acts a public inquiry is necessary if there is objection. Now that is wholly unnecessary where, it may be, there are only one or two objectors whose objections can be easily and summarily dealt with. Accordingly, we provide in certain cases for a private inquiry, which will be much easier and more expeditious.
284
One other matter which has been discussed a good deal and which, therefore, I ought to mention, is this. One of the problems which has always vexed anybody who has had anything to do with this matter is the question: What is the meaning of "fit," and what is the meaning of "unfit"? How do you determine whether a house is unfit for human habitation? In the earlier Acts there was little to guide one, and there has been much trouble about the matter with local authorities and the courts before whom the question has come. Well, nobody can achieve the impossible, and nobody can decide or define what, in all the circumstances, is fitness or unfitness. There was a sub-committee set up of a body known as the Central Housing Advisory Committee, a body which exists to advise the Minister and amongst other things to consider and make recommendations as to fitness. It did so, and substantially its recommendations are incorporated in Clause 9 of the Bill. I do not say that it will solve all difficulties, but we do believe that it will be of great assistance to the persons who have to decide what is fit and what is unfit by calling attention to the several factors which they have to bear in mind in coming to that decision.
One other matter at least with regard to the first Part of the Bill I should mention, and it is the question of finance. The Bill provides that the financing of operations by the local authority in the acquisition of unfit houses and in making their condition adequate is to fall equally upon the Exchequer and the local authority. There has been some criticism of that division, it being said that in at least some other matters the proportion is not one to one, but three to one—three to the Exchequer and one to the local authority. This is a matter which the Minister has considered with the greatest anxiety, and he has come to the conclusion that we must adhere to that proportion. It is not as if the proportion of three to one were in any way sacrosanct. There are many cases, apart from this Act, where the proportion is not three to one. But in any event, this is a matter which lies so peculiarly within the discretion and power of the local authority that the Minister feels it right that they who have to make the decision should bear one half of the expense. I think

285
there is something about this which goes rather deeper, for in a real sense there is in these matters a partnership, and an equal partnership, between the local authority and the State. The Minister thinks—and if I may say so with the greatest respect, I concur in his view—that that sense of equal partnership should be preserved by the burden of this expenditure being borne equally.
Before I leave Part I of the Bill, I ought to say something about a rather important provision which is contained in Clause 15. Your Lordships are probably aware that under the Act of 1949 local authorities were empowered to make grants for the conversion and improvement of houses—I am not dealing here with unfit houses, although this provision does, in fact, come in Part I of the Bill, but with houses which are sound and are capable of being made good, decent homes for families. Power was taken by the Act of 1949 for grants to be given to private persons. It may seem to some of your Lordships a little strange that this proposition should have come from the quarter from which it did. The local authorities were empowered to make grants to private persons for the purpose of improving and converting their homes for the purpose of letting. That extremely valuable provision has not been used to the extent it should. One of your Lordships, I know, has been good enough to invite my attention to this particular aspect of the matter, and I am in a position to say that only a few days ago the Minister circularised local authorities urging them to make fuller use of this provision; and I have no doubt that they will do so. In his circular—and I need not go into details—he makes various suggestions which will ease their task and simplify the procedure. The noble Lord who communicated with me will very likely have received by now a copy of the circular. If not, I shall be glad to let him have one.
Apart from that, there are two ways in which the position is to be eased. Under the Act of 1949, it was a condition of grant that the houses in respect of which the grant was made should be likely to subsist for thirty years. Secondly, the condition was that, although one-half of the expenditure would be provided by the local authority, that half should not exceed a sum which, in the event, came to
286
be £400. If the landlord, the owner of the house, spent more than £800 upon his house, he did not get a grant at all. If, on the other hand, he spent £800 or less, he could get a grant of £400. That was singularly inflexible and, accordingly, we propose in our Bill, as your Lordships will see, to alter both those qualifications, making it a condition that the house shall last for at least ten years and that the grant may be given up to a sum of £400, even though the total expenditure exceeds £800. That makes it more flexible. The discretion is still vested in the local authority. It is extremely unlikely that they will make any substantial grant if the House is to last for only ten years, and equally I should think it is extremely unlikely that they will make any grant at all if the proposed expenditure is a very large sum. But they have that discretion, and it is rightly vested in them.
There are many other provisions of Part I to which I may make passing reference later on, but those are the substantial provisions of Part I of the Bill, and I dare to hope that they will not be seriously controversial.
Now, my Lords, I come to Part II, which, no doubt, does provide grounds for a certain amount of controversy, and certainly a good deal of food for political propaganda; but we venture to submit this Part of the Bill equally to this House in the firm conviction that it is a courageous, sane and fair way of dealing with the problem. I do not believe that there is any noble Lord in this House who could say that there is any other way of dealing with the problem of preserving and maintaining our national heritage of, it may be, some 5 million houses, many of which will fall into decay unless the relief which this Bill offers is given. Here, I would venture to repeat what I said in my opening words: if there is any noble Lord who condemns the principle of an increase of rent let him tell the House how else he proposes that this heritage should be preserved. From expediency it is absolutely imperative that something should be done; it is absolutely certain that if nothing is done, these sound houses—not all of them but many of them—will decay; they will become unfit for human habitation; they will be a liability to the local authority and to the State. It is imperative I say, that something should be done, and

287
nothing has been suggested that could be done except the increase of rent for which the Bill provides.
Now let me assume that the House accepts the view that there must be some increase. The question arises, of course, what increase? This is a matter which is utterly incapable of precise and sound scientific definition, for quite clearly one house is not the same as another house. What is fair for one house will not be fair for another. The quantum of repairs for one house may be quite different from that for another, if for no other reason than that one may be a corner house and more exposed to winds and weather. We had to provide some rough-and-ready measure which will apply to all. Fortunately there was something at hand which gave us a fair guide. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors gave cogent evidence (I do not think that this will be disputed) that in the year 1939 the statutory deduction, as it is called—that is the difference between the gross value and the rateable value of a house—fairly represented the annual cost of repair. In 1953 the Girdwood Committee, a very distinguished and competent body of men, reported that what had in 1939 cost £100 would in April, 1953, have cost £316. That means that the cost of repairs had gone up something like three times. Accordingly, the measure of permissible increase of rent which this Bill proposes is an increase amounting to twice the statutory deduction—rough-and-ready if you will, not always so suitable to one case as to another, but providing a fair and equitable measure of increase; and, moreover, what we believe will be an adequate incentive to landlords to do the repairs.
Though that is the general measure of increase I must qualify it in this way. There is what has been called in debate, and can conveniently be called, a stopper—that is to say, there is to be no such increase of rent as will make the new rent more than twice the gross value. That is the stopper. The reason for that is that many houses were let in the 1920s and 1930s at a rent which was something like twice the gross value, or at any rate at such a figure that, if twice the statutory deduction were added to it, it would be more than twice the gross value. It is considered fair that in such a case as that, where the landlord gets such a rent, he
288
should effect the repairs out of his rent; and for all I know he has probably done so. But at any rate there is that stopper upon the increase: the total rent is not to be more than twice the gross value. I need not, I think, go into the intricate points of what constitutes the rent for this purpose. Obviously it is fair that certain deductions should be made—for instance, increases of rent which have been permitted by way of a percentage on improvements, and so on. You take the gross value and you look at the total rent in the way which I described.
Now I come to another question which I regard as a very important aspect of Part II of the Bill, and it is a matter upon which there has been a great deal of discussion and controversy and upon which (I will be quite candid) we have had some difficulty in making up our minds. That question is: What are the safeguards? It is the firm resolution of the Minister and of Her Majesty's Government that the increase of rent shall be linked with repairs, that the tenant shall be made aware—and made aware because it is a fact—that he is paying an increased rent because the repairs are being done. Accordingly, it is provided by the Bill that a landlord shall not give notice of increase unless he satisfies certain conditions. Those conditions are as follows. First of all, he must declare that the house is in good repair, and "good repair" is defined in the Bill as meaning in relation to any premises that
"having regard to the age, character and locality of the premises they are in good repair both as respects structure and as respects decoration."
He has to make that declaration, and he has further to declare that the house is reasonably suitable for occupation, in conformity with the standard of fitness for human habitation to which I have already referred in relation to the unfit houses. As your Lordships will appreciate, a house may be in perfect repair but yet lacking many of the amenities which would make it fit for human habitation. It may be an underground chamber in perfect repair, but nobody would say that it was fit. Accordingly, the condition has to be satisfied that it is in good repair as well as the other conditions which I have mentioned.
In addition to that and as a mode of proof, or, if you like, as evidence of

289
good faith, the landlord has to satisfy the tenant that he has within the last year before giving notice of increase expended upon repairs an amount equal to three times the statutory deduction, or, alternatively, that he has within three of the last four years before giving notice spent six times the amount of the statutory deduction. It has been suggested that that is making it too easy for the landlord. It is suggested that he is an unscrupulous man who will make these declarations, gambling on the fact that the tenant will be afraid to challenge them and so on. I believe there is nothing in that at all, but in case there is I will tell your Lordships at once that I am proposing in Committee to move an Amendment further to safeguard the tenant making it a summary offence if the landlord makes a false declaration. He is already, I think, liable under the Perjury Act if, in making a declaration required by Act of Parliament, he makes it falsely, but an indictment under the Perjury Act would be rather a hammer to an offence of this kind. Accordingly, I propose to introduce an Amendment in Committee at this stage to make it a summary offence.
Now I must ask, what is the remedy of the tenant? When the tenant is served with this declaration of good repair, it is open to him to do several things. In the first place, he can go to the local authority and say: "I have been served with this notice and this declaration. I do not agree that my house is in good repair or satisfies the other conditions. Give me a certificate of disrepair." That is one course open to him. Another thing he can do is this. He can take no notice, and then the landlord will have to take the matter to the county court to sue for his rent. One of the tenant's defences may be, "Well, this increase of rent is not justified, because the conditions of the Act have not been satisfied." I think he would probably be rather foolish to do that because his easier course would be to get a certificate of disrepair. If he gets a certificate of disrepair, then no increased rent is payable unless the landlord goes to the local authority and gets that certificate of disrepair discharged, which of course he can do upon the evidence that he has put the house into repair again.
That does not seem to me to be an unfair way of dealing with the matter,
290
but it is suggested that in the case of each one of these 4½ million houses it should be the duty of the landlord to go, in the first place, to the local authority and obtain from it a certificate of fitness before he can make his application for an increase of rent. I believe that anybody who has any knowledge of local government will say that that would be putting an absolutely intolerable and impossible burden upon the local authority, particularly at a time when a number of other important duties are imposed upon it. Nor do I believe that it is in any sense necessary, for I think that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I believe that the vast majority of tenants of houses at low controlled rents, if they know that the increased rent is in respect of repairs which they see done, will not object to payment of an increased rent. Of course, there will be people to whom a few shillings extra will be a serious enough matter, but already, to many people, the rent is a serious matter. There are already many people who go to the National Assistance Board to ask for help with their rent. I do not think it is right to depart from what appears to be a fair, general principle because it may operate hardly upon some people who, under our system of social welfare, have adequate means of redress.
Those are the safeguards, to which I must add this. The tenant may within twenty-eight days of service of the landlord's proof of expenditure upon the house challenge it in the county court, if he thinks fit. In addition, there is this provision—and here again we seek to protect the tenant: the landlord is under an obligation, when he serves his notice of increase of rent, to send to the tenant at the same time a document, which will be in the form prescribed by the Minister, advising him what the effect of the Act is and what his remedies are. Those being the main features of the second Part of this Bill, I commend it equally to your Lordships.
I have already been, I fear, too long upon this complicated matter, but there are just one or two other things to which perhaps I ought to refer. I have less diffidence in omitting reference to any particular provision because the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will be in a position, after hearing your Lordships' comments, to deal with the matter when he replies,

291
Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I refer to one or two other matters which I think are of great importance. First of all, I should mention this. Clause 32 of the Bill removes from the operation of the Rent Acts property which belongs to a local authority, a development corporation, a housing association or a housing trust which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners. I ought, I suppose, in accordance with the usual custom, to declare a personal interest. My personal interest is not in respect of my flat in the Palace of Westminster, which I hold by a very precarious tenure, but rather this: that it happens that I have for long been a Governor of the Peabody Donation Fund which is exempted by this Bill from the provisions of the Rent Acts. I do not think anybody would dissent from the view that those bodies are properly exempted.
But also exempted from the operation of the Rent Acts—and this is a matter which has aroused a little more discussion, and even controversy—are new houses; not, of course, new houses which are built with the aid of a subsidy from the local authority, but new houses, and new flats made by the conversion of old houses. Those are exempted from the operation of the Rent Acts. For my part, I welcome the fact, and I think many of your Lordships will, too, that the day has come when it is possible to admit a little free enterprise in this matter. I do not think that there will be any serious diversion of labour and materials to these houses which might otherwise be used for the purposes of the local authority. In the course of my observations upon the increase of rent, I omitted to remind your Lordships of the fact that, even in regard to houses built by the local authority comparatively recently, it has been necessary to increase the rent. Many of your Lordships must be aware of cases where, to meet the increased cost of repair, rents charged by local authorities have been increased. The same treatment is now to be meted out to houses in private ownership.
This Bill makes provision for numerous other matters, some of them of importance. It deals with the question of assignments, and the payment of a premium upon assignment. Your Lordships are aware that there has been much difficulty caused by Section 7 of the Landlord
292
and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, which made stringent the prohibition of premiums in respect of controlled tenancies. It brought within its scope a number of tenancies which it was quite clear should never have been included. I need not go into details in this matter because, so far as I know, there was no difference of opinion about it in the other place. If your Lordships look at Clause 37, you will see what I am referring to. Clause 39 is an important clause, in a way, because it gives effect to a recommendation made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, as long ago as 1945. He suggested as a matter eminently suitable for decision by rent tribunals the question whether an increased rent should be payable for services rendered by landlords. That it is now proposed, should find its place in the Bill.
My Lords, there are, as I say, numerous other matters, but I fear I have detained your Lordships already for three quarters of an hour, which is probably more than your Lordships would wish; and if I may leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to deal with any further matters, I will end where I began, by commending this Bill to the favourable consideration of your Lordships. As I have said, we believe that it will be a valuable step towards the provision of a decent home for every family in England; but I fear that that is a long way ahead. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord need not have apologised for the length of his speech, because he had a very important and difficult task. This Bill is, I imagine, one of the most important Bills which your Lordships will have to consider in the present Session of Parliament. The subject matter is one in which we are all interested, and I suppose that at least half the population of this country is directly concerned with what we do under this measure. The noble and learned Lord said that this was a sincere, honest and courageous attempt to deal with a very grave problem, and I am not for a moment going to quarrel with any of those adjectives. He said that he was not going to embark on unnecessary controversy. However, he threw a few bricks

293
at this side of the House, and if I do the same I hope that he will regard me as being equally as objective as he has been. Nor am I going to refer to any vegetable or mineral in connection with this matter, although certainly I find it necessary to be somewhat critical and to examine this Bill with great care. The noble and learned Lord divided the measure into two parts, and I propose to follow him in that, but to divide the first part into three because it deals with three distinct subjects—slum clearance, the question of patching up and improvements, and conversions. I will say something under each of those headings.
As to slum clearance, the noble and learned Lord made great play of the fact that now at last we are beginning to do something about this problem. I think he appreciated that, until now, it has not been practicable to demolish dwellings, however bad they have been—and, indeed, the policy of the Labour Government was never criticised on that matter by noble Lords opposite. The noble and learned Lord referred to the circular that was issued in 1947 by the then Minister of Health, but I am not aware that that circular received the slightest criticism from the Opposition of that time—or since. One must assume, therefore, that, broadly speaking, the policy of the late Government was an accepted one and not open to any serious criticism. I do not propose to develop this point and at the moment we are not carrying out a post-mortem on the actions of the late Government. We have a Bill before us, and our duty is to consider this Bill and nothing else; and that is what I propose to do.
My main, broad criticism of the Bill, which I shall elaborate in detail, while giving the Government credit for sincerity, honesty and courage, is that the measures that they are proposing in this Bill are entirely ineffective for the purposes that they have, and always have had, in mind. There is no dispute whatever about the gravity of the problem. The Government issued a White Paper some months ago entitled Houses—The Next Step, which I imagine all of us have read with great care. That White Paper gives a number of figures indicating the gravity of the problem. I do not challenge those figures. In so far as figures are available, I think that probably these
294
figures are substantially correct. They indicate a very serious state of affairs. The noble and learned Lord has not thought it necessary to mention any of these figures, but the fact is that if one turns to page 5 of the White Paper and analyses the figures there (I do not propose to quote them in detail) one finds that half the people of this country are living in grave and unsatisfactory conditions. The question before us is whether this Bill is going to do anything of a substantial character to remedy these conditions.
The first clause of this Bill deals with slum clearance, and it is the only clause dealing with that subject. It provides for a survey to be made by the local authorities to ascertain the nature and size of the problem. As a matter of fact, Clause 1 of the Bill is wholly unnecessary: the information can be obtained under Section 5 of the Housing Act, 1936. It has been so obtained in the past; indeed the Minister himself has already taken steps to get that information, presumably under the Housing Act, 1936, by the circular which he issued in March, Circular No. 30, 1954, to which the noble and learned Lord referred. That is a circular issued under the Housing Acts of 1936 to 1952, and it does everything that Clause 1 of the Bill does. Certainly under Section 5 of the 1936 Act it is open to the Minister at any time to require local authorities to ascertain the gravity of the problem, and to give him information about it.
Whilst I should be the last to cross swords with the noble and learned Lord on a legal matter, since he shakes his head I had better read Section 5, which is a very short section. It is as follows:
"It shall be the duty of every local authority to cause an inspection of their district to be made from time to time with a view to ascertaining whether any house therein is unfit for human habitation, and for that purpose it shall be the duty of the authority, and of every officer of the authority, to comply with such regulations and to keep such records as the Minister may prescribe."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I intervene for one moment?
LORD SILKIN: Certainly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the distinction is that whereas Section 5 creates the obligation to give information and to keep records, the new Bill provides

295
specifically that the local authority shall make proposals of a definite, specific nature. That is the difference, and I think it is a substantial difference.
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to speak on this matter from personal knowledge, though I was chairman of an important housing committee for a considerable number of years, but that was exactly what was being done all the time. Proposals were being submitted under the 1936 Act setting out exactly the kind of information that Clause 1 of the present Bill requires. I do not want to make heavy weather of it, but the fact is that this is one example of putting into a Bill a provision which, in my view, is quite unnecessary, as it provides for something that is already provided for elsewhere. The noble and learned Lord and, I imagine, the Bill also, contemplate that it will not be possible to deal with the slums for some considerable time, and therefore the patching-up provisions are necessary. The noble and learned Lord challenged anyone who did not agree with those proposals to say what was his alternative, as if the only alternative to the patching-up proposals was to allow these places to remain as they are.
I want at this stage to remind the House of what is the definition of a slum. As the noble and learned Lord quite rightly pointed out, there may be an individual house which is a slum or there may be an area which constitutes a slum, and he set out the different methods of dealing with them. Let us take the individual house—and this is the type of house which it is suggested should be patched up. It was, by definition, unfit for habitation, which, under the 1936 Act was not defined, but which is now defined for the first time in great detail under Clause 9, and it was a house not capable, at reasonable expense, of being rendered so fit. So it had two conditions with which to comply in order to be a slum: first, it had to be unfit for habitation, and, second, it had to be not capable of being rendered so fit at reasonable expense.
Looking at the White Paper, I imagine there are possibly half a million houses which would come within that definition of houses unfit for habitation and not capable at reasonable expense of being rendered so fit. Of these, we are told
296
in the White Paper, about 140,000 had actually been condemned at the time of the outbreak of the war, and there are some hundreds of thousands more which are to-day, probably, ready to be condemned. So we know that at any rate 140,000 houses in 1939 already satisfied this condition. And they were houses which could not be rendered fit at reasonable expense. Since then, fifteen years have elapsed. These houses have not become any more fit since that time if they were unfit for habitation in 1939. I cannot find any words to describe their condition to-day, because I cannot imagine there are any landlords who, with the threat of demolition hanging over their heads, would have spent very much money on keeping these houses in a fit condition. If they could not render those houses fit at reasonable expense in 1939, how does the noble and learned Lord think they can be rendered fit, on any definition, to-day, when the costs of building are three times as high as they were then? And, according to the terms of the Bill, they have to be rendered capable of
"providing accommodation of a standard which is adequate for the time being."
How is it possible, except by the expenditure of vast sums of money, amounting almost to what would be required for the complete reconstruction of the houses?
And even then, would it really be possible? If one looks at Clause 9 and sees all the conditions which have to be satisfied in order to make a house fit one must realise at once that it is impossible in the vast majority of these cases to do anything at all which would make those houses fit. For instance, I imagine that the majority of them were built a hundred years ago or more, at a time before there were any by-laws, and when there were no damp-proof courses. Those houses must clearly be condemned. There is nothing you can do about dampness except to build new damp-proof courses. Again, those houses mostly have low ceilings and walls which, no doubt, by now are hardly standing up. Their roofs doubtless need complete renovation—and so on. And this is the type of house which, after fifteen years, it is suggested should be rendered capable of providing accommodation of a standard which is adequate for the

297
time being. I would respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Lord that we are fooling ourselves if we imagine we can do anything of a substantial nature in dealing with these slum houses.
The noble and learned Lord asked, if we are not in agreement with the proposals in the Bill, what would we do. I do not know that it is necessary to answer that question. If the proposals in the Bill are wholly unworkable and ineffective, it is quite sufficient for us on this side of the House to say so; and even if we had no particular proposals to put forward it would not justify Her Majesty's Government in advancing wholly ineffective proposals. Nevertheless, we are to-day—and noble Lords opposite may say "thanks to the present Government" if they like; they are welcome to that retort—in a position where we have a substantial pool of local authority houses. According to the White Paper there were last September 2,500,000. Probably there are now getting on for 3 million local authority and new town housing association houses available for letting, and local authorities are building anything between 200,000 and 250,000 a year. A considerable pool of housing, therefore, is available and continues to be made available for the purpose of rehousing people who are living in slum dwellings.
Suppose Her Majesty's Government are right. The White Paper contemplates that there are several hundreds of thousands of houses falling into the slum category. Those who have any experience of local authority housing well know that out of the pool of nearly 3 million houses something like half a million houses become re-available for letting every year. People leave or die; for one reason or another vacancies occur, and straight away there is a pool of about half a million houses available for letting. If in addition there is a quarter of a million houses built every year by local authorities, that gives us between 600,000 and 700,000 houses a year, some of which—indeed, the majority of which—could be used for rehousing persons who are displaced from slum dwellings. In my view the right way to deal with the problem is to make a determined attack on it by demolishing houses over the next five years, and not by patching.
298
I am not alone in this view. On December 10, 1952, we had a debate in this House, initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, on the Rent Restrictions Acts. I thought it was a very good debate. There was a speech made then from which I should like to quote (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol 179, col. 915):
"What I want to emphasise is that in those cases"—
The House will follow what that means—
"it is not the operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts which is causing the houses to fall into disuse or will cause them to fall into disuse in the future. The real reason—and I think we must face up to this—is that those houses are in any case coming to the end of their useful life, and no repairs could really patch them up adequately. I would make so bold as to say that building labour would be much better employed constructing new houses, or in repairing houses in better condition which would have a longer span of life."
In another part of the speech the same speaker said very much the same thing; evidently it was very near to his heart. He said (col. 916):
"… our national resources of materials and labour ought not to be wasted in repairing houses which are really irreparable and which ought properly to be demolished."
Those statements were made by the Government spokesman in that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. I imagine he was speaking on behalf of the Government and expressing a view which at that time the Government sincerely and courageously held. I am sure it must have been so, because very soon after he made that speech he was promoted. Therefore, the Government must have been very pleased with that speech. Here was the noble Lord expressing clearly and concisely on behalf of the Government views which I am trying to express this afternoon by way of criticism of this Bill. That is the alternative—to get on with slum clearance and use our increasing pool of house for the purpose of rehousing the people who are displaced.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to the financial provisions of the Bill. I think they are ungenerous to local authorities. In so far as they are ungenerous to local authorities, and the local authorities themselves believe they are, there will be a reluctance to work them. In particular, it will be difficult to persuade local authorities that they ought to expend labour and material

299
and vast sums of money in carrying out this impossible task—because it is an impossible task—of patching up houses for a few years only. If they are to be tempted to do so, one would have thought they would have been tempted by the provision of substantial grants from the Government, but, far from being substantial, these grants are ungenerous in the extreme. And that is the view of the local authorities themselves.
Then we come to the third Part of the Bill, upon which the noble and learned Lord touched—improvements and conversions. I believe that these could have an important part to play. I have a special interest in conversion because I was chairman of a committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee which recommended a policy of carrying out conversions with Government grant which was eventually implemented in the Housing Act, 1949. It is an unfortunate fact that that policy of improvement, even with grant, available under the 1949 Act, did not meet with a great deal of success. Some 3,000 dwellings were converted over the whole country between 1949 and 1954 and some 700 new units of accommodation were provided. I think the noble and learned Lord must have tripped up in saying that the amount that could be spent was £800.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I spoke subject to correction. I think that the sum was £600 or such other sum as the Minister should prescribe, and that this was subsequently altered to £800.
LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Lord must have made a slip when he said £800 under the 1949 Act, but I think we are in agreement. I do not think that quotation, which represents only the increase in the cost of building between 1947 and 1954, will do the trick, nor do I think that the mere fact that landlords will be able to charge whatever rents they like will induce people to carry out conversion on a large scale.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but this is a difficult matter. I do not think it right to say that landlords would be able to charge what they want by way of rent.
LORD SILKIN: I was not speaking of those landlords who receive grant. I am
300
well aware that those who receive grant will have the rents controlled by the local authorities. But included in the 3,000 dwellings which have been provided as a result of conversion between 1947 and 1954 I imagine there are not only dwellings which have been in receipt of grant but also dwellings which have been erected without grant. I thought the noble and learned Lord was making the point that the Government were doing two things to increase the number of conversions—one was to increase the maximum sum which could be spent and the other was to remove rent restrictions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not in respect of the same house.
LORD SILKIN: I was dealing with the second point. I am not quarrelling with the removal of rent restriction; I am merely on the point of whether it is going to provide a substantial incentive. In the cases of houses which were converted between 1949 and 1954, the local authority had to give a licence; and as a condition of granting the licence they settled the rent or the amount at which the house could be let. They there provided a reasonable profit for the undertaker, and therefore the incentive was already there. The profit they provided was anything from 10 to 15 per cent. on the expenditure. If, therefore, the undertaker had needed an incentive, it was already provided for him under the 1949 Act. But the fact still remained that, even in cases where there was no grant and where the profit of 10 to 15 per cent. was available, the work was not carried out. So I doubt whether we can expect very much from improvements.
I now come to the fourth head of the measures which are to be undertaken under this Bill—namely, rent restriction. I would say straight away that I have no objection to a reasonable increase of rent in respect of repairs carried out by the landlord, provided that it is quite certain that the repairs really are carried out, and that the conditions which the Bill lays down are satisfied; nor do I quarrel with the amount of the proposed increase, or with the stopper. Speaking for myself, and I believe for my noble friends, I can say that those things will not be the subject of controversy during the Committee stage. The real controversy arises in the fact that we believe

301
that an unfair burden is placed upon the tenant; that it is quite possible for the increases to be provided for the landlord without his satisfying the conditions. I believe, also, that while this increase is all very well for those landlords who have been fortunate in having reasonably good properties, and who have been looking after those properties and are now getting a reward for the care they have taken of them, they are wholly inadequate for the purpose of inducing bad landlords to carry out repairs in the future. It may be that the corollary of what I am saving is that the increases proposed are not sufficient—but I will deal with that point in a moment. The fact is that, as the Bill stands, I do not for a moment believe that there are sufficient incentives to landlords who have hitherto neglected their property, or who have been unable, for any reason, to carry out repairs, to do so to-day.
Let us take a simple case, one which must be familiar to nearly every noble Lord in the House—that is to say, the case of an ordinary country cottage which has been allowed to get into disrepair. It would be the easiest thing in the world to spend £100 in putting that cottage into good condition. The sum of £100 would not go very far—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, agrees with me, and I am delighted to have his support. What would be the increase in rent that the landlord could get for that? I will not trouble your Lordships by working it out in detail, but it seems to me that it would be something like 2s. or 3s. a week. Surely, that can in no way be called an incentive. On that basis, it would be ten years before the landlord got back his £100—he would have to go on keeping the place in repair; it would not be an expenditure once and for all. That cannot be called an incentive.
Whilst I want to give the Government full credit for having tried to work out a scheme which would provide this incentive, in my opinion they have completely failed. I said a moment ago that there was not even a certainty that, where the conditions appear to be satisfied, they would, in fact, be satisfied, and that an unfair burden was being put upon the tenant. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack addressed himself to that question, and I was glad to receive some encouragement from him that the matter
302
was not finally closed. As I see it, the landlord will serve upon the tenant particulars and all the notices required under the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Again, I think I have been unfortunate in giving a wrong view. I hope that I did not say that it was not finally closed, or suggest that the matter would be reconsidered. I did not mean to say that.
LORD SILKIN: I hope that it is not finally closed, because the noble and learned Lord is himself moving an Amendment to this provision, and the House is entitled to express a view on that Amendment. Knowing the noble and learned Lord as I do, I am sure that he will be prepared to listen to anything that we put forward. In that sense, therefore, the matter is not finally closed. But this is the position. The notices are served upon the tenant. The tenant may dispute the validity of the notices, or he may say that the house is not in good repair and that the increase in rent is therefore not justified. He can go to the local authority and get a certificate of disrepair. But that is not the end of the matter. The landlord, if he chooses, can ignore that certificate; he can go on demanding his rent, and if the tenant does not pay can go to the county court and sue the tenant for the rent.
I hope that I am correct in what I have said so far, and I should like to pursue this a stage further. The tenant finds himself sued. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has ever had the misfortune to practise in the county court, but it is a rather forbidding sort of place, particularly for those who are not accustomed to it. But, apart altogether from that, the dispute may arise over a matter of 2s. or 3s. a week. Look at the ordeal with which the tenant is faced, apart from his fear of the unknown. He has to go to court and try to support this certificate. He has to subpoena the inspector who inspected the property. It becomes a technical matter in which the landlord will, presumably, give evidence and call witnesses—surveyors, and so on—to show that the house is in good repair. The tenant has to contest all that, and he will probably have to employ solicitor arid counsel. If he should lose his case—and in spite of the fact that he has a

303
certificate, he may well do so if the evidence which the landlord brings is overwhelming—it will cost him, I should say, knowing something about county court costs, £20 or £30. No tenant is going to face up to all that; in fact, if any tenant came to me and asked me for advice on it, I should advise him to pay whatever the landlord was asking, rather than go to the county court and take the risk of having, in the end, to pay not only the rent, but a large sum in costs as well. I cannot see why it has been necessary to give the landlord this conditional right.
The present law is that a certificate of the local authority is final and conclusive; there is no appeal against it. Surely, the local authority is in as good a position as anybody, even as a county court judge, to say whether the condition of the house is good or not. Why cannot it be left to the local authority's certificate? If they give a certificate, then the house is not in good repair. You might require them to say in what respects it is not in good repair. If they do not give a certificate, then the landlord is entitled to his increase. It is that which I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider again and see whether something cannot be done to help the tenant.
I have spoken long enough, but the noble and learned Lord invited us to say what our proposals would be if we rejected these. I have already stated what I think ought to be done as regards slum clearance, and I would just add this: if we really concentrated on slum clearance, with the available amount of accommodation in the pool and the amount of new building, I think we could practically get rid of the slums within five years.
LORD WOLVERTON: Would the noble Lord give way one moment? Does he really think that one could get rid of the slums in cities like Glasgow and Birmingham in five years?
LORD SILKIN: First let me deal with London, and then I will deal with Glasgow and Birmingham. As regards London, I was Chairman of the Housing Committee in 1939. We had begun dealing with the slums in 1934. I say this with a due sense of responsibility: by 1939 I was of opinion that we could clear the slums of London substantially within five years. I do not pretend that I have
304
made a survey of every city in the country, and I am not able to speak with personal knowledge of the conditions in other towns, but by 1939 we had made great inroads into slum clearance. I do not say this in a Party sense, because my predecessors—and by "predecessors" I mean people from the other side—had begun a slum clearance programme. We continued it more intensively and felt that by 1944 the slums would have been substantially cleared. In other places perhaps that was not the case. But you cannot deal with these proposals overnight; they will take time, labour and material. You could not patch up the slums of Glasgow and Birmingham overnight. You would be almost as long in patching them up as you would be in getting on with new dwellings and demolishing.
I was asked what we would do about the vast number of houses which exist today, which are privately owned, and where the existing incentive, or the incentive in the Bill, is inadequate to induce landlords to carry out these repairs. In my view, the time is rapidly approaching when the private landlord will be unable to carry out the task which has hitherto fallen upon him of providing dwellings to rent. After all, it is something which is in accordance with the movement of events. Fifty years ago, nobody would have dreamed that it was impossible for the private landlord to build houses to let at rents which the tenant could afford to pay. To-day, that is almost axiomatic. The Minister, I think, said that of the number of houses built by private enterprise last year only 6 per cent. were built to let. These included dwellings which were provided by farmers for their workers, and by industrialists and others for special reasons. In fact, as a business proposition, no private person would to-day dream of building houses to let for the workers. I submit to the House that the time is coming when even ownership of houses to let will become unprofitable—indeed, it is unprofitable already. Here is the dilemma which noble Lords opposite have to face as well as ourselves. It is a real dilemma. How are we going to get this vast mass of privately-owned rent-restricted properties into a condition in which it will pay the landlord to do the work and, at the same time, provide the dwellings at a rent which the worker can afford to pay? It is an impossible task under present

305
conditions. It has been solved in the case of new dwellings by the very large subsidies—in my view, intolerable subsidies—which are being paid out of public monies for the purpose of providing these dwellings.
It is not the function of this debate to-day to discuss the question of these subsidies. I think the time will come very soon when it will have to be discussed, because I cannot see that we can go on indefinitely providing these subsidies for a period of sixty years. We must come to a full stop before very long. I think it will be necessary in the future, if we are going to provide for people, at rents they can afford to pay, accommodation which we regard as really suitable, to do it by way of some form of subsidy and to have a pool of houses both old and new. That is the policy of the Labour Party. I know it is easy to ridicule it and talk of £3,000 or £4,000 million. It is not the policy of the Labour Party that these houses should be acquired overnight, nor would they cost anything like that sum. But we do believe that only by public ownership of this type of house can this dilemma be solved. The noble and learned Lord has put a question to us on this side. I ask noble Lords on the other side, and I ask the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster (who I am glad is going to speak, and who is a great authority on this matter) how he thinks this problem of providing for the private landlord a reasonable return for his money; of keeping the dwelling in good condition and, at the same time, doing it at a rent which it is reasonable to expect members of the working classes to pay, can be resolved.
The Labour Party have put forward a programme, and perhaps I cannot do better than conclude my remarks by reading out some of the things we say on this subject. Incidentally, I think the point that was made in the debate in another place was a fair one; that one of our difficulties in connection with the provision of new houses is that in many cases they are not fully occupied. In many cases one finds a small family occupying a large house, and local authorities are reluctant to do anything about it. Of course one gets the same thing with a rent-restricted house in a more accentuated form, because there the tenant is protected by the Rent Acts. One of the
306
advantages of public ownership of this type of house would be that one would be able to carry out exchanges, so that people with too much accommodation could be moved into houses quite adequate for their needs, and the larger accommodation could be provided for families needing it. I am quite certain that in twenty or thirty years' time this will be the normal policy. I am sure that we are moving towards it—indeed, in this very Bill we are moving towards a certain amount of additional public ownership of dwellings of this kind. I regard it as the only satisfactory solution in the end, and I hope that if the noble Lords opposite do not agree with me they will tell me what is the alternative.
This is what the Labour Party say:
"Labour will therefore instruct all local authorities to submit schemes for gradually taking over and modernising blocks of rent-controlled private properties within their areas."
We go on to say that to a certain extent these powers already exist but that there would have to be additional powers. On the other subject that I have been discussing, the question of slums, we say:
"Labour will not take over and repair, at heavy cost, properties which are really slums. These must be dealt with by a vigorous slum clearance programme. Many local authorities may need financial help for this "
and of course they will get it.
This is indeed a difficult Bill. I do not pretend for a moment that there is nothing in it that is of value. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has made the most of those provisions that are good and reasonable, but by and large I regard this Bill as window-dressing. Now I do not mind window-dressing; I think window-dressing is very nice. All of us, especially during the war, used to satisfy ourselves by looking in shop windows. Those were the days when there was nothing in the shops; and that is the position here. Window-dressing is all very well if there are things inside the shop, but I regard this Bill as largely illusory. It would be foolish to say that it will achieve nothing. Of course it will achieve something, but having regard to the magnitude of the problem, and to the fact that half the population of this country is living in unsatisfactory conditions, this Bill holds very little hope indeed of a solution.

307
It is for these reasons that I have ventured to be critical of this measure. It is somewhat unfortunate that a measure of this kind did not receive all the consideration that it might have done in another place. That places an additional responsibility upon us, and I hope that the noble Marquess who is the Leader of the House will be willing to give us adequate time for the discussion of this measure in Committee and on the Report stage. I would suggest that we can reasonably expect as much time to be given to this important measure as was given to the Tate Gallery measure or is being given at this moment to the subject of birds. If we get as much time on the housing of the people as we have been getting on houses and on birds I shall be more than satisfied. I hope that there will be no attempt to rush this Bill through Committee and that the reasoned Amendments—and we hope to put forward reasoned Amendments for discussion—will be met in the spirit in which the noble and learned Lord introduced this measure.
4.27 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, the question of increasing the rents of controlled properties in order to enable landlords to carry out their obligations to repair is pregnant with political dynamite, and therefore I think the Government deserve to be congratulated upon having tackled this very difficult problem. Having said that, I must strike a discordant note, or rather a series of discordant notes. Let me get to the point at once. In my view, Clauses 22 to 31 of the Bill will prove, for all practical purposes, to be useless and ineffective. I am loth to make such an obvious remark in a House which virtually abounds in juristic giants of every description, but it is a commonplace, both in law and in building practice, that you cannot keep a house in repair until you have put it in repair. If you apply that principle to about 4 or 5 million houses throughout the country which come within the ambit of Part II of the Bill, what do you find? You find that nearly all those houses are out of repair, for the simple reason that the landlords have not had the necessary money with which to carry out the current repairs, let alone any structural repairs. It is impossible to be definite on this point, but I do not think that I am exaggerating
308
when I say that the average cost of putting one of these houses into a good state of repair is about £180. The question then arises: who is going to find the £180?
The Lord Chancellor has stated, very fairly, that it is no good criticising the provisions of the present Bill unless some constructive proposals are made to take their place. My own view of the matter is that the Exchequer—that is, the taxpayer—should find part of the money, and that the landlord should find the other part. The landlord could borrow the necessary money from the local authority and repay it over a number of years. The money which the landlord has to find could be made recoverable by him from his tenant over a period of years by way of an increase in rent. Suppose that the sum of £180 was borne equally by the Exchequer and the landlord; the landlord would borrow £90 from the local authority. I am not an actuary or a mathematician, but I think that I am, broadly speaking, correct in saying that in order to repay both the capital and the interest on the £90 over a period of, say, ten years, something like £15 a year or 6s. a week, would be the measure of the landlord's repayment. The landlord could then increase his tenant's rent by 6s. a week until the landlord had repaid the loan to the local authority; and it would also be reasonable that he should make a further and a permanent increase of rent of about 4s. a week, or £10 8s. a year, to enable the landlord to do the necessary current repairs.
It may seem monstrous that the taxpayer should be asked to carry any of the burden of repairing houses owned by private individuals, and I have no doubt that the noble Lords who sit on my left, and who are members of the Socialist Party, will not be in agreement with me on this point. That, however, is beside the question. The main question is (I see the Lord Chancellor laughing now, which makes me even more nervous about pursuing the matter) how it is possible to put 4 million or 5 million houses into a good state of repair so that they can make a real contribution to the housing requirements of the country for another twenty to twenty-five years. One thing is reasonably certain: the majority of landlords have not this money with which to put their houses into a proper state of repair. Let us look at

309
it from the practical point of view, quite distinct from Party politics. The majority of landlords have not the necessary capital to put their houses into a proper state of repair and, therefore, will have to borrow the money. Who is going to lend money to a landlord of a dilapidated property on the security of a rent-controlled house which is occupied by statutory tenants? If anybody can answer that question, I shall be pleased to see him at any time. Under the Bill as it stands at the present moment, however, the great majority of landlords will be disqualified from obtaining any repairs increase. No repairs will, in fact, be done to those houses which are crying aloud for repairs, and the houses will rapidly fall into the category of slum houses. My old friend Aristotle used to say:
"Never argue about those things that must be so."
The Government have not a large majority, though it is an adequate one, and they intend that this Bill shall pass, and that it shall pass substantially in its present form. So that must be so. Therefore, the best I can do is to make a few amiable observations as to how the Bill should be amended.
Perhaps your Lordships will look first at Clause 22 of the Bill. I shall suggest in Committee that paragraph (b) of subsection (1) is entirely deleted. In my view, the most that a landlord should be called upon to prove is that the house is in a good state of repair and is reasonably fit for human habitation. That ought to be sufficient, without the imposition of any conditions as to the amount of money which he has or may have spent upon the house within a certain specified time. I am under no illusions as to what will happen to this Amendment. I think that Daniel in the lions' den probably had a better chance of making an after-dinner speech than I shall have of getting this Amendment accepted by the Government. Nevertheless, I want to have this opportunity of voicing the opinion that this Bill, although nicely drafted in certain respects, is a purely academic measure and will prove of no practical value at all. The majority of landlords have not the capital with which to put their houses into a good state of repair. A great number of landlords will never be able to satisfy the necessary conditions as to the amount of money which they
310
have spent on the house within a specified time, and the result will be that nothing will happen. People who are evilly disposed towards landlords will say, "There you are. You gentlemen have got what you deserve." The tenant will dance with delight because he will have no extra rent to pay; and in the meantime the unfortunate house will go on falling into a state of disrepair.
There is one other consequential matter which I might mention, and that is the definition of "good repair," in Clause 47 (1). I suggest that the word "external" be inserted between the words "respects" and "decoration," so that the provision would read:
"'good repair', in relation to any premises, means that having regard to the age, character and locality of the premises they are in good repair both as respects structure and as respects external decoration."
I think it is only fair that a landlord should be responsible for external decoration, but I think it is the duty of the tenant to be responsible for the internal decoration of the premises. There are many other matters which I could mention but there are many other speeches to be made, and we want the slum problem to be solved before the debate comes to an end. Therefore, I will not say anything more about this Bill. I understand that some noble Lords who will follow me are to mention the tax position. Let me say at once that I agree with what they are going to say. That may seem rather nonsense, but I know what they are going to say, and I am going to agree now with what they intend to say. They will say that, unless the repairs increase is made free of tax, it will be of even less value than it is to-day. Your Lordships' House has no jurisdiction in this matter. Furthermore, even if your Lordships' House had any jurisdiction in this matter, you cannot deal with tax matters in this House. Nevertheless, one can express an opinion. I have expressed my opinion. Therefore, I leave the matter for your Lordships to debate further.
4.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I find this a difficult Bill to debate because it seems to me, if not to the last two speakers, that it is only a step towards greater sanity in housing matters. We must all recognise that, despite the many anomalies and inequities of the present position, it is the system under which

311
many millions of people have been living for many years. It is obvious that any proposition demanding increased rent will cause suspicion and possibly give rise to claims for wage increases. Any suspicion that there may be will obviously be fomented by the Communists and other unscrupulous people whose interests in this matter go a good way beyond their concern for housing.
I feel we should pay tribute to the Minister for having the political courage to enter this field at all instead of saying, as has been said often in the past, that the time is not opportune to consider this question of rent restriction. Nevertheless, it has been truly said that this is a serious matter, that a great number of houses are deteriorating and many of them are falling down; and it is our duty, I think, to say, from such experience as we have had, what we believe the effect of this Bill will be. I am in a small way connected with housing from three points of view—as an owner of agricultural property, as a member of two local authorities and as President of the National Federation of Housing Associations. I should like to say a word or to from each of those aspects.
As an owner, I am, fortunately, not conscious of that bitterness of relationship between landlord and tenant that seems to exist in many big towns, if the speeches in Committee in another place are any real indication; but I am conscious that many of my tenants would like better amenities and would be prepared to pay more rent for those amenities. I am also conscious that previous Housing Acts were designed in part to aid in the provision of those amenities. Like many other landlords, I should like to see my tenants well housed, but where one has to rely on borrowed capital for improvements it becomes a question of mathematics. On one side of the account you put the loan charges, and on the other you put the rents that you are likely to receive, plus any Government grants that are applicable; and if the sum works out in such a way that you are not likely to suffer loss you probably put the scheme into operation; but if you think that there will be a loss you probably do not put it into operation. As I have remarked before, one of the curious oddities of
312
modern administration is that for some years past the sum has worked out much more favourably in regard to provisions dealing with improved accommodation for cows than it has in improving accommodation for human beings.
So far as the rural position in regard to maintenance is affected by this Bill, I cannot see that the professional agents and surveyors who study these matters are very confident that it will be improved. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, truly said, the assessments of these small cottages are so low that the scope is too little to make much difference. Incidentally, I notice that in my own county about 17 per cent. of all the houses are of £10 annual value or under. I do not feel quite so unhappy as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, with regard to the improvements side, although I find it extremely difficult to determine what the result of the calculations will be in any given situation. There are a number of calculations and factors involved, especially where tied cottages are concerned, and it is very difficult to prophesy what the effect of this part of the Bill will be. However I feel sure that owners will give it a very good try-out.
I am not familiar with the problems of urban owners, and therefore I should like now to turn to the local authority provisions. I am glad that the Minister has not seen fit to impose a number of new duties on local authorities, although he has resuscitated the old duty of dealing with slum clearance. I think that will meet with great acceptance by the majority of local authorities. In fact, many have been keen to get on with their slum clearance, provided that the word was given. I feel that all local authorities are glad that, owing largely to the efforts of our present Minister, the housing position has reached a stage where the number of new houses built has enabled a start to be made on a new slum clearance effort. I hope that slum clearance schemes and schemes for comprehensive redevelopment will not be too nebulous or long-dated. Nothing deters an owner from making improvements more than the suggestion—and it may be only a suggestion—that after he has spent this money his houses will be taken over at site value or at very low value. It would be doubly unfortunate if an owner took that view and then the

313
schemes were postponed indefinitely, as has happened with so many local authority schemes of recent years.
So far as local authority functions are concerned, the debate in another place seemed to me remarkable not so much for what the Government said as for what the Opposition said. From reading that debate, it certainly seemed to me that if returned to power the Opposition would contemplate the immediate transfer to local authorities of a large number of houses. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, watered that proposal down and made it appear a much more reasonable suggestion. He emphasised that it would be a gradual process. But if it were going to be so gradual as all that, I wonder whether it would be effective in saving these houses. It seems to me that the longer this policy, even the alternative policy, is put off, the less effective it will be.
It is rather extraordinary that suggestions for such vast extensions of local government responsibility should be made without proper reference to the local authorities themselves. I am not so much concerned with political considerations as with purely practical considerations. Constitutionally, I suppose Parliament can place on local authorities any duties it likes, but I think there must be some limit to the amount of compulsion to be applied to voluntary workers. Surely the success of municipal enterprise depends eventually on the amount of time and hard administrative work that individual members of councils are prepared to devote to that work. Sometimes it seems to me (here I may be quite wrong) that there is a tendency in Parliament to presume too much on that voluntary spirit. At any rate, I feel that if any Government sought to impose not only greatly extended duties but also greatly extended obligations to spend the ratepayers' money, there would be a great deal of resistance from a number of local authorities. We praise the Chancellor of the Exchequer for keeping stability in national finances, but there seems to be precious little stability in local government finances. Of recent years the rates have been rocketing up, and there seems to be a spirit of revolt abroad which I hope will not grow. For these reasons I do not think that wholesale transference of rent-controlled
314
houses to local authorities is going to be a great success.
I agree that it is equally unlikely that private enterprise alone will in the future be able either to build houses to let at low rents or, indeed, to repair and recondition those with very low assessments. Fifty or sixty years ago many people with slender means used to invest in houses because it seemed to them that bricks and mortar were more secure than Government securities. Well, they have had great disillusionment. It has proved to be an extremely unsafe investment. With that experience in the past, and if, as now seems all too clear with the small houses, the provision of houses is to be regarded as a form of welfare service, it is difficult to see how such an investment could ever be turned into a profitable one. Therefore I am glad to see that the Minister appears to be turning to yet another voluntary agency for assistance in this matter—namely, the housing associations.
Reference has been made to Clause 32. It does not look a very spectacular clause, yet I venture to predict that it will be found eventually to be one of the most important in the Bill, if not the most important. I was glad to hear the remarks of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack about the Peabody Trust. It seems to me that housing associations have a great many valuable assets in the present situation. In the first place, they have a good name; they do not evoke bitter memories of exploitation and so forth. Secondly, in the matter of subsidies they do not cost anything like as much as municipal houses cost. Thirdly, they are willing and anxious to undertake more work. Fourthly, they are a good deal more flexible in their operation than local authorities can be; they are not so much governed by red tape. During the last fifteen years, these housing associations have been greatly frustrated by the Rent Acts, and, as I have said before in this House, some of the best of them have exhausted their reserves and have had to watch their properties decay. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the contribution of the housing associations to the housing situation in recent years has not been very great. Even so, they have conducted some interesting experiments in various specialised forms of housing.

315
With their new charter—which is what I look on this clause as being—given time for experiment, and sympathetic treatment by the Ministry, I believe they will have a much bigger contribution to make both in the building of new houses and the reconditioning of old houses, than they have at present. Seeing that in certain European countries, such as Holland and Norway, housing associations are the principal agencies through which houses are built, I do not feel that this is altogether an extravagant expectation. At any rate, I am sure that the housing association world is grateful to the Minister for what he has done. I hope his confidence will not be misplaced.
We have been reminded that this Bill has been variously described as: "a landlords' ramp" and "a mouldy old turnip." I feel that it is more like the curate's egg or, if you like, the curate's turnip—in which some parts are better than others. It is submitted to us as a Bill with limited objectives. As such I welcome it. But these limitations make the question of amendment difficult. Nevertheless, we may be able to make some suggestions, and I join with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has spoken for the Opposition, in hoping that we may be given a certain time for consideration.
4.54 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, this is an English Bill, and I do not profess to have sufficient knowledge of English conditions to speak with any authority upon the details of it. Soon, as your Lordships know, a Scottish version of the Repairs and Rents Bill may be coming to your notice. I hope then, perhaps, to say a word or two appropriate to Scottish conditions. But even in this Bill there is, I think, sufficient of a nature similar to what underlies the other Bill to warrant a comment or two on the general principle. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has told us that the dilemma with which the Government were faced was, on the one hand, to overcome the difficulty of operating clearance orders, and, on the other, to patch up these dilapidated houses, of which, unfortunately, there is so large a number. As I see it, the dilemma with which the Government are faced is a different one altogether. It is a dilemma in which the
316
Government are trying, on the one hand, to carry out a very necessary social operation, and, on the other, to propitiate those landlords who, because of the operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts, feel that they have had a not very fair deal. And in trying to reconcile those two opposing difficulties the Government have had to manufacture this rather large and complicated measure.
I suggest that it is almost impossible to meet the two needs. The Bill as it is built up, as your Lordships know—and I think this is true of the Scottish Bill also—consists of two parts, one part which affects local authorities, and another which affects private landlords. In regard to the local authority part, so far as my knowledge goes, the local authorities are not satisfied on one or two grounds. The inability to demolish as rapidly as they would like has caused medical officers of health a great deal of concern. They would have liked to see very large demolition operations carried out to make way for houses more fit for people to live in. On the other hand, the official in charge of the demolition of houses (in Scotland, he is called the master of works) is faced, and has been faced, with the difficulty that although this additional duty, which in his view will require additional staff, is placed upon him, the Government have offered no additional payment to meet the extra cost to which local authorities will be put. On that one ground, they feel that they are entitled to better consideration than they have received.
There is also the question of the acquisition of properties for slum clearance. The local authorities are not satisfied, so far as my information goes, that they have quite the power or the facilities which the situation demands. They feel that, particularly where sites are to be bought by compulsion, or where the acquisition is to be by a process of arbitration, they are being made to pay more than they should be paying, and that in that way a heavier burden is imposed upon them than they ought to bear. It is true that the Government are making a contribution, and the contribution, as the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack told us, will be one of equal shares, forming a kind of partnership between the Government and the local authority. But if this scheme is

317
part of a larger housing effort, there seems to the local authorities no reason why in this particular kind of effort the proportions should be different from those with respect to new houses—that is, three to one. They feel that in that regard there is room for some improvement.
As to the repairs by private owners of property which can be made habitable for some years, one wonders whether the Government are going about this matter in the simplest or the cheapest way. Personally I do not think that they are. If there is some objection to the acquisition by local authorities of the whole of these properties, in order that they can repair them and obtain repayment from the tenants, why it is not possible, instead of having this machinery of certificates of fitness and unfitness, for the repairs to be carried out by the local authority, at their own cost, and for the tenant to pay the local authority the cost of the repair over a number of years, so avoiding the necessity of the landlord's using any of his own money for the improvement to his house? Noble friends of my own may object that we should then be giving the landlord, at no cost to himself, a more valuable asset than he possessed at the beginning. From a social angle, I feel that of these two evils that might be a lesser one than that suggested in this elaborate document. But, as I say, this is an English measure, and I feel that I am trespassing on foreign ground. When the Scottish Bill comes up I hope to deal in greater detail with what is applicable to Scotland.
5.2 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, it is with much diffidence that I venture to address your Lordships on the somewhat complex Bill now before your Lordships' House. I can only hope that the total lack of political arid Parliamentary experience to which I must own will not place too great a strain on the indulgence which your Lordships habitually extend to the maiden speaker. However, I can and will be brief. Before proceeding, it is my duty to disclose a personal interest. Such comment as I shall make refers to Part II of the Bill; that is to say, to those clauses which are designed to encourage expenditure on the maintenance and repair of rent-controlled dwellings. I propose to discuss a point raised by other speakers as to whether the provisions as drawn are, in fact, calculated to achieve
318
their object—namely, whether property owners will, in fact, thus be moved to take steps to put their property in good repair. For there can be no doubt that the success or otherwise of this Part of the Bill depends upon the initiative of the landlord. I recognise that the Bill does not purport to rectify the economic position of the rent-controlled property owner; nor is it part of my argument that it should do so. There is, however, I submit, a certain relevance in noting what the Bill does not do.
The White Paper defines rent as being compounded of two elements—first, interest on investment and, secondly, cost of repairs; and it states categorically that the present legislation does not attempt to deal in any way with the former. As regards interest on his investment, the rent-controlled property owner is left precisely where he was. Now I do not wish to dilate on the plight of the landlord, but the fact is that for thirty years or more he has been called upon to subsidise an essential part of the community's expenditure without compensation—and not only without compensation, but to a large extent without acknowledgment. For the landlord does not, it seems, easily command sympathy. I do not know why this should be, for as an economic figure he is really rather a heroic one, suffering confiscation for the common good and showing, howbeit perforce, an altruism to which I think he, among all sections of the community, could lay sole claim were it not for the fact of the far minor rivalry on the part of clients of the G.P.O. and contributors to the Road Fund. However, it is not my motive to stir admiration or excite pity for the landlord. It is merely to direct attention to the fact that the landlords are unlikely to have at their disposal an abundance of cash resources, a circumstance which has a bearing on their ability to do what it is sought to induce them to do under Part II of the Bill. Of necessity, they will scrutinise most carefully any expenditure they may be called upon to make, and it seems to me that in some respects the qualifying tests laid down in the Bill are such that many property owners may be unable to see their way to carry out repairs which are desirable.
I should like to give, very briefly, a few examples of what I have in mind

319
It is difficult to be precise without tedious detail and definition, and I shall endeavour to make my points in general terms. First, the amount of permitted rent increase laid down in the Bill was calculated, I think, on the view of the Girdwood Committee, that the cost of post-war repairs was approximately three times what it was in 1939. Since the Girdwood Committee made their Report last year, to the best of my information, the cost of repairs has risen from three times to three and a half times the 1939 figure. Therefore, I suggest that the permitted rent increase will be insufficient to equate the landlord's expenditure, as it was intended to do. Secondly, whatever increase in rent the landlord may be permitted to make, the increase will be subject to income tax, and if he is compelled to rely upon the ordinary maintenance claim he will have to wait until the sixth year after his expenditure before receiving his full tax allowance. In other words, he will be out of his money, to some extent, for over five years. Again, even if the landlord has passed one or other of the qualifying tests, he may be precluded from charging the full permitted increase if the resulting rent amounts to more than twice the property's gross rateable value. This is known as the stopper, but it will cover many cases, and in all these there will be little or no incentive for the landlord to carry out repairs.
Again, the landlord who in the immediate post-war period put his property back into first-class repair may find that he does not qualify for any immediate increase in rent, since, by reason of his expenditure before 1950, he may well have found it unnecessary to spend in the last four years amounts which will enable him to comply with the expenditure tests. For such landlords and, ex hypothesi, they are the most conscientious, no immediate rent increase is to be permitted. Lastly, Part II of the Bill contains amendments to certain provisions in the Housing Act, 1949, and proposes that the landlord shall be permitted to add to his rent an amount equivalent to 8 per cent. of the money which he has contributed to improvements carried out in conjunction with the local authority. In view of the fact that the improvements with which the landlord will here be concerned will generally be equipment with a life of no
320
more than twenty years—for example, cooking and sanitary appliances—this 8 per cent., after amortisation over the twenty-year period, will represent in the landlord's hands virtually no income at all.
Some of these points are perhaps more suitable for a later stage of the Bill, but I mention them now to illustrate my main submission, that the inducement offered to property owners to carry out repairs may, in certain ways, require reconsideration. Virtue has its own reward, but whatever that reward may be, I think it would not be wise or fair to deny that by itself that will not provide a reliable incentive in this context. I am not advocating that things should be done for the enrichment of the property owner, but only that the propositions with which he will find himself presented should be such that an ordinarily prudent trustee, with reasonable regard for the income beneficiary, as well as the remainder-man, would find them acceptable. It is my anxiety lest this Part of the Bill should fail in its declared purpose, which is to secure repairs and preserve a national asset. It would be a pity indeed, if, through miscalculation of the landlord's position, this admirable purpose failed to be fully achieved. I do not, as some speakers have done, condemn the Bill; I regard it as a step forward in solving an intractable problem. However, I believe that it requires certain amendment to make it workable.
5.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, it is my pleasure and privilege to congratulate my noble friend Lord Broughshane on the first occasion on which he has addressed your Lordships. On these occasions a few formal remarks are normally made, perhaps not always with complete sincerity; but on this occasion I can say—and I am sure I speak on behalf of all your Lordships—with complete sincerity, that we have listened with real interest to my noble friend. He was clearly audible in every part of the House, and his speech lost nothing from the moderate and temperate tone in which it was couched. I hope we shall hear him often again. If he will allow me to use rather more colloquial terms, I hope that, having crossed the first obstacle of the Housing Repairs and

321
Rents Bill, he will not be daunted by the Becher's Brook of town and country planning.
In this matter, as your Lordships know, I have a personal interest. Before I make any observations on this Bill I should like to thank the Minister for the most courteous observations he made in another place on the Motion on rent restriction in my name in December of last year, to which, also, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was good enough to refer. The first Part of the Bill shows that the Minister was able to give full thought to the suggestions put forward by noble Lords who have wide experience of the problems which that Part of the Bill involves, and I think that some of the suggestions made by noble Lords who were good enough to take part in the discussion on that Motion are embodied in the Bill. I hope that may be felt as a real encouragement to those who took part in the debate on that occasion.
I feel that a measure of sympathy should be extended to all noble Lords who venture anything in the nature of critical examination of this measure, more particularly when they are confronted with the powerful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. His tone, as always, was temperate; he had a wide grasp of the facts, and he presented a case which, while I am confident I can answer it, none the less does require a certain measure of thought if one is, if not to defeat him, at least encounter him equally on ground on which he is an acknowledged master. This Bill, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, really falls into two parts; and I will follow his example and make my observations, which will be brief, on those two parts separately.
With the purpose of the first part I think few noble Lords will quarrel. The problem of slum clearance is one which, I believe—and in saying this I attach no blame to anyone at all; and I shall be corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if I am wrong—is now larger than it ever has been. There are one million houses due to be demolished, and 140,000 of them were condemned before the last war. In addition to that there is a vast mass of houses—the figure anyone may guess—which certainly cannot last very long. Some two million families are sharing accommodation, and many others
322
are living under conditions which each one of us must deplore. While many of these families rise superior to those conditions—and one gives them every credit for it—it cannot be denied that the conditions under which they live encourage juvenile delinquency and foster every form of moral turpitude and vice.
The Bill proposes to stimulate local authorities into further activity in regard to slum clearance, and to help them by giving them the power to patch up houses which cannot be demolished at the moment. We must face this problem. It would be an admirable thing if, by some sweeping measure, some great constructive act, we could wipe away all those houses which are below the standards we consider fit. But it cannot be done. We have not the materials; we have not the men; and, above all—and I would stress this, as I have tried to stress it before—we have not the land. We cannot go on eating up our agricultural land and destroying ground which feeds the people for whom we are trying to build houses. Therefore, we can proceed only by a process of patching, demolishing those which can be dealt with immediately.
When we come to this question of patching, we have to ask ourselves whether the local authorities will be greatly attracted by what they are invited to do. They are asked to take over houses with a limited life, and to spend a large sum of money on them. I do not know whether the financial provisions of Clause 7, or any, other considerations, for that matter, will make it an attractive proposition to nurse this moribund patient until final death by demolition. But something must be done, because, unless local authorities are stimulated to play their part, very little, I fear, will happen under this Part of the Bill. I have not any great experience of local authorities, but I do not share the view of my noble friend Lord Gage that no further pressure should be put upon them. I should like to see it incumbent upon local authorities to take action not only in this regard, but also in the second connection with which I now propose to deal—namely, the question both of improvement grants and loans for repairs.
As your Lordships know, the Housing Act, 1949, provided for loans for repairs. That facility, I believe, has not been widely understood, and few owners have

323
taken advantage of it. It may be that some could not. Their houses were perhaps mortgaged and could not be offered as security. But, beyond that, I believe that local authorities have not been at all anxious to lend the money. I do not know why they should be. The question of grants, too, is linked up with loans, and these, as your Lordships know, are given for conversions and reconditioning of houses. Now the Minister has wisely eased the conditions on which these grants can be made, and has further eased them since the introduction of this Bill. None the less, I do not know whether local authorities will be prepared to make these grants. There are no fresh powers in the Bill to compel them to do so. The machinery is lubricated, the brake is taken off, but it is the same old engine. There is nothing more to make them act. I must admit—and this is a part answer to the searching question which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has posed to me, as to how I would attempt a solution—that I should like to see it obligatory on the local authority to make these grants and loans unless they can in each case show good reason why they should refuse. I do not think that is at all an unreasonable proposition, and I fear that unless it is acceded to very little in fact will happen.
I am not anxious to detain your Lordships, so I pass to the second Part of the Bill, which deals with the thorny problem of rent restrictions and which attempts to solve that which many of us feel scarcely can be solved. We know that in another place it has been described as so unattractive that it is a "mouldy turnip." It certainly does not offer any great temptation to the landlord, and while not a turnip, I do not consider it the apple out of the Garden of Eden. However, it certainly does offer an opportunity for the good landlord to put his house in order. The Bill adopts the formula proposed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, but it does something which the Institute did not do—it imposes a ceiling. I personally have no objection to a ceiling. Noble Lords who have been good enough to listen to me on other occasions will realise that never at any time over the last ten years, when I have spoken on this subject, have I urged either the total removal of rent restriction or that the landlord should have something in his pocket unless he
324
gives something in return. Therefore I do not quarrel with the principle of a ceiling. But let us consider it for a moment. There is a vast mass of houses which are controlled by the Act of 1939 and which were not reassessed upwards to their full value. Those houses, many of them owner-occupied, would have a gross value too low to permit of the making of any increase. The stopper will stop them completely, and nothing will happen. Of those houses there is a very great number indeed.
Let us examine this measure for a moment from the tenant's angle. Much propaganda has been put forth, drums have been beaten, cymbals have clashed, and the tenant is called to arms. But what has he got to face? In the vast mass of cases, the increase will be moderate in the extreme, far below anything imposed by the local authority, and in many thousands of cases, as I have tried to show, there will be no increase at all. That does not seem a very dreadful prospect. Let us examine it a little more. I try to see these things from every angle, and there is a point which does give me some concern. If the tenant is aggrieved over the increase he has recourse to the county court. If the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack will allow me to say so, the Bill is complex, and, I have no doubt through my own fault, I was slightly at a loss in following him. The noble and learned Lord spoke of the tenant waiting until the landlord took him to the county court; but in paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule it is laid down that the tenant has twenty-eight days in which to lodge his claim. It would seem to me, therefore, that if the tenant does not act within that period his position may be weakened. Your Lordships will appreciate that to elucidate these points in the course of a debate is not easy, but that is the point in my mind. I do not like the necessity for the tenant to go to the county court. I think that many small tenants will not want to do so, and will pay the rent instead. Then, if he is not happy about the condition of the house, as distinct from the money spent, he has to go to the local authority for a certificate of disrepair. If he does not think the increase for the cost of services appropriate, he has to go to the tribunal. Therefore there are three different bodies involved, but it is only the first one of

325
them—the application to the county court within the twenty-eight days—which gives me any cause for real anxiety.
Now on behalf of tenants it has been said freely outside this House that bad landlords have done nothing; they have accumulated large sums of money by taking the increases granted by the Act of 1920, putting them in their pockets, and doing no repairs. This proposition, I suggest, is devoid of any foundation. In the first place, when it is put, it is put on the basis that every landlord received an increase. Well, of course, he did not. It was only the old controlled houses, controlled by the Act of 1915 as at the rent paid in August, 1914, the rents of which were increased, and a vast mass of landlords received no increase. What they put in their pockets I really do not know. Let us take it a little further. Let us suppose that there are landlords who have done no repairs—and there are such, of course; economic necessity has forced many of them into that position. But what have they gained? From whence have they accumulated their wealth?
I am speaking again, I remind your Lordships, of the old controlled houses going back to before the First World War. What happens to a house like that if no money is spent? As your Lordships know, it crumbles, decays in the end and falls down. Any landlord who is unwise enough to have taken the increase and not spent it will have seen his assets deteriorate, decay and finally disappear. In addition, he runs considerable risks. The local authority can serve a demolition notice, a closing notice, or can order him to do the repairs and charge him with the cost. The noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack referred to those powers, but I am bound to say, with due respect, that I disagree with him slightly, in that I cannot feel that in the past those powers have been fully exercised. I think many local authorities have been extremely reluctant to make use of these powers, but I hope in the future they may be more active, because I am no defender of the bad landlord.
Now let us consider the position for a moment from the aspect of the landlord. I think this is a courageous attempt to deal with an incredibly difficult problem. Here again I will in part answer the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, when I say that I
326
personally regret that the Minister did not go a little further and decontrol those houses in the higher rateable value brackets within the Act. Your Lordships, I know, will give me credit for not saying that in any spirit of desire to see a wild scramble for accommodation at ever rising rents. I have no desire whatever to see such a thing. I say it for the reason—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is on my side here—that I believe that if it were done accommodation would materially increase. I believe that a great many large houses are occupied by people at rents which are quite fictitious. If those houses were removed from rent restriction, accommodation would be freed, and under the provisions for conversion free of rent restriction in the Bill, much accommodation would be added. That would be one of the constructive suggestions which I would venture to put forward.
While many landlords will be grateful for the increase, and will employ it to the advantage of the tenant, and, of course, to their own advantage also, in keeping the property in repair, we are up against the proposition mentioned by my noble friend Lord Broughshane. The good landlord who has spent his money as quickly as he could, the man who, immediately after the war, as soon as he could, got a licence and repointed his house, something which he meant to last for many years, if he did it, let us say, six years ago, is punished. It seems to me a little hard that that should be so. Whereas I welcome the Amendment which provides that the period shall be three years out of four, I cannot feel it unreasonable to suggest that it should be three years out of the last five. I always dislike anything which tends to discourage someone who has tried to do his best.
Now, my Lords, we come to the searching question which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, quite properly addressed to me: How would you yourself solve this matter? I would say that this Bill, properly interpreted, if full effect is given to it, if it is regarded as part of the great housing programme which the Minister has initiated, will in time solve the problem. This Bill must not be taken in isolation: it is part of a great housing drive. The clause which allows new building free of rent restriction, which encourages conversion, is related, of course,

327
to the announcement one saw only yesterday, I think, whereby the loans from building societies are to be made on more favourable terms. I have never heard the proposition disputed that it is only by building houses that the problem of rent restriction can be overcome. There is no other way. I believe that this Bill—relaxed in the ways that I have tried to show, though I do not suggest that the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack will accept all my propositions—if taken in conjunction with the other measures which are now put in hand will in time, if the local authorities act as they should, solve this great problem. I believe the principles underlying this Bill are sound. I believe it to be in the common interest that effect should be given to them. I can only hope that all those who are affected, the local authorities, landlords and tenants, will accept in a spirit of co-operation and good will the parts which they have to play.
5.34 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, in rising to-night to support the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill now before the House, I should like to do so most heartily, though with a few reservations. It is particularly gratifying to me to be able to speak to-night because I had the honour of being one of his supporters in December, 1952, when my noble friend Lord Buckmaster was able to move in this House his Motion urging Her Majesty's Government to do something about this problem. To-night we have this great Bill before us, and I warmly congratulate Her Majesty's Government on bringing it forward. Of course, as has already rightly been said in this debate, it is only a further step forward to what we hope will be the eventual freeing of houses from rent restriction. I am one of those who sincerely hope that in a few years' time, when more houses are built—and the programme of the last few years has been very satisfactory—we shall be able to achieve the gradual decontrol of houses, as was done between the two wars, starting with the higher rated houses. But that must be something for a few years' time.
Turning to the Bill for a few moments, whilst I welcome the steps which the Minister has taken, I see that the only new law that the Minister is making in
328
Part I is on the all-important subject of deferred demolition. I am not at all against the steps he is taking upon deferred demolition but, speaking entirely for myself, I think (here I agree very much with what Lord Silkin said, and I apologise for interrupting him rather discourteously, but I wanted to challenge him on that one point) that it is not possible to clear away these houses in big cities like London, Birmingham and Glasgow, and so on in five years; because if one looks at the housing waiting lists—and they are building at a great rate now in Birmingham and Glasgow—it will take anything from fifteen to twenty years to clear up the housing waiting lists in those great cities.
What does perturb me rather—and I should like to see the Bill altered if possible in one respect—is that, as I understand it, there is no limit to the period. If these houses cannot be put in reasonable repair and have to be condemned, and then are given deferred demolition, there is no limit to the time for which those houses will have to stand. The only limit there is in the financial provisions under Clause 7, whereby the State and the local authority, in equal partnership, give, as the Lord Chancellor has said, £3 a year, which, in fifteen years, means a total of about £95. I do not know how much they are proposing to spend on top of that £95, but knowing what one does about local authority finance to-day, local authorities are probably not very anxious to spend more than their share; but they will get an equal amount. It is not a very generous amount but it is something. Therefore, I am one of those who hope that these houses will not have to remain up for longer than ten to fifteen years. I should like, if possible, to see in Clause 3 a provision limiting the number of years for which those houses will have to stand to, say, from ten to fifteen years. If it is not possible for them to be pulled down as deferred demolition houses in that time, there should be a request to Parliament for a Resolution of both Houses to be passed on the recommendation of the Minister, or some such procedure as that, because I do not like the idea that these houses should stand for twenty to twenty-five years, having had only £95 spent on them.

329
May I now for a few moments turn to Part II of the Bill. First of all, I welcome very much the Amendment, which I think the Minister is right in making to the 1949 Act, on improvement grants. I have always thought that the terms were too onerous. Fortunately, it has been shown by experience of the working of that Act in the last five years that owners of only about 3,000 houses in Great Britain applied for, and were given, modernisation grants. The Minister now has made it easier to get these grants. But, as my noble friend Lord Broughshane has rightly said to your Lordships, in an admirable maiden speech to-night, if we are going to make the scheme work properly we must get the economics of the problem right. The present Act offers the landlord, on his 50 per cent. part of the improvement, only 6 per cent. on his money, which he can pass on to the tenant. That is quite inadequate, and therefore the Minister has rightly gone up to 8 per cent.
I submit to your Lordships, however, that 8 per cent. is not enough, and I do so for the following reasons. If the landlord has to borrow his money at, say, 5 per cent., in the market or through a local authority, he must make a sinking fund to repay that loan over fifteen to twenty years. If he has a grant for his house which will now stand for longer, the period comes right down to ten years or so for a house which he hopes will stand for fifteen to twenty years, and it will cost him at least another 2½ per cent. to 3 per cent. on his sinking fund. Then he is put under an obligation to keep that improvement in proper repair. I put that as at least 1 per cent. more, so that makes it 9 per cent. And that includes nothing for the landlord himself, for his trouble in doing this work. So I think that anyway the proportion ought to be 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. We were shown in this House an admirable film on the Stockton test, where an examination of four houses in Stockton was carried out. Roughly, the capital cost was about £350. They did it on the old 6 per cent. basis, which they said was not adequate. On that, they were allowed to increase the rent by only 4s. The controlled rent was 9s. or 9s. 6d. and it went up to 13s. or 13s. 6d. Even if the rent went up by a 1s. or 1s. 6d. they would get a modernised house for somewhere in the neighbourhood of 14s., compared
330
with a new council house for which they would have to pay £1 or 25s. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will look at that point.
Another point is the improvement grants. I do not go quite so far as my noble friend Lord Buckmaster: I am one of those people who think that, if the landlord complies with the terms laid down by the Minister to get the improvement grant, he should then be given the full 50 per cent. grant. At the present moment, the amount that the local authority give is entirely permissive. The Bill does not say "If the landlord complies with the terms, he shall get it"; it says only that he shall get "up to 50 per cent." It may be 28 per cent., 30 per cent. or 45 per cent.: the amount varies in different cases. Sometimes the estimates were too much; sometimes perhaps there was not enough money in the local "kitty" because they have to contribute a small amount—25 per cent. of the 50 per cent. If we are going to get this scheme to work, it the landlords do comply with the terms laid down, they should then be granted the full 50 per cent., otherwise I am dubious whether many of these improvements will get done.
Finally, on the last Part of the Bill, which is much more difficult of course than the Part dealing with repairs, I welcome what the Minister has done. I think the formula worked out by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, to whom we are all indebted, is a good one. I am not against it. As has been rightly said by previous speakers to-day, of course they did not invent the ceiling clause of twice the gross amount. That has been put in by the Minister. I am not against that. I think that both the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' clause and the Minister's "stopper" clause are slightly too low. I should like, if possible, to see the amount the landlord is allowed to charge in increased rents for these properties increased by from two to two and a half times the difference between the gross value and the rateable value, and also that the maximum rent under the "stopper" clause should be not twice but two and a half times the gross value. If Her Majesty's Government would consider those proposals, we could make this Bill work. It is vital

331
that it should work and that these repairs which are very much needed should be done. But, of course, as has been rightly said this evening by previous speakers, it is the landlords who have to do these repairs, and unless Parliament makes it possible for them to do them, not extravagantly but in a reasonable way, the repairs will not be done. I hope—I make a plea—that we shall have time to consider these points, that the Bill will not be too much rushed at Committee stage in this House and that any proposals which some of us may put to Her Majesty's Government will receive sympathetic consideration. With those few words, I beg to support the Bill and to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on bringing it forward.
5.45 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, like so many other noble Lords on this side of the House, I welcome this Bill. I think the Government have shown great courage in taking one more step in tackling this great social problem. It is wrong that, with the general rise in the standard of living, a standard which has been steadily rising over a number of years, and with the great improvement in the standard of new housing, in this year, 1954, millions of people should be condemned to live in houses which might have been suitable to the standard of living some sixty years ago: houses with no modern necessities, such as bathrooms, indoor sanitation, hot-water systems, and all the other things which nowadays we treat as necessities of life. While the new houses are improving, the old houses are at the moment falling further and further behind. There are many reasons for this, but I think one of them, and particularly lately, has been the results of the Rent Restrictions Acts. Houses are expendable. It is only right that they should be, and that when they are worn out they should be pulled down. But, as long as they are sound in structure, those houses should keep pace with the times and should have improvements done to them. As in the past they fitted the standard of living of that time, so they should improve with the times. After all, there may be many of your Lordships who would live uncomfortably if nothing had been done to your houses from the time when they were built many hundreds of years ago.
332
The first thing I should like to mention is the clauses on slum clearance. It does great credit to all concerned—the Government, the building industry and all those who have worked to build houses. The time has come when this vital problem can really be tackled. It is realistic to enable local authorities, where they cannot replace houses in a reasonable time, to have the right of patching. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made out that the slum clearance problem was nothing like so great as one had been led to believe, and that in a matter of five years, using the pool of houses that became empty each year and the houses which were being built, the problem could be solved. If that is so, so much the better. Then the problem will be solved without recourse to this clause, and local authorities will not be forced to spend money on patching these houses. But if, on the other hand, it cannot be solved, would the noble Lord then condemn those people who live in the decaying houses? Is it not better to do something to those houses than nothing at all and merely hope that the slum clearance problem can be solved in five years? I am sure that, if it can be solved in five years, the Government and the local authorities will do everything possible to ensure that that comes about.
The object of this Bill is not only to tackle slum clearance but to improve and maintain the great bulk of our houses. We come then to the rent increases for repairs. I think that the first essential in regard to rent increases is that they must be obviously fair—they must be linked with repairs. It is essential that the tenants should believe that they are getting a fair deal. I think there are some 4 million houses which come into this category, and if tenants generally are not going to accept the increases as fair and are all going to apply to the county court for certificates of disrepair, the whole administrative machine must fall down. Tenants must see that it is not a landlord's benefit; that anything that they pay will allow him only to carry out the repairs which are absolutely vital for the maintenance of the house, and that they are sums of money to which he is justly entitled. It should not be a landlord's benefit, and it will not help the slum landlord who, as one knows, buys up the tag end of leases, farms out those houses and then, when

333
they go back to the ground landlord, just disappears and there is nobody from whom to claim. That sort of person is not intended to be helped, and should in no way be helped, under this Bill—in fact, legislation should be passed so that he ends up in the criminal courts. But the Bill should help those landlords who are determined to keep their houses in repair.
At this point I must say that I regret that in the case of the rural house, with its very low rates, the increases will be so small that they will not encourage anybody to do much. I realise it is difficult to have one formula for one set of houses and another formula for another set, but, in fact, judging by the number who are quite prepared to pay the much higher rents which they have to pay when they move into a council house, most rural tenants would not mind a considerable increase in rent. They are quite prepared to pay the high rent provided they feel that they are getting something for it. Here I must declare an interest, as I own a certain amount of property in London, not, I must admit, extremely remunerative.
At this point I should like to say a word as to whether it is correct to have an increase in rent of twice the statutory allowance. I have got out the figures for 100 rather small houses over the last five years. I do not say that they are typical or anything like that, but the expenditure on repairs on those houses worked out on an average at £4 more than the net rent per house and five times the statutory allowance. Those are probably exceptional figures, because there is obviously the backlog of repairs from after the war, and in some houses there were large repairs though in others the repairs were small. I give those figures merely from the point of view of interest. If that is the average, obviously for some of the houses the figure must be considerably higher, and I cannot think how a small landlord who perhaps has one or two houses and no other form of income could conceivably meet his responsibilities. Despite that, as I think that for the scheme to work any increase must be shown to be manifestly fair, there is probably no real alternative to the adoption of the figure of twice the statutory allowance.
Lord Silkin's solution to the problem was that gradually the local authority
334
should take over all rent-restricted houses. In that connection there are two points that I cannot quite understand. First, I cannot see what advantage it is going to be to the tenants gradually to be taken over by the local authority. What we want is something which will start action now, and for a lot of people to do something at once. Also if the local authorities took over the houses, what compensation would they pay? I do not know if it is ethically sound by rent restriction, by preventing a person from looking after his property and by making it almost impossible for him to do the repairs, leading in time to a depreciation in the value of the property, then to step in and take it at its depreciated value.
LORD SILKIN: Perhaps I could satisfy the noble Lord on that point. The proposal is that it should be at market value—that is, the value at which these properties are freely changing hands at the present time.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: It is in fact really the market value at the end of the depreciation which is caused by the Rent Restrictions Acts, without there having been any chance for the landlord to improve the house in the meantime. That is the point. The solution suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, was, I thought, most admirable. I think I have his suggestion rightly—namely, that the responsibility for the repairs should fall entirely on the local authority. I think it would be absolutely admirable, and I would support to the limit a proposal that the landlord should take the rent and that repairs should be done by the local authority.
LORD GREENHILL: I am sorry, but I did not quite catch the last part of the noble Lord's observation.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: What I said was that the landlord would get the rent and the repairs would be done by the local authority. I think that is what the noble Lord suggested.
LORD GREENHILL: The noble Lord has misunderstood what I said. I said that the local authority should have the responsibility of doing the repairs and should recover from the tenant the cost of those repairs, and that the landlord should keep out of this business and
should not get any extra money at all.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: The tenant was to pay the local authority, and the landlord was to keep right out of it, merely taking his rent?
LORD GREENHILL: Not only that, but he would get the advantage of an improved asset.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I think that is a very sound solution, from the point of view of the landlord. I should also like to welcome the amendments to the 1949 Act, both the reduction in the thirty years and the increase to 8 per cent. I think that has great possibilities. The Stockton experiment has been mentioned. There is only one small case to which I should like to refer. I happen to be manager of a small school. Under the 1949 Act, with the new 8 per cent. and by borrowing money from the local authority, we have been able to improve the house, putting in bathrooms and hot water systems, and the increase in rent allowed will cover all expenses. After all, school managers are not people of great means; and, in this case, under that Act, they have really covered all their expenses, and at the end of it all the rent is increased only very slightly. I think, therefore, that there are great possibilities, provided that local authorities—and this has been mentioned before—make full use of their powers under the Act, because it has the great advantage of halving the increase of rent to the tenant.
There is only one other point which I should like to mention. This relates to difficulties in regard to small houses—I refer to the sort of houses which, if they were in Chelsea, would be modernised and let as most desirable residences, but which, in other parts of London, are looked upon with envious eyes by the local authorities who are wanting to carry out clearances. They are houses which, in many cases, are structually sound, which could be improved by grant, and which would then probably have a considerable life. But one of the difficulties is that in many cases they are not in one single tenancy, they are not big enough to be improved for two families, and there is great difficulty in finding somewhere to put the second family so that the house can be improved for the first. Of course, from the point of view of the local authority, it is difficult in a town, where land is
336
scarce, for them to be favourably inclined towards any scheme which will reduce the number of people living in a given area. I think this Bill attempts to solve a great national and social problem. Its success depends on a partnership between the State, local authorities, housing associations, landlords and tenants to improve the housing conditions of this country. It must not fail.
6.3 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, will allow someone from these Benches to congratulate him on a lucid and informative maiden speech, admirably delivered. We join with those who have said that they look forward to the noble Lord's taking part in our debates in the future. Like most noble Lords who have spoken to-day, I have to declare an interest, strange as it may seem. I am a member of the City Parochial Foundation, with which I believe Lord Broughshane's father had some connection. I also have some small interest in a family housing estate. I should like, first, as we have had this long and interesting debate, respectfully to call the attention of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, and also that of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to the fact that not a single speaker has failed to be critical or to express some reservations with regard to this Bill. That is a matter to which I shall return later in my speech.
The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack paid a generous tribute to the late Lord Morrison—a tribute which we all very much appreciate. But I hope he will not misunderstand me when I say that to plead the name of our late colleague in support of this Bill—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting him? I thought I had expressly said that I did not claim that this was a joint effort.
LORD BURDEN: I am very glad to hear that, because the noble and learned Lord is saying precisely what I was going to say. Everyone who has spoken to-day has, I think, emphasised that if we can solve the housing problem in this country we shall have gone a long way towards solving many of our other social problems Bad housing, or lack of adequate

337
housing, goes right to the roots of many of our social problems. But I join with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in saying that I believe—and I had the words on my notes before they were used by the noble Lord—that, so far as slum clearance is concerned, this Bill is a piece of window-dressing; and so far as obsolete and obsolescent houses are concerned, I believe that for some local authorities it will make the position even more difficult.
One has only to make a tour of some of our London boroughs to see ravages caused by the war which are still needing attention. I remember the chief housing officer of a local authority with which I had some years of experience informing the ex-Minister of Health that if we in East Ham had no fresh applications (and so far as the building of houses was concerned the authority was a very progressive one), and if housing continued at the same rate, the housing list would be cleared in just a hundred years. And only to-day I have been informed with regard to another metropolitan borough, where there is a commission which I served in a voluntary capacity for a number of years, that there are still some 800 families living in requisitioned houses. The point I should like to put to the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues is: how will this Bill help in the solution of that very great problem? This is a very expensive matter. The occupation of requisitioned houses all over the country imposes a very heavy charge indeed on the national Exchequer.
Lord Silkin has said that this Bill is ungenerous to local authorities. I say that not only is it ungenerous, but that, in addition to that, it will add very serious complications and difficulties to those faced by local authorities in dealing with housing problems. Local authorities are always faced with great difficulty when they wish to place corporation rents on a reasonable basis, because of the difficulties which arise through the statutory housing revenue account. This account, which has to be maintained under Section 129 of the Housing Act, 1936, is not merely an account between the corporation, as landlord, and their tenants. It is complicated by the fact that it contains all the charges and incidental expenses of their capital expenditure, and, as is well known, heavy capital expenditure has to be incurred a long time before houses are available for letting. Then
338
we are all aware of the fact that, owing to the increased costs of building, rents that local authorities to-day have to charge are much higher, in spite of apparently generous grants from the Government. I venture to suggest that the problem of municipal rents is becoming a very grave one. This arises from the fact that municipal houses, unlike battleships, have to be built out of borrowed money and have to bear the additional cost of the interest on that loan.
The financial provisions of the Bill, referred to by my noble friend Lord Silkin and defended by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, are distinctly unfair to local authorities. May I ask noble Lords to look at the problem in this way? Assuming that the proposals in regard to slum clearance are a success, it will be the local authorities having the highest rates which will be faced with the greatest problem. There are no slums, or very few, in Bournemouth, in Southport, in Harrogate, and in low-rated towns of that kind; but in highly rated areas even 50 per cent. of the cost of slum clearance will be such that many local authorities will be most reluctant to place that additional loan on the ratepayers.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, what allowance is the noble Lord making for the Equalisation Fund in making a statement of that sort?
LORD BURDEN: The poorer areas are still the most highly rated areas, in spite of the operation of the Equalisation Fund. The people who live in these areas are the people who can least afford to pay high rates. The motor car and rapid transport takes people who can afford it away from industrial areas, and they do not live where they make their money. On top of that, industrial hereditaments have a 75 per cent. rebate on local rates. Therefore, I would ask that the financial provisions with which the local authorities are concerned shall be looked at again.
I may have misunderstood the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, but I thought he made reference to the famous curate's egg, which was "good in parts." I thought he used the simile the other way, but I am not going to say that this Bill has not some good features. Even the Conservative Party, with an admirable Civil Service behind it, could hardly fail

339
to bring forward a Bill which had not some good proposals. In view of the pressure (I use only a colourless word) put upon another place to get this Bill here, and of the inadequate consideration of many of the clauses, I hope that there will be ample time for its consideration on Committee stage in your Lordships' House. I think I can say this on behalf of those who sit on these Benches. We may be critical but we shall endeavour to be constructive, and there will be nothing in the nature of our trying to prevent the Bill from getting through. I am glad that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House is here; and as he has always insisted on our duty and responsibility as a revising Chamber, I should like to suggest to him that this Bill, which touches so many interests, should have ample consideration. If we have time for consideration, as I hope we shall have, I think this Bill will emerge from our consideration a far better Bill than it is at the present moment.
6.10 p.m.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I think your Lordships will wish to look at the Bill from a wider background than that taken by the last speaker. In his brilliant speech my noble friend Lord Buckmaster drew attention to the fact that the Bill covers only one aspect of the housing problem—the repair of houses. Noble Lords on the other side of the House have been talking this afternoon as if this Bill were the only way the problem was being tackled. Of course, that is an utter fallacy. The vital fact is that over 300,000 houses are being built every year in this country by local authorities, and it is a fact which has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Buckmaster.
This Bill follows on the White Paper, Houses—The Next Step. This step many of your Lordships will approve, while considering it, perhaps, as only a small one. In the difficult circumstances of dealing with these old houses and slum clearance, a first step is essential to wider and greater steps in the years to come. It is essential to make a small move on slum clearance, and even repair of many rent-controlled houses, while the larger housing programme is continuing. Noble Lords will have noticed in the Press—and I understand that the Minister has made a statement in another place this
340
afternoon—that a further and wider housing programme is envisaged by the agreement reached with building societies to reduce the amount of deposit which has to be put down as security for a new house. Yesterday I happened to meet a member of an urban district council who told me that in his particular housing authority a large number of applications were being received every month for loans to purchase small houses under the appropriate legislation. I believe that the building societies will find exactly the same position arising, and, in my view, many more houses will be built by private enterprise. Although this Bill does not contain everything that my noble friend Lord Buckmaster proposed in his Motion a year and a half ago, it contains much of real value.
The slum clearance proposals are obviously vital, because unless the centres of these ancient towns and great industrial cities are intensively cleared and rebuilt, the country cannot find the agricultural land outside them on which to build new housing estates. It is well known that if you take one acre of agricultural land, you take, at the same time, the food of two persons; and we cannot go on doing that indefinitely. I believe that the proper clearance and rebuilding of the worn-out areas of great cities is absolutely vital. It has so many advantages. It reduces that most unsocial thing, the long journey to work—and that, I believe, is an aspect that has been mentioned recently by the most reverend Primate. Work and residence should be as close as they possibly can, because the strain and cost of a long daily journey to work is very heavy. In addition, the persons who live a long way from their work have divided interests: they work at one place and live miles away in another. That is not a good thing.
I should like to deal briefly with the repairs increase. So much has already been said on this matter—and much was well said by my noble friend Lord Broughshane in his maiden speech—that it has really been fully covered. But it is clear that the low-rated house—the house rated from £8 downwards—is going to receive such a small increase, if the repairs have been carried out in the specified time, that it will be of no proper value. The length of time that it will take for anybody who has to undertake the repair before getting this small increase

341
is a large number of years. I believe that that aspect of the Bill is not satisfactory in its present form. Nor do I believe that the stopper which has been referred to by many noble Lords is satisfactory, because it means to say that many houses will be prevented from benefiting from this increase for expenditure on repairs.
The matter of improvements has already been covered, but its success depends absolutely on the co-operation of the local housing authorities. That has not been forthcoming under the 1949 Act, and unless it is forthcoming under this Bill, unless the Minister is able to induce local authorities to make these grants, then these clauses of the Bill will be non-effective, and improvements will not be made. I think there is no doubt that the smaller housing authorities in this country—that is to say, the small urban and many rural district councils—have already reached a point where they feel that they are already carrying a sufficiently heavy burden in respect of housing. I believe that the Government will find that they are not anxious to embark, in the later 'fifties—that is to say in two or three years' time—on large additional local housing schemes. If I am right in this assumption, it means that more reliance will have to be placed on this Bill to maintain the existing houses, either in an improved state or in a repaired state. If local authorities are somewhat allergic to suggestions that they should increase their housing liabilities, they will have to make use of the powers that they are given under this Bill, in order that the total number of houses in their district does not fall. They cannot, as it were, have it both ways. If they do not want to build additional houses, then they will have to agree to make improvement grants for existing houses; and I believe the Government will have to see that the repair clauses, as proposed in this Bill, really work. I should like to pay my tribute to the Minister for having got this Bill through another place and for the provisions contained in it, and I believe that in Committee it may well be improved.
6.30 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it now falls to my lot to try and wind up the interesting and good-tempered debate which we have had on this admirable and important Bill. My task is made the easier by the extremely clear and comprehensive
342
manner in which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has introduced it. Since it has become quite fashionable in the House this afternoon, perhaps I, too, should declare an interest, though not the same type of interest that most of your Lordships have declared. I live in a house in the centre of London, the house in which I was born. It has eighty-one steps between kitchen and nursery, and the basement floods regularly every winter. I think, therefore, it would qualify under paragraph 74 of Houses—The Next Step, as being a house
"built for another age … too large for present-day conditions,"
and suitable for conversion. Had my noble landlord, Lord Portman, been in his place, I might have developed this theme in greater detail, but I feel that it would hardly be courteous to do so in his absence.
We have had to-day some extremely interesting speeches from acknowledged experts—from the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, both of whom have given a great deal of study to this matter; from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who has had to leave his place, and who is a great legal expert on the subject; and from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who, I suppose, knows as much about housing as any other Member of your Lordships' House. We have also had an excellent maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, and I should like to join my congratulations to those which have been offered to him by other Members of your Lordships' House. To me it is a particular pleasure, since his father and mine were old contemporaries and, I think, sat together in another place for the best part of twenty years. It has been some time before the noble Lord has taken the plunge, but it has been well worth waiting for, as I am certain your Lordships will agree, and I hope it will not be long before he gives us the benefit of his experience again. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has told me that he has to go in a few minutes. I am sorry about that, because I was going to say some particularly nice things about him.
LORD BURDEN: Say them now.
LORD MANCROFT: I should like to tell the noble Lord, for instance, how I spent my week-end. I spent my week-end in reading carefully every speech on

343
housing which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has made since he has been a Member of your Lordships' House. I found them most admirable reading. Many of us look back with horror at some of the things we have said in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, can have a perfectly clear conscience, as far as I am concerned at least, about everything he has said on this subject. I find that I have marked in the margin of many of his speeches "G.S."—"Good stuff," and, on frequent occasions. "V.G.S."—"Very good stuff." I found that I agreed with him on nearly everything he has said recently on major matters of housing policy. I naturally thought that his conclusions would be the same upon this problem as those to which Her Majesty's Government have inevitably been driven, but I was grieved to hear, in the course of his speech, that he has now parted his ways from ours and is no longer making those statesmanlike speeches, agreeing with everything Her Majesty's Government now hold, that he did in the days gone by.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has attacked the Bill, but I could not help feeling, if he will allow me to say so with respect, that I thought his criticism was a little half-hearted. There did not appear to be a great deal of venom in his opposition. If I understood him aright, there are two points which are worrying him and other noble Lords opposite who are criticising this Bill, and they are these. The words "window dressing" have been used more than once. Their opinion is, in the words of the noble Lord, that the Bill does not do much to speed up slum clearance; its main concern is merely to defer demolition. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if I heard him correctly remarked that there were 140,000 houses in 1939 which could not be made fit for human habitation: how, then, can they be made fit now? Surely, we must look at it from another point of view. There are three courses open to us. We either pull the slums down; or we make them habitable so that they can be lived in until we can build some new houses; or we build new houses. We, the Government, want to do all three of those things. Most of all, we want to build the new houses, and I think we can say without fear of contradiction that we are doing that as fast and as well as humanly possible. We want
344
to pull down the slums as fast as we can and we shall do that. If we cannot do those two things fast enough in a particular area, what we must do is to patch up the slums and make them habitable until sufficient new building has taken place. What the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, advocates is none of those, but just doing nothing. I cannot feel that that is a proper solution.
Of course, it is broadly true that the Bill gives local authorities no extra powers to demolish slums. The powers are already there in the Housing Act, 1936. Incidentally, in the First Schedule the Bill does make certain minor amendments in the procedure for slum clearance, which should, I hope, simplify and accelerate progress. What the Bill does is to restate in a more urgent form the responsibilities of the local authorities in this matter by requiring them to submit a comprehensive plan within twelve months. Your Lordships will remember that these duties have been virtually ignored since 1939. For obvious reasons, slum clearance ceased during the war. After the war the Labour Government told the local authorities that it was not to be resumed. My right honourable friend the Minister has different views. He thinks that the problem of the slums must be tackled again. He has already issued a circular, as your Lordships are aware, which removes the ban imposed by the late Government. He has now placed in the beginning of this Bill a definite statutory obligation which gives proper expression to the urgency of the task. It is, therefore, to my way of thinking, quite absurd to suggest that patching-up proposals are intended to have the effect of slowing-up slum clearance.
My right honourable friend regards patching as an exceptional measure. Let me emphasise that—an exceptional measure. The powers he has taken in Clause 1 to modify the proposals submitted by local authorities will enable him to take action with any local authority who are disposed to patch up slums which they could really demolish forthwith. Let me make this point absolutely clear: speedy demolition is the goal of Her Majesty's Government. Everyone with any knowledge of this problem knows perfectly well that in some areas these houses must remain standing for ten, fifteen, and even twenty

345
years, because it is physically impossible to replace them sooner. Not even this Government can do that. The alternative which we have to face here is not between patching and demolishing, but between leaving them as they are, with all their imperfections, and endeavouring to make them a little better—a little more tolerable to live in. In the Government's opinion it will be indefensible to leave these houses in their present state. That opinion, as far as I can see, has not been seriously challenged in another place, and I did not really think that the challenge put out this afternoon by noble Lords opposite was a serious one.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, then moved on to what was really the most important point raised by anybody in this debate—a fundamental point, a point, almost, of political ideology. He first posed this question, if I understood him aright: Is private landlordism out of date? We have listened to a strong defence of the landlord by the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, and it is comforting to hear somebody make that now and again. But the point which was put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin was: Is the private landlord able in present conditions to carry out his rôle in our social structure? In our view the answer is that he is able to do so; and in the view of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and his colleague, the right honourable gentleman for Ebbw Vale, the answer is, "No."
If one has the time, it is worth reading the whole of the philosophy on this subject as expressed by Mr. Aneurin Bevan in Standing Committee. It is a lengthy, but extremely interesting, political statement. I should be out of order, of course, if I quoted it, but the gist of it, roughly, is that Mr. Bevan is not opposed to owner-occupation but his general view is that six million to seven million rent-restricted houses are held in a "false property relationship." The owners of houses are prevented from dealing with their property according to the ordinary laws of supply and demand. In this field, therefore, of artificial restriction, there is no practicable scheme for protecting tenants against increases of rents following these economic laws whilst leaving owners to enjoy the advantages possessed by other owners of
346
private property. The solution propounded by Mr. Bevan is that all houses should be taken over by local authorities. This is the only way, in his view, in which property can be kept in good repair and used to the best advantage of the community.
What I could not help noting with interest was that although he put that strong view forward, the right honourable gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when he was winding up the Second Reading debate in another place, was very careful to make no reference at all to that fundamental statement of doctrine. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was also very cautious to-day in the way in which he dealt with this fundamental problem. He was challenged by several noble Lords, and by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in his opening remarks, to produce some alternative if he found the Government's proposals unattractive to him. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, did his best, but I cannot for the life of me see the difference between what Mr. Bevan has proposed (at which most of his colleagues apparently have taken fright) and the ultimate and logical conclusions to which Lord Silkin's policy must also lead him. They seem to me of the greatest importance and I should like to devote a moment or two to them, because these things go to the root of the whole of the Bill and, indeed, to the whole of the nation's housing policies.
Briefly, the arguments as I have understood them are these. Private enterprise has always broken down in providing shelter for millions of working-class people. Public authorities should therefore become responsible for building, repairing and maintenance. If public authorities were responsible, the tenants could be confident that any repairs increase in rents would be spent on the houses and would not be diverted into the pockets of the landlords. As local authorities are representative bodies they would, unlike private landlords, be answerable to the electorate for the manner in which they handled their houses and would be kept up to the mark accordingly. Public ownership would enable full use to be made of existing accommodation by facilitating exchanges and transfers among the tenants—a point which has been mentioned more than

347
once this afternoon—thus substantially reducing the need for additional new houses. If the houses were in public ownership there would be an end to the landlord's making a profit by the sale of his house with vacant possession when a local authority rehoused the tenant at considerable public expense; and then finally there would be an end to the gradual "disuse" of the Rent Restrictions Acts as statutory tenants died off. Those, my Lords, if I have understood them correctly, are the arguments put forward on this vitally important question of the municipal ownership of all rented houses.
To my way of thinking, the suggestion that local authorities should take over some six million houses, and manage, maintain and repair them, accords very strangely with the fear which has been expressed here this afternoon—by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, for one—and elsewhere, that the local authorities' staffs will have their work cut out to provide the round figures required by Clause 1 of the Bill within the year allowed. If slum clearance is to be carried out as energetically as we hope, the local authorities will, in fact, have a very big job of work to do, and I should have thought that they ought not to be distracted from it by being asked to look after all the fit houses as well. Indeed, the provision of decent living conditions for all the people is a job which can be done with reasonable speed only if full use is made of all the agencies, public and private, at present engaged in it.
That is the view which was put forward in an eloquent speech by my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney. Lord Gage, too, mentioned it, and added also the housing associations. Of course, to secure this co-operation of all concerned in housing, of all individuals and of all the authorities is fully the Government's intention. The local authorities will deal with the slums—they are best able to do so. The owners of existing houses will be encouraged to repair, maintain and improve them, with adequate safeguards to ensure that the repairs increase is not misapplied; and private enterprise will be encouraged to play an increasingly large part in the provision of houses for rent and for sale.
Apart from the practical impossibility of making the local authorities everyone's
348
landlord without detracting from the part which they must play in the campaign against the slums, there seems to be no reason why many of the advantages claimed for municipal ownership should not be achieved by other less dramatic and less drastic means. In some areas there are already arrangements between the local authorities and private owners for exchanges between their tenants. Ways of making better use of accommodation by other means were suggested in the Report last year by the Housing Management Sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee on "Transfers, Exchanges and Rents" which has been referred to more than once this afternoon. In the light of the discussion of the Bill in another place, my right honourable friend has asked this sub-committee to see whether any further administrative or legislative measures are desirable. We think that we ought first to see how much could be accomplished in the ways already suggested by the sub-committee and to consider their further advice when this is available.
Even municipal ownership of all rented houses would not solve all the problems, for there are, unfortunately, local authorities, as well as private landlords, who will not entertain proposals for exchanges at all. In any event, I think many tenants of privately owned houses will have other views on the proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has hinted at this afternoon. It would sweep away any protection they have at present under the Rent Restrictions Acts and would make them liable to compulsory transfer to smaller but perhaps higher rented houses. Local authorities already have the power to acquire existing houses, by agreement or compulsorily, in order to repair and improve them, or to secure their better and fuller use. This is a valuable sanction, but if the maximum contribution to the solution of this great social problem is to be made by all agencies and by all authorities it ought to be used only in the last resort and in individual cases where private ownership has failed to make the most of its opportunities If the noble Lords opposite are going to develop at all this idea about the municipalisation—to use the dreadful word which I am afraid we shall have to get used to—of private houses, I think

349
they should devote a great deal more thought to it, and to the problems it brings, than they at present seem to have given it. So, for different reasons, must we.
I turn now to a question which has been asked of me by, I think, three or four Members of your Lordships' House this afternoon, and that is what further safeguards to the tenants have been suggested and how are they to be regarded. There are three that I think have been put forward this afternoon. One is the issue of positive certificates of repair to be obtained by the landlord; another is the periodic expenditure test, and the third is the set-off against rent for tenants' expenditure on repairs. The proposal that the landlord should obtain a certificate of good repair before getting the rent increased was most sympathetically considered by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government before he introduced the Bill, and it was only because he came to the conclusion that, it would throw an intolerable and often unnecessary burden on the local authorities that he abandoned it.
The suggestion of a periodic expenditure test would mean, I understand, an examination from year to year of about 7 million accounts. Moreover, it is not always necessary for the landlords to spend up to the average in order to keep a house in repair. A scheme of the kind I am commenting upon would throw too much emphasis, I should have thought, on expenditure. After all, the essence of the scheme is that houses must be kept physically in repair, not only that money has to be spent. The third proposal as regards set-off of tenants' expenditure can, of course, relate only to the past. Administratively, I should have thought that it was dreadfully difficult. As regards the future, it is most unlikely that tenants will go on carrying out repairs and paying increased rents when they know that such repair work is definitely the landlords' responsibility, and that if a house falls into disrepair the tenant can get a certificate and withhold the rent increase.
The noble Lords opposite, or, to be more exact, their friends in other quarters, have declared that they are going to set up in the various districts rent offices to give advice to tenants on how to secure their nights under the terms of this Bill.
350
Her Majesty's Government for their part also intend to issue a booklet for landlords and tenants as a guide to their repective rights and duties. This brings me to a point which has been raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and one or two other noble Lords this afternoon—that is, the question of publicity. The noble Viscount, I think, complained that in relation to improvement grants not enough was known of the local authorities' powers. I can give him evidence of increased interest being shown in improvement grants since the issue on April 20, 1954, of the circular. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, may be interested to know that, so far, in May alone—it is only May 4 to-day—we have had requests for 3,000 copies of the pamphlet Notes for Applicants for local authorities to issue to individual inquirers. This compares with 4,400 in the whole of April, 1954, and 1,450 in the whole of June, 1953. That means that more than twice as many applications have been received in the first four days of May of this year, after the issue of the circular, as in the whole of June, 1953, so I think I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, that we are doing our best to let this information become as widely known as possible.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am grateful to the noble Lord. That of course covers the loans as well?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes.
LORD GREENHILL: Were the applications from individuals or from local authorities?
LORD MANCROFT: From local authorities for issue to individuals. The noble Viscount also referred to another point about publicity. He referred to the power of the local authorities to make loans for repairs, the reluctance of the authorities to do so and the ignorance of the owners of these facilities. My right honourable friend is to-day issuing a circular to local authorities reminding them of, amongst other things, this power. This circular (I have a copy of it here) will be given the widest publicity. If noble Lords are interested, it is Circular No. 42 of 1954.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said that local authorities are not satisfied because they would like large schemes for demolition. That is also, of course, the

351
desire of Her Majesty's Government. Patching is a supplementary provision, to be invoked only where, even with large schemes for clearance, it is not practicable to clear all the slums in the first five years or so. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, also, if I understood him aright, wanted local authorities to be compelled to make improvement grants.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: Yes.
LORD MANCROFT: One or two other noble Lords made that point, too. I am afraid that I cannot agree with that. I think it might lead to unfortunate results. It would mean constant and detailed interference in local administration of a kind which my right honourable friend would not wish to contemplate. In effect, he would have to interfere to overrule the local authorities whenever the latter turned down an application for a grant without proper cause. I think it would result in a good deal of friction. I will look at the point more carefully, but that is my first reaction to it.
LORD WOLVERTON: I did not go so far as that. The noble Lord has referred to what other noble Lords said. I said that, if the applications complied with the conditions and the local authority entertained them, then they should give a grant of the full 50 per cent. That is not going as far as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, went.
LORD MANCROFT: I agree.
LORD GREENHILL: The underlying assumption is that the applicant wishes to have the grant and the local authority refuse to give it. I do not think that is justified. Owners are afraid to apply for grants.
LORD MANCROFT: Perhaps, if the noble Lord has any evidence of that, he would like to talk to me about it in more detail. It is getting late. I have been asked a large number of other questions in this debate. I have tried to deal with the more important of them. I will see that the other questions are properly dealt with and that in due course your Lordships receive what I hope will be a satisfactory answer.
I have been asked one question by all noble Lords opposite, and by several
352
noble Lords on this side of the House, concerning the future stages of this Bill. My noble friend who advises me in these matters is perfectly prepared to allow the House to have as full and detailed a debate as is necessary for this measure. There is no question whatever of rushing it or skimping it. I will, however, say this in defence of my right honourable friend the Minister, to rebut any idea that this matter has been "skimped" in another place. Ninety-nine long hours were devoted to it. Admittedly, it is a long and detailed Bill but ninety-nine hours is a pretty long time to devote to it. That, of course, is nothing whatever to do with us in this House. We will devote to it, as we always do with any Bill, the full time necessary to give it proper and worthy consideration.
I should like to end on this note—it has been emphasised by several noble Lords sitting behind me. This Bill must not be taken by itself. It must not be regarded in isolation. It is only part of a solution to part of a problem. It must be read in conjunction with the whole of the rest of the Government's housing policy, a policy of which I say, quite unashamedly, I think that the Government have every reason to be extremely proud. This Bill is merely one step forward in the great housing drive. It brings us one day nearer the time when, as my noble and learned friend so graphically put it, the child will turn round to its father and say: "Father, what was a slum?" This matter cannot be taken in isolation, nor can the problem rest solely with the Government. It is part of the Government's whole plan towards the fulfilment of their pledges, towards the completion of their great housing campaign. For the part that this Bill can play in this great housing campaign, I confidently recommend it to your Lordships for a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (HOLLAND HOUSE) AMEND MENT BILL [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day); and read 1a.
House adjourned at three minutes before seven o'clock.