Sitting of 27 May 1954

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CAERNARVON CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION

    Grammar School Pupils (Leaving Age)
    Mr. Morleyasked the Minister of Education how many boys and girls left secondary grammar schools during the school year 1952–53 without taking the General Certificate of Education.
    The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh):Information on this particular point is not available, but 8,124 boys and 9,835 girls left grant-aided grammar schools in England and Wales during the educational year ending 31st July, 1953, before reaching the age of 16 years.
    Mr. Morley:What steps is the right hon. Lady taking to persuade children to remain longer in the grammar schools?
    Miss Horsbrugh:The position is improving, and I am glad to say that there is a steady fall in the proportion of those who leave early. In 1953, the number of children who left before the age of 16 represented 18 per cent. of all those who left grant-aided schools in the year, and is a smaller percentage than ever before.

    H.M. Inspectors
    Mr. Morleyasked the Minister of Education how many of Her Majesty's inspectors reached the age of 60 years during 1953; and, of these, how many were retained in service after reaching the age of 60 years.
    Miss Horsbrugh:Fourteen of Her Majesty's inspectors reached the age of 60 during 1953. Nine of them have by now retired at ages varying between 60 years 3 months and 61 years 2 months. The remaining five are still in service.
    Mr. Morley:Will the right hon. Lady look into the question of the early retirement of Her Majesty's inspectors? Is she aware that one of them who was compulsorily retired at the age of 60 is now teaching in a modern secondary school? What sense is there in compelling a very able man like Sir Griffith Williams to retire at the age of 60 when he is at the height of his faculties and the crown of his experience?
    Miss Horsbrugh:It is generally the aim of my Department, as in the Civil Service generally, to retain willing officers beyond the age of 60, but the retention of inspectors, as of other civil servants, depends on fitness and efficiency and considerations attaching to their particular posts. The man whom the hon. Member named was not an inspector. It is the case that some inspectors do retire and take up teaching.
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Minister of Education the total number of Her Majesty's inspectors; how many of these are inspecting independent schools; and what are her intentions regarding increasing the numbers of this last category
    Miss Horsbrugh:There are 539 of Her Majesty's inspectors in England and Wales, most of whom may sometimes visit independent schools; none deals exclusively with them.
    Mr. Johnson:Does the Minister think it would be a good thing to take some of those inspecting State schools, where many teachers feel that the inspectors' job is superfluous, and use them to inspect many of the small, inefficient, fee-paying, independent schools? Only in that way shall we ever implement Part III of the Butler Act.
    Miss Horsbrugh:The inspection of independent schools is now going on. I would prefer to see the same body of inspectors inspecting maintained and independent schools. I think that that would give the right background. The very fact that before we can bring in Part III we have to inspect a school does not give the power to do what we can do if Part III had been brought in.
    Mr. Harold Davies:When looking into the recruitment of the inspectorate of schools, will the right hon. Lady see that recruitment is made from those who have had practical teaching experience in all types of schools in preference to those who have had no such experience but have come straight to the inspectorate from university?
    Miss Horsbrugh:If the hon. Member would like further details, perhaps he will put a Question on the Order Paper. I think that most hon. Members would agree that on the whole the recruitment of the inspectorate has been well done and our inspectors are very much looked up to throughout the country.

    Science Graduates
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Education how many science graduates entered the teaching profession during 1953; and what were the comparable figures during 1948 and 1938, respectively.
    Miss Horsbrugh:This information is not available, but I can tell my hon. Friend that 671 graduates with degrees in mathematics and science completed their professional training as teachers in 1953, compared with 522 in 1938, and that the number of teachers in maintained schools who were known to hold degrees in mathematics and science increased by about 350 in the year ending 31st March, 1953.
    Mr. Gower:In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether she has any information whether these people who enter teaching remain permanently or stay only for a short time?
    Miss Horsbrugh:If my hon. Friend wants to know the exact time they have been in teaching, he had better put down a Question.

    Homosexuality
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education why, in the case sent to her by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, a man, now sentenced for offences against pupils, should have been accepted into a training college for teachers after being found guilty of gross indecency in the Army; and what steps she is taking to prevent such a thing from happening again.
    Miss Horsbrugh:This man was accepted in 1946 for training as a teacher under the special arrangements then made for men with war service. In the conditions of that time it was not always found possible to make such detailed inquiries into character as would normally be made, but I am satisfied that at the present time training colleges exercise great care in considering applications for admission.
    Dr. King:While no one wishes to make a general rule of holding a man's previous record against him forever, is the Minister aware that the whole House is united in seeking to prevent convicted homosexuals from teaching in our schools and will be with her in every effort she makes to strengthen the precautions which can be taken to prevent that happening?
    Miss Horsbrugh:I am sure that I would have the support of the whole House in this matter and that in these things we are all agreed, but these convictions were not known. I think that in the training colleges we now have better schemes for thoroughly going into the references as to character and everything else.
    Mr. Lewis:Does the right hon. Lady remember that three or four months ago she said, on the general question, that she was going to consult the Home Secretary to see whether between them they could take some further action on a general basis? May I ask whether or not she has had those discussions?
    Miss Horsbrugh:My right hon. and learned Friend and I have had discussions and discussions are going on. I know the House will realise that the matter has to be dealt with very carefully and that when we bring forward a scheme it has to be a good one.

    New Towns (Assistance)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Education, in view of the much higher birth rate in the new towns and the existing high proportion of children in these localities, if she has given consideration to the financial and other difficulties arising from these facts, with a view to granting special assistance to the appropriate education authorities, both now and in the future.
    Miss Horsbrugh:I see no reason for giving special financial assistance outside the present education grant formula, which already takes account, amongst other factors, of the number of children to be educated in the area of each authority and the capacity of the authority to pay for their education.
    Mr. Sorensen:Is it not a fact that the new towns stand in a different category seeing that they are the result of a national decision and have a most unusual burden through the high incidence of the birthrate? In these circumstances, will the right hon. Lady sympathetically reconsider the matter?
    Miss Horsbrugh:If the hon. Member considers the grant formula he will see that it deals with this question. In addition to making a grant of 60 per cent. on all recognised expenditure, there is also a capitation grant of £6 per child and a deduction of the product of a 30d. rate.
    Mr. Remnant:Will my right hon. Friend take care to see that other schools, particularly in the rural areas, are not pushed into the background by the claims of the new towns schools which may be more in the public eye?
    Miss Horsbrugh:I quite agree with my hon. Friend about the difficulties we are facing. We have to see that every child has a chance of going to school and, until we have sufficient schools for these children coming into new towns, new housing estates and so on, we cannot do what we all want to do—build more schools for re-organisation.

    Handicapped Children
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Education how many physically handicapped children are now receiving special educational facilities; how many should receive these, but are not doing so; and
    588
    what consideration has been given to the need of increasing the facilities.
    Miss Horsbrugh:In December, 1953, local education authorities in England and Wales were providing special educational treatment for 6,449 physically handicapped pupils accommodated in special schools (other than hospital schools), independent schools and boarding homes. Authorities were at the same date seeking special school places for 1,613 physically handicapped children. The facilities are being continuously increased.
    Mr. Sorensen:Could the right hon. Lady indicate what those facilities are in view of the fact that there is this large number still without proper educational services?
    Miss Horsbrugh:At present 700 places are being provided, or are shortly to be put in hand, which I think will at any rate go some way to meet this need.
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Minister of Education how many handicapped children in Warwickshire are still on the waiting list for entry into special schools compared with the figures for 1952 and 1953.
    Miss Horsbrugh:The latest return from the local education authority shows that in December last 302 handicapped children were awaiting places in special schools. This compares with 230 in December, 1952, and 251 in December, 1951.
    Mr. Johnson:Would the right hon. Lady agree that those figures are not too satisfactory? Can she tell us what plans she has for getting down these increasing numbers, particularly in regard to the unfortunate class of epileptic school children?
    Miss Horsbrugh:I quite agree that the figures are not satisfactory and we want more places, but, out of the 302 children, 239 are educationally subnormal. Since the date of the last return, 40 places have been provided for the education of subnormal children and a further 100 places for those children will be provided in this year's school building programme.
    Mr. Johnson:Is the right hon. Lady making any special effort for the unfortunate class I mentioned, epileptic children?
    Miss Horsbrugh:Yes, but there are some cases where, if the illness is not very severe, it is recommended that they should not be put in special schools. We are looking into the matter and trying to get the best accommodation.

    Part-time Education
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Education, approximately, how many young people are now receiving part-time education.
    Miss Horsbrugh:In the educational year 1952–53 there were some 280,000 part-time day and 791,000 evening students under 21 years of age.
    Mr. Sorensen:Could the right hon. Lady say whether she has had reports on the education of these young people and whether, in fact, this scheme is proving satisfactory?
    Miss Horsbrugh:It is proving extremely satisfactory, and I am glad that the number from the part-time day schools is going up.

    School Milk(Surplus Supplies)
    Mr. Stewardasked the Minister of Education what becomes of the milk allocated to schoolchildren which is surplus to their requirements.
    Miss Horsbrugh:School milk is ordered only for those children who are expected to attend and who wish to drink it. If there is any to spare it is given to the children who need it most.

    School Transport, Croydon
    Mr. Doughtyasked the Minister of Education if she will take steps to arrange for the provision of transport for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of pupils living in East Surrey who attend the Regina Coeli School, South Croydon, in accordance with the wishes of their parents.
    Miss Horsbrugh:The Surrey local education authority is not obliged to provide transport for these children or to pay their travelling expenses, and I should not feel justified in requesting it to do so.
    Mr. Doughty:In view of the hardship caused to the parents of these children, who have to pay for the transport themselves, which is not in conformity with
    590
    the spirit and probably the letter of the 1944 Act, will she look into this matter again?
    Miss Horsbrugh:I have look into it very carefully but, as I have informed my hon. Friend, this school has not been recognised as efficient; it is an independent school. For that reason, I cannot ask the Surrey local authority to pay transport to this school, which has not yet been recognised as efficient.

    Nursery Schools
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the changed circumstances, she will now withdraw Circular No. 155 which was originally introduced by her Department in 1947.
    Miss Horsbrugh:I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on 15th April last.
    Mr. Lewis:I do not know what that reply was, but the right hon. Lady has written to me on the matter. We appreciate that in the years immediately following the war the circular was no doubt necessary, but in view of the improvements brought about since 1947, particularly between 1947 and 1950, can she now see her way clear to withdraw the circular?
    Miss Horsbrugh:The hon. Gentleman has suggested that great improvements took place between 1947 and 1950, but my predecessor in the Ministry in 1950 did not think that it would be a good thing to withdraw the circular. As we all know, there has been a greater improvement since then. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Member that in January, 1951, there were 454 nursery schools and by January, 1954, the number had risen to 477.

    Independent Schools (Inspections)
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Education how many independent schools have been inspected and reported on under the arrangements announced in Circular No. 196.
    Miss Horsbrugh:Three thousand seven hundred and eighty-four.
    Mr. Stewart:Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that the effect of the arrangements under the circular in keeping up the standard of education in these schools is commensurate with the expense entailed to her Department?
    Miss Horsbrugh:Yes, Sir, I certainly think that the arrangements are very well worth while.

    Gateshead
    Mr. J. T. Hallasked the Minister of Education what accommodation now exists in the county borough of Gateshead to enable children to qualify for the secondary technical schools and for the secondary grammar schools; and what percentage this is of the total in each case.
    Miss Horsbrugh:In January, 1953, the latest date for which I have figures, the authority were maintaining a grammar school with about 700 pupils on roll. This provided, together with some places which are available to the authority at independent and direct grant grammar schools, for about 9 per cent. of the 13 year old age group. The maintained school provision is in course of being doubled by the construction of a second grammar school of the same size.
    Mr. Hall:Is the right hon. Lady aware that the post-war record of this authority has been very good and that there has been much concern about the aspersions cast upon the town in the recent education debate? Will the right hon. Lady continue to help the local authority to improve the position?
    Miss Horsbrugh:Yes, most certainly, Sir. I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means when he refers to aspersions being cast upon the town in the debate. I should be sorry if aspersions were cast upon any authority which was trying to do its job. I certainly did not cast aspersions. It is because I know that grammar school accommodation is wanted that the new school has been included. Work on the new school, which is the same size as the other, being for 700 pupils, started in 1953.

    Playing Fields
    Miss Baconasked the Minister of Education what instructions she has recently issued to local authorities with
    592
    respect to the size of playing fields for girls' and boys' secondary schools.
    Miss Horsbrugh:For most sizes of secondary school the minimum area of playing field required is reduced by the Standards for School Premises Regulations, 1954, which came into effect last month. A distinction is also made between the areas required for boys and for girls because the latter normally use smaller pitches.
    Miss Bacon:Can the right hon. Lady tell me what reason she has for saying that girls usually use smaller pitches than men for their playing fields? Has she not heard of hockey as well as football? Does she not agree that this is sex discrimination at a very early age?
    Miss Horsbrugh:The hon. Lady has asked me whether I know that there are such games as football and hockey. She will appreciate that although girls play hockey, there may yet be sex discrimination at our schools in that they do not play football.
    Mr. Noel-Baker:Do we understand the right hon. Lady to say that she is reducing the size of playing fields? Is this not a most unfortunate and serious instance of class discrimination in facilities for children?
    Miss Horsbrugh:It is certainly not class discrimination. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes, I will send him information about the changes which are being made. I am sure that he will agree that the acreage in the case of the larger schools was too great. The changes are in respect of schools of the 1,500-pupil size. In the case of the smaller schools no changes are being made.

    Halls and Classrooms
    Miss Baconasked the Minister of Education what instructions she has recently issued to local authorities with respect to the size of halls and classrooms in secondary schools.
    Miss Horsbrugh:None, Sir. The Standards for School Premises Regulations, 1954, specify new minimum total areas of teaching accommodation for one and two form entry secondary schools, but they require no change in the size of individual rooms in these or larger schools.

    U.N.E.S.C.O. REPORT (WORLD NEWS AGENCY)
    Mr. George Craddockasked the Minister of Education whether her attention has been drawn to a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Report suggesting the establishment of a world co-operative agency for the dissemination of news on an international basis; and whether she will instruct her representative at the relevant meeting to give this proposal her support.
    Miss Horsbrugh:Yes, Sir, but the Report merely discusses a suggestion, and I am not aware of any actual proposal.
    Mr. Craddock:Will the right hon. Lady answer the latter part of the Question? May I ask her to be good enough to exercise discretion and pressure with our representative?
    Miss Horsbrugh:I thought I had answered both parts of the Question. The first part asked whether my attention had been drawn to the Report, and the answer was, "Yes, Sir." The second part asked me to support a proposal, and I said that as far as I know there is no actual proposal but there is a suggestion that the matter might be discussed.
    Sir H. Williams:Since my right hon. Friend answered the Question, I presume that she understood it. Is this information used on an international basis, or is it issued in one language to people who do not understand it?
    Miss Horsbrugh:I think I understood the Question. If my hon. Friend would like further information, he will find it in the Report entitled "News Agencies—their Structure and Operations." It is compiled by U.N.E.S.C.O. and copies are obtainable in this country through H.M. Stationery Office.

    CEYLON (DEPORTATION ORDER)
    Dr. Strossasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what information he has now received from the United Kingdom High Commissioners concerned, in response to the request made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent six weeks ago, regarding the circumstances in which Mrs. Henry, a British citizen, was deported
    594
    from Ceylon, and was refused permission to leave the aeroplane in India; and what representations he has made.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster):I have written to the hon. Member.
    Dr. Stross:Having received a letter from the hon. and learned Gentleman yesterday after a lapse of eight weeks, might I ask him two short questions, for the principle of the liberty of the subject is involved here? Is he aware that another woman, a United States citizen, was deported from Ceylon at the same time and that the United States Embassy came to her assistance and knew all about her departure? Also, how does it happen that a British citizen, who was being deported after a few hours' notice from a Commonwealth country, was told, so I am informed by a letter, that it was up to her friend to make all the arrangements when, in fact, that friend was held incommunicado by the police until four o'clock, which was after the aircraft had left?
    Mr. Foster:I am aware that an American citizen was deported at the same time. I am not aware that the American Embassy gave that person help. According to my information, it is not correct that Mr. Kassman was held incommunicado.
    Dr. Stross:As there is some difference of opinion on the facts, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    BASUTOLAND (ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS COMMITTEE)
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to what extent the Administrative Reforms Committee, composed of Sir Henry Moore and Mr. R. P. Bush, now touring Basutoland, will have the power to recommend that membership of the National Council shall be elective and that it shall have legislative functions.
    Mr. Foster:The Committee's inquiry is concerned with the structure of Native Administration and the development of local government institutions but not with legislative functions.
    Mr. Brockway:Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have in my hand a questionnaire issued by the Committee which asks whether the present system of gaining membership of the Basutoland Council is satisfactory? Will the Committee also inquire into the question of elected members of the Basutoland Council? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Council is asking for legislative functions?
    Mr. Foster:I am not aware of what the hon. Gentleman has in his hand. Her Majesty's Government do not consider that there is need for an inquiry into legislative functions. They hold the view that the Committee should inquire into the development of local government institutions.
    Mr. Brockway:Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he gave the impression that the Committee was not to deal with the question of elected representatives? I have drawn his attention to a questionnaire issued by the Committee to those who are to give evidence which asks whether the present system of gaining membership is satisfactory via the election of four members of each district council and nominations—
    Sir H. Butcher:On a point of order. Might I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the purpose of a question is to elicit information from Ministers or to give them information?
    Mr. Speaker:I was full of hope that we should come to the question in due course.
    Mr. Brockway:I apologise. I did not hear what you said, Mr. Speaker, but I hope I shall be in order. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Committee has issued a questionnaire which repudiates the interpretation which he has now placed upon the functions of the Committee?
    Mr. Foster:No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Development Areas
    Mr. Greyasked the President of the Board of Trade the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the future of the Development Areas.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss):The policy of Her Majesty's Government is to continue to strengthen and diversify the industrial structure of the Development Areas. My right hon. Friend has now completed his examination of these areas and does not consider that he would be justified at present in proposing to remove any of them from the schedule to the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945.
    Mr. Grey:While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply, may I inform him that the statement will give the greatest confidence in the Development Areas because there has been a lot of uncertainty about what the future will be.
    Mr. Dalton:While welcoming the statement about there being no intention in the mind of the Government to remove any areas from the Schedule, may I ask if the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that in nearly every Development Area unemployment still remains obstinately above the national average? Will he therefore continue vigorously to use the powers conferred on him by the Distribution of Industry Act?
    Mr. Strauss:The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in his facts. At present the national average is 1·5 per cent., but in the North-East Lancashire Development Area the proportion of unemployed is · of 1 per cent.
    Mr. Dalton:What is the proportion in Durham, in South Wales and industrial Scotland?
    Mr. Strauss:If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question to which such an answer is relevant, I shall give him all the figures. I was merely pointing out that the statement contained in his first supplementary question was wrong. The policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government was stated in my answer to the Question.
    Mr. Hamilton:While agreeing that Development Areas are important, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that the developing of mining areas, as distinct from the Development Areas, is just as important, and that attention should be paid to them?
    Mr. Strauss:The hon. Member will appreciate that that is quite a different question, though I think I know what he has in mind.
    Mr. Fort:May I ask if my right hon. Friend is proposing to publish a report on the Development Areas after his recent consideration of how they are working?
    Mr. Strauss:There has been no decision on that matter.

    Imported Commodities (Licences)
    Mr. Jannerasked the President of the Board of Trade what commodities are imported under licences granted to importers on the basis of their volume of trading before 1939; and, in respect of these commodities, what proportion of the total quantity imported is granted to each of the six importers with the largest quotas.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory):As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to the second part of the Question, it is not the practice of the Board of Trade to disclose details of the extent of an individual importer's business. The figures, therefore, give only the proportion of the total of permitted imports accounted for by the six largest licences combined.
    Mr. Janner:As the right hon. Gentleman states that the answer is a long one, does he not consider it is high time that it was made very much shorter and that new people might enter into business without interference by the State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as the right hon. Gentleman is such a strong supporter of private enterprise?
    Mr. Amory:In general, I find myself much more in accord with the view expressed by the hon. Member today than on many previous occasions. We agree that this pre-war basis is not a good one and, wherever we can find an alternative which fits the facts and does as good or better justice, we gladly avail ourselves of it.
    Following is the answer:
    The commodities for which import licences are, as a rule, granted to importers on the basis of their imports before the war only are those for fresh oranges and grapefruit from the United States to be imported under
    598
    Section 550 of the United States Mutual Security Act; watches, watch movements and clocks from Western Europe; and learned, scientific, technical, religious and children's educational books from the dollar area and the Soviet Bloc. Licences for pork from countries outside the sterling and dollar areas will also be granted on this basis but none has yet been issued. There are a few other commodities for which some 90 per cent. of licences are issued on a pre-war trading basis.
    The answer to the second part of the Question is as follows:
    Fresh Oranges and Grapefruit: 44 per cent. (of slightly over 90 per cent. of the quota licensed on 25th May).
    Watches: 39 per cent.
    Clocks: 55 per cent.
    Stop Watches: 78 per cent.
    Watch and Clock repair materials: 66 per cent.
    Learned, scientific, technical, religious and children's education books: 31 per cent.

    American Fruit
    Mr. Remnantasked the President of the Board of Trade for what fruits from the United States of America he is now considering the grant of import licences; what are the values; and what period the licences will cover.
    Mr. Amory:None, Sir. Licences have recently been issued for limited quantities of prunes, fresh and canned grapefruit and fresh oranges under the Mutual Security Act. Because of our balance of payments position, we cannot at present afford private imports for free dollars.
    Mr. Remnant:Is my right hon. Friend aware that a recent issue of "Fruit Intelligence" contained invitations for applications for the issue of licences for the import of fruit? Does he understand that the Empire is willing to supply all the fruit we require and should not preference be given to them in the markets of this country?
    Mr. Amory:The first part of that supplementary question has reference to the statement I have already made, that licences have recently been issued. Regarding the second part, by hon. Friend will remember that traditionally we were big buyers of fruit from the United States. This fruit I have mentioned is not costing dollars.
    Mr. Beswick:Although this fruit does not cost dollars, what are the implications of the Mutual Security Act? Is it not a

    599
    condition that we should use equivalent sums of money in this country for the purchase of arms?
    Mr. Amory:Yes, Sir, broadly speaking the effect is that the sterling equivalent of the cost of the fruit in question will be added to our defence expenditure.
    Mr. Gaitskell:Is it not the case that the fruit is a free gift, and that the money we pay for it is given back to us in aid of the defence programme? Will the right hon. Gentleman make that plain?
    Mr. Amory:Yes, Sir, what the right hon. Gentleman has said is exactly the fact. It is given conditionally on an equivalent amount of sterling being added to the defence expenditure.
    Mr. Beresford Craddock:In considering this matter, will my right hon. Friend bear fully in mind the position of the citrus industry in the West Indies?

    Shipbuilding (U.S.S.R. Orders)
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade to make a further statement on the policy of the Government on the obtaining of orders from the Soviet Government for new ships.
    Mr. Amory:It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to approve the export of ships to the U.S.S.R. subject to the requirements of security. In so far as orders may be affected by strategic controls, I am not in a position to add anything to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) on 25th May.
    Mr. Williams:Can my right hon. Friend make it clear whether or not the Government expect shipbuilders to seek orders from the Russian Government, because there seems to be a considerable amount of misunderstanding about this?
    Mr. Amory:I think that the point is covered by the first part of my answer. So far as the present position goes, if any tenderer, or anyone thinking of tendering, will communicate with my Department we will give such information as possible about the existing situation.
    Mr. Fernyhough:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that practically every other N.A.T.O. Power has for some time
    600
    been building ships for the Soviets, and is it not strange that a shipbuilder from Britain who recently returned with orders valued at £5 million was refused the necessary export licence by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Mr. Amory:I am not sure of the particular order to which the hon. Member refers. Certainly one substantial inquiry has been received, but at present, on the information we have there are difficulties on strategic grounds.
    Mr. Drayson:Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no ships will be supplied from Danish, German or other European yards which cannot be supplied from yards in Great Britain?
    Mr. Amory:I have no reason to suppose that the other member nations co-operating with us in the discussions at present taking place in Paris do not adhere to the agreements we have.
    Mr. S. Silverman:Having regard to the connection between this Question and the previous Question on the Order Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a great many people in this country would willingly give up the "Dead Sea fruit" for the right to build ships instead of making arms?

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Provision for Old Age (Report)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the approximate date upon which he anticipates that he will receive the report of the committee under the chairmanship of Sir Thomas Phillips which is reviewing the economic and financial problems involved in making provision for old age.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter):No, Sir. I am afraid I have no information about when this Committee is likely to report.
    Mr. Gower:Did my right hon. Friend note that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance recently promised that he would do everything possible to expedite the completion of the Quinquennial Review, and will my right hon. Friend similarly do all in his power to expedite the completion of the findings of

    601
    this Committee which are so important to old-age pensioners and other elderly people?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:The Committee is well aware of the fact that the sooner it can report the better.
    Mr. Gaitskell:Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he expects the report at least before the end of the year?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I would rather not speculate about precise dates.
    Mr. T. Brown:In view of the answer of the Financial Secretary, may I ask if he will endeavour to implement the promise made only this week by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance that he proposed at an early date to bring the pensions value to the 1946 basis?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:That is, of course, another question.

    Tobacco Tokens
    Mr. Gowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for old-age pensioners who are non-smokers to receive some token which will entitle them to some compensatory benefit from public funds similar to that given to pensioners who are smokers by partial relief from Tobacco Duty.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:No, Sir.
    Mr. Gower:Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is only fair that pensioners who are non-smokers should have some form of token which would entitle them to buy sweets or chocolates in place of the tobacco and cigarettes which pensioners who are smokers may obtain?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that this scheme was introduced so as to secure that old-age pensioners who were smokers did not suffer from the sharp increase in the Tobacco Duty made in 1947. Similar considerations do not apply to the articles which he mentioned.

    Heavy Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received during the past 12 months with regard to the national economic advantage to be gained by legalising higher
    602
    speed limits for heavy goods vehicles in this country; what consultations he has had on this subject with the various Ministers concerned; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Reginald Maudling):My right hon. Friend has received representations on two separate occasions and he has referred them to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, as this is a matter primarily for him. With regard to the third part of the Question, I think the Government's attitude to this problem has been made clear in a number of previous statements made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
    Mr. Nabarro:From the point of view of industrial production, which is of paramount interest in this regard, is this not a question for the Treasury, and not for the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation? As to the controversy that has now been going on for several years, can my hon. Friend anticipate any sort of solution at an early date?
    Mr. Maudling:This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, who has answered many Questions on this subject, some of them, I think, from my hon. Friend. I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the economic considerations involved.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton:Will the hon. Gentleman also ask the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the very serious difficulties which already face pedestrians on zebra crossings and ask him not to increase their problems by supporting the representations of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)?

    Ballot Papers (Tax)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the present imposition of a 25 per cent. Purchase Tax on election ballot papers is a hardship on local borough councils who have to meet this cost at municipal elections and pass it on to the ratepayers; that in non-contested elections where ballot papers do not have to be printed this charge is not incurred; and, as this means that there is a tax on contested local elections, if he will remove this tax.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I do not think that there is here any element of hardship, though I have no doubt that local authorities would, like other taxpayers, be glad to be relieved of tax. It is, I am afraid, impossible to deal with ballot papers separately from other forms of stationery used for this and similar purposes.
    Mr. Lewis:Surely, there could be an arrangement whereby local authorities could have ballot papers free of Purchase Tax? Why should there be a tax when an election is contested, and no tax in the case of uncontested elections? Surely, the hon. Gentleman can do something to remedy this unfair position?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:The reason why no tax is charged in uncontested elections is that the local authority does not buy any ballot papers; at least, not if it is a properly managed local authority. On the main point, the hon. Gentleman will understand that, once we start picking and choosing among items, we shall really be faced with an intolerable situation.

    Exports to Chile (Exchange Rates)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that British exporters to Chile are not penalised by exchange-rate variations, as suggested in the correspondence sent to him.
    Mr. Maudling:The reason for the present sterling-peso rate in Chile is that Chile is very short of sterling. Chile has now begun to sell copper to the United Kingdom for sterling, and this should improve prospects for United Kingdom sales to this market.
    Mr. Osborne:In view of the fact that between the American dollar and the peso there are six different rates, which can be used to help American exporters of American goods to Chile, and since they get a much greater depreciation allowance than British exporters, will my hon. Friend see what he can do to help us, because otherwise we shall be driven to do what the Germans have done on a barter basis. Is he aware that there is much heavy industrial equipment waiting to be exported to Chile if we could only get the right rate?
    Mr. Maudling:The Government are very anxious that British exports to Chile should be increased, but the fact is that there is a free exchange market in Chile, and Chile happens to be shorter of sterling than of dollars, and that is reflected in the sterling-dollar rates. We hope Chile will begin to earn more sterling through the exports of copper to the United Kingdom, and that naturally will be reflected in the free market quotations of sterling.

  AGRICULTURE

    Crichel Down Inquiry (Report)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement on the Report of the Crichel Down inquiry.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture when he expects to receive and to publish the Report of the Crichel Down case.
    The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Sir Thomas Dugdale):I have received Sir Andrew Clark's Report, and I expect to publish it shortly. I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Crouch:May I ask what my right hon. Friend means by "shortly"? Does he mean before Whitsun or after? Does he realise that there is great interest in this Report, not only in my constituency, but in the whole country?
    Sir T. Dugdale:I hope very much it will be before Whitsun, but I ask the House to remember that the inquiry took seven days, that the Report is a long one, that I have had it in my hands for a fortnight and that I naturally want to study it in great detail before reporting to the House.
    Sir W. Smithers:Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that this Report will be issued without alteration or amendment? Further, has he seen the "News Chronicle" of yesterday, which contains a summary of all the supplementary questions that I should like to ask him?
    Sir T. Dugdale:I am very well aware of the feeling which my hon. Friend has towards his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
    Mr. T. Williams:Is there any possibility that the Report may be issued between now and next Thursday?
    Sir T. Dugdale:I cannot commit myself to any particular date.
    Sir W. Smithers:Why not?
    Sir T. Dugdale:I have said that I hope it will be before Whitsun.

    Smallholdings (Land Acquisition)
    Mr. Bullardasked the Minister of Agriculture how much additional land has been acquired for smallholdings by county councils between March, 1953, and March 1954, or between the latest convenient dates; and how many new holdings have been established.
    Sir T. Dugdale:Between 1st April, 1952, and 31st March, 1953, 2,091 acres of land were acquired for smallholdings by county councils which, in addition to the enlargement of some existing holdings, will eventually result in the establishment of 56 new full-time holdings. Thirty-three new full-time holdings were actually established during the year, partly as the result of acquisition in earlier years. I shall not know the corresponding figures for 1953–54 until all county councils have reported to me.
    Mr. Bullard:Can my right hon. Friend say whether he thinks these figures are tending to increase or whether the rather slow rate of progress which we have been making up to the present is only being maintained? Is there any indication of an increase?
    Sir T. Dugdale:I hope to have the figures complete by the end of June, and, as at present anticipated, I think they are likely to show an increase over 1952–53.
    Major Legge-Bourke:Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, in some areas, there is a demand for part-time smallholdings, and can he give an assurance that that matter is having attention?
    Mr. T. Williams:Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, in this House in 1947, all parties voted for proper smallholdings as distinct from part-time ones?
    Sir T. Dugdale:I think it was so, but that is a different Question from the one on the Order Paper. Earlier on in this Parliament, I made a very detailed and definite statement on the position regarding part-time smallholdings which I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) found satisfactory in his part of the world.
    Dr. King:In view of the importance of extending smallholdings, would not the Minister agree that this is a very disappointing figure, and will he say what he is doing to encourage local authorities to provide more smallholdings?
    Sir T. Dugdale:I do not accept that it is disappointing. These smallholdings are extremely expensive. The most important thing is that those already in existence should be well equipped in order to give a livelihood to the people on them.

    Dispossession Orders
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture in view of his inability to consult the Inland Revenue Department as to the names and addresses of farmers who have consistently farmed at a loss, what steps he proposes to take to ensure that no farmer who can prove that he has farmed profitably shall be dispossessed of his farm.
    Sir T. Dugdale:In determining whether an occupier of a farm should be dispossessed under Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947, I must have regard to the rules of good husbandry. I feel sure that those occupiers who are obtaining a reasonable return from farming, while maintaining the value of their land, will at the same time be fulfilling their responsibilities under the rules of good husbandry.
    Sir W. Smithers:Will not the Minister introduce legislation so as to enable farmers who are threatened with dispossession to appeal on points of fact to a traditional court of English law?
    Sir T. Dugdale:That is an entirely different question. An appeal on a point of law is provided for the farmer in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, now in another place.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture in view of his decision that efficient farming means farming at a profit, what instructions he proposes to give to agricultural executive committees to help them to judge by inspection whether a farmer is making a profit or a loss.
    Sir T. Dugdale:No instructions are required. County agricultural executive committees are, in the light of the practical experience of their members, well able to judge whether an occupier of agricultural land is complying with the rules of good husbandry.
    Sir W. Smithers:Is my right hon. Friend aware that the many letters which I have sent to him prove that many of these inspections are nothing short of a farce?
    Sir T. Dugdale:I do not accept that at all. Agricultural committees consist of experienced farmers who know the industry and are extremely careful in their work.

    Production Incentives
    Sir R. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture what incentive and assistance the Government will give to enable producers to reach the target indicated in paragraph 11 of the recent White Paper on the 1954 Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, which states that expansion of net output to 60 per cent. above pre-war is still a major objective.
    Sir T. Dugdale:Paragraph 42 of the White Paper suggests that the desired expansion should take the form of more beef, and perhaps more mutton and lamb; a steady improvement in crop yields; and a saving of feed imports partly by the improved management and use of grass and partly by skill and economy in the use of concentrated feedingstuffs. Increased crop yields and a saving on feedingstuffs should be directly to the farmers' advantage.
    I expect the incentive to increased beef and mutton output to come primarily from the demand of the free market coupled with the level of guarantees for these commodities, and assisted by the calf-rearing, hill-cattle and livestock rearing subsidies. The Government's wide range of other production grants,
    608
    particularly those for drainage, liming, fertilisers and ploughing-up, constitute, with the advisory services of my Department, further substantial incentives and assistance.
    Sir R. De la Bère:Is anything being done to assist the poultry keepers, many of whom will not be able to survive?
    Sir T. Dugdale:If my hon. Friend will study the White Paper and see the guaranteed price for eggs, he will realise that a very great deal has been done for poultry farmers.
    Sir R. De la Bère:How long is it going on?
    Mr. G. Brown:In the absence of any short-term or long-term policy, are not many subsidies just money down the drain?
    Sir T. Dugdale:The Annual Review received complete agreement from the leaders of the farming industry.
    Mr. Nabarro:Does not my right hon. Friend agree that an earnest of the success of the agricultural policy of Her Majesty's Government is the fact that in 1953 an all-time high record of 56 per cent. above pre-war production was achieved? Is he further aware that the viewpoint expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir R. De la Bère) is personal and is not that of the Conservative Party?

    Landrace Pigs (Disease)
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement about the recent outbreak of a disease among imported Landrace pigs.
    Sir T. Dugdale:Atrophic rhinitis has been confirmed amongst pigs bred from a Landrace sow imported from Sweden. This disease is transmissible by contact and, if unchecked, would have serious consequences upon efficient and economic pig production. I have therefore made Orders providing for the isolation, detention and, where necessary, slaughter of affected pigs and those in contact with them. Compensation will be payable for all pigs so slaughtered. I have also decided that for the time being no further Landrace pigs should be imported from Sweden. I regret that this step should

    609
    be necessary, particularly as an importation to which I had previously agreed for Scotland comes under the ban.
    This disease has, I understand, led to the slaughter of several leading herds in Sweden and it has caused serious losses in other countries. I am satisfied that we ought to do everything possible to stamp it out quickly before it can get a hold in this country.
    Major Anstruther-Gray:May the House take it that there is no doubt whatever that this disease originated in the Swedish imported pigs?
    Sir T. Dugdale:I think there is no doubt at all. The House may be interested to know that the pig that was affected was a boar, one of a litter of three out of a dam imported from Sweden.
    Mr. T. Williams:Before the importation of the Swedish Landrace pigs, did any of our veterinary officers go over to Sweden and contact Swedish veterinary officers to ask them whether there was a clean bill of health or not?
    Sir T. Dugdale:Yes, they did, most definitely. There is no question that the greatest possible trouble was taken. There was a quarantine in Sweden and over here, but the technical difficulty is that we cannot find out whether an animal has the disease before it actually develops it.

    Compulsory Purchase Orders
    Mr. Higgsasked the Minister of Agriculture in what circumstances and by whom the views of his Department, expressed during preliminary consultations, may be made public at an inquiry into a proposal to develop or to confirm a compulsory purchase order affecting agricultural land.
    Sir T. Dugdale:It is open to a local planning authority to quote at such inquiries the views expressed to it by my Department in preliminary consultations under the planning procedure.
    Mr. Higgs:Will my right hon. Friend consider whether it might be possible in appropriate cases to make the facts and views of his Department available to the private individual who might be seeking to defend agricultural land from development. where the position is reversed
    610
    as it were, and the local authority is seeking to take it for development?
    Sir T. Dugdale:This problem is being considered all the time. On the whole, we think that the present procedure is satisfactory. I would make it clear that the consultations taking place as a preliminary are entirely without prejudice to consideration by the appropriate Minister of representations which may be put forward on agricultural grounds at any subsequent inquiry.

    Guaranteed Prices (Farm Revenue)
    Sir R. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the reduction, in the February Price Review, of some £30 million in farm prices, he will confer with the Federation of British Industries, or some appropriate body, with a view to the industries supplying agriculture with the essentials for production being persuaded to make a contribution to the £30 million reduction in farm revenue.
    Sir T. Dugdale:The reduction to which my hon. Friend refers is an estimate of the reduction in guaranteed prices. The Government's price determinations took account of all farmers' costs, and some of these have fallen. Efficiency is also continuing to improve. It does not follow therefore from a reduction in guaranteed prices that there will be nearly the same fall in the net farm income. The cost structure of ancillary industries does not come within the scope of the Review.
    Sir R. De la Bère:Why cannot the manufacturer pay some part of this? Why does the farmer have to pay everything? Surely it is desirable that everyone should make a contribution if it is needed?
    Sir T. Dugdale:The manufacturer is not subsidised in the same way as is the farmer.
    Mr. G. Brown:Is not the Minister aware that the loss of confidence is due much more to the loss of the guaranteed market, and this is really troubling the agricultural industry?
    Sir T. Dugdale:There is no loss of confidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Responsible farmers in all parts of the

    611
    country are satisfied with the agreement reached between the Governments and their union.
    Mr. Godber:Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that what the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said is not correct, and that there is no loss of guaranteed market, which is above 60 per cent. of the level pre-war?
    Mr. T. Williams:Can the Minister tell us where is the guaranteed market for cereals?

    SOUTH-EAST ASIA(DEFENCE)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister the proposals of Her Majesty's Government regarding the member nations to be included in the proposed regional security organisation for South-East Asia.
    The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd):I have been asked to reply.
    Her Majesty's Government have not yet made any definite proposals regarding membership of the proposed regional security organisation for South-East Asia.
    Mr. Warbey:In view of the spirit of compromise which appears to be prevailing at the Geneva Conference, in which the Foreign Secretary is taking his due share, will the Government give consideration, when the time comes, to the possibility of all-in security arrangements in South-East Asia, rather than a one-sided military alliance?
    Mr. Lloyd:I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend will not exclude from his consideration any security arrangement.

    CIVIL DEFENCE (HYDROGEN BOMB)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if the speech of the Lord Privy Seal at Skegness on Sunday, 23rd May, on the adequacy of Civil Defence measures in face of the hydrogen bomb represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank):I have been asked to reply, and, using the words of the Prime Minister, the answer is "Yes, Sir."
    612
    The development of the hydrogen bomb makes the need for strong Civil Defence services even greater than before.
    Mr. Hughes:Does the appearance of the right hon. Gentleman impersonating the Prime Minister mean that our worst fears are realised? Can he assure us that his appearance there is only temporary?

    POLICE (RECRUITMENT)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many county and county borough police forces are now below the establishment; what is the reason for the failure to obtain recruits; and what is being done to encourage recruitment.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe):Of the police forces in England and Wales other than the Metropolitan Police Force, nine have vacancies of over 15 per cent. of the authorised establishment, 15 have vacancies of between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent., 42 have vacancies of between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent., 55 have vacancies of less than 5 per cent. and four have no vacancies. Recruiting difficulties persist in the main in certain large industrial areas. As regards the last part of the Question, I cannot usefully add to the statement about police recruitment in general which I made in the course of the debate on the Metropolitan police on 6th May.
    Mr. Awbery:Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the position of the police force in many of our cities is very serious? Will he review the duties performed by the police so that some of them may be performed by people who are not in the force, thus relieving the police?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe:I am glad to assure the hon. Gentleman that the subject which he asks me to review is constantly under review, and that the review will be continued.
    Mrs. Braddock:Will the Minister look again at Part II of the Oaksey Report, part of which has been implemented? It is not only wages which present difficulty in the recruitment of policemen in industrial areas, but conditions. Some of

    613
    the recommendations of the Oaksey Report might be very useful if put into operation, and would assist recruitment.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe:I would remind the hon. Lady that we have put into operation the suggestions relating to negotiating machinery and discipline. I would be very glad to have any individual suggestions which she would like to put to me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee:May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank):Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 31sT MAY—Television Bill [4th Allotted Day]: Committee stage.
Consideration of Amendments to Atomic Energy Authority Bill, which are expected to be received from another place today.
Committee and remaining stages: Supreme Court Officers (Pensions) Bill.
Superannuation (President of Industrial Court) Bill.
TUESDAY, 1ST JUNE—Television Bill [5th Allotted Day]: Committee stage (conclusion).
Motions to approve: Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme.
Draft Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) (Scotland) Scheme.
WEDNESDAY, 2ND JUNE—Conclusion of Report stage, and Third Reading of Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Bill.
The House will recall that it was agreed across the Floor of the House on Monday, 17th May, that this Bill should be completed in one sitting without a suspension of the Rule.
Second Reading: Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.
THURSDAY, 3RD JUNE—Supply [17th Allotted Day]: Committee.
The subject for debate will be announced later.
FRIDAY, 4TH JUNE—Adjournment for Whitsun Recess until Tuesday, 15th June.
Mr. H. Morrison:On the Television Bill, may I draw the attention of the Lord Privy Seal to the series of Amendments affecting the advertising of alcoholic liquors, religious questions and Sunday advertising, and ask whether, in view of their nature, the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to take off the Whips on those Amendments?
Mr. Crookshank:That is not a question I can answer at this stage.
Mr. Morrison:But would the Lord Privy Seal give it consideration? There are precedents. The Whips were taken off in connection with certain Sunday arrangements for the Festival of Britain. They were also taken off when, during the war, we discussed the proposal to open theatres on Sundays for the benefit of the troops. There are ample precedents for such matters to be debated with the Whips off.
Mr. Crookshank:That may very well be, but I have had no notice of the question. I should certainly want to consider the whole position.
Captain Waterhouse:Has my right hon. Friend had time to give further consideration to the request I made last week—that he should provide time for the House to consider the second special Report of the Estimates Committee?
Mr. Crookshank:Yes, I have found time to consider my right hon. and gallant Friend's request, but the trouble is that I cannot find time for it next week.
Mr. Beswick:Does the fact that the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill [Lords] does not appear in next week's business mean that this Bill also has been shelved?
Mr. Crookshank:No, Sir; and I cannot imagine why I should be asked a question like that.
Mr. Blenkinsop:In view of the importance of this Measure cannot the Lord Privy Seal at least say whether there is any expectation of the Bill coming forward within a reasonable time?
Mr. Crookshank:I do not see why now. After all, this is a Bill which has been through the Upper House, but at this time of year we are generally getting forward with our own Bills, in order to send them to the other place before

615
we can find time to discuss Bills which come down from there to us.
Mrs. Braddock:Would the Leader of the House say whether or not it is correct that very strong pressure has been put upon the Government by private enterprise in order that the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill [Lords] shall not be dealt with this Session?
Mr. Crookshank:I cannot be expected to cope with all the rumours which may come the hon. Lady's way.
Mr. T. Brown:Can the Leader of the House say when the Government propose to find time to debate the Motion on the Order Paper relating to the economic and social conditions of old-age pensioners?
Mr. Crookshank:I do not see any possibility next week, anyhow.
Mr. M. Stewart:The Leader of the House said that he could not imagine why he should be asked a question such as that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), but since he has been asked it could he not answer it? Because the Leader of the House is defective in imagination that is no reason why the House should not have an answer.
Mr. Crookshank:It is the hon. Gentleman who is defective in imagination, because I have answered various supplementary questions with regard to various aspects of that matter.
Mr. H. Morrison:Reverting to my remarks about the Television Bill, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not given notice of the question I put to him, but would he be prepared to make a statement at the end of Questions on Monday?
Mr. Crookshank:I cannot bind myself to do that. I have taken a note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We shall, of course, consider these things, but I cannot promise to consider at any particular time any particular question as to how the Government will deal with an Amendment in Committee.
Mr. Glenvil Hall:Would the Lord Privy Seal, when he considers this, remember that when we debated this subject last week Amendments dealing with religious matters were put down on that side of the House as well as this?
Mr. Crookshank:I had noted the point. I do not need to have it repeated more than twice.
Captain Waterhouse:In view of the very alarming reports appearing in the Press, would my right hon. Friend consider finding time for a debate on Egypt? May I also ask if he will convey to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the view that, before any negotiations are reopened a statement to that effect should be made in this House?
Mr. Crookshank:I will, of course, convey to the Prime Minister any suggestions my right hon. and gallant Friend makes, but I do not know that I could necessarily accept the adjective "alarming" about any reports I have seen. As far as I am concerned, there is no Government time available in the immediate future in which to arrange a debate on this subject.
Mr. Hudson:I realise that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to be pressed too hard about the Amendments to the Television Bill which deal with intoxicating liquor and with religious matters, but does he appreciate that those Amendments are largely of a private character, likely to meet with support on both sides? I am only pressing him now to give more careful consideration than he appears to have done to the necessity of fairness all round and of freedom to the House to discuss such matters.
Mr. Crookshank:I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but I do ask for a little time to consider a matter of importance which was not mentioned to me at all until the right hon. Member for South Lewisham (Mr. H. Morrison) rose.
Mr. Amery:Would the Lord Privy Seal give consideration to the question raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse)? Is he aware that as a result of the crisis in Indo-China there is widespread anxiety about the security of communications between this country and South-East Asia?
Mr. Crookshank:Yes.
Major Legge-Bourke:May I reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Amery) and ask whether my right hon. Friend

617
will bear in mind that we are to go away for 10 days at Whitsun and that many developments might take place during that period about which the House would like to express an opinion?
Mr. Emrys Hughes:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland there is no enthusiasm for the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Bill, which will increase rents, and that Scottish Members are quite prepared to give up Wednesday to a discussion on Egypt?
Mr. Crookshank:I cannot accept that, but that we should have the ending of the Report stage and Third Reading of that Bill in the forthcoming week was not only agreed last week, but has also been confirmed today.
Mr. Yates:In view of the promise given by the Leader of the House last week and the week before to discuss the question of the Estimates Committee's Report through the usual channels, does he think that, as two deputations have already waited upon him, and the Report has been in his hands for six weeks, it is quite fair to treat the House in this discourteous manner?
Mr. Crookshank:All I said about this, and I do not hesitate to repeat it, was that I have considered the representations which have been made. I did say that this could be discussed through the usual channels; but I find that there is no time next week for a debate on this subject.
Mr. Foot:In view of the fact that the Leader of the House has told us that he cannot find time next week for a whole variety of subjects, can he say what he—or anyone else—has up his sleeve for next Thursday?
Mr. Crookshank:I have nothing up my sleeve. Supply days are, of course, at the disposal of the Opposition. Quite rightly, the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared today to tell me the subject which his party wish to select, but as soon as I know I shall inform the House for the convenience of Members on both sides and in all parties.
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport:Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, to stop listening to the stupid questions from the Lobby fodder opposite and get on with the business of the day?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TELEVISION BILL
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress. 20th May].
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  3.43 p.m.
  Clause 3.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO PROGRAMMES AND PUBLICATIONS OF AUTHORITY.)
  Sir Robert Grimston:I beg to move in page 5, line 1, to leave out "secure," and to insert "satisfy themselves."
  Mr. Edward Shackleton:On a point of order. May I ask, in view of the fact that the Guillotine is to fall again very shortly and the Opposition have voluntarily dropped quite a number of important Amendments, if back bench supporters of the Government will be very brief in speaking to theirs?
  The Chairman:That is not a point of order. I understand that the debate on this Amendment will be brief and that it will be accepted.
  Sir R. Grimston:This Amendment is in the nature of a drafting Amendment. We feel that the Authority is not a producer, that it is primarily a controlling Authority looking after the standards of production, and that as the I.T.A. is to be a body of standing we think that perhaps the insertion of these words would make their responsibility clear. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted by the Committee.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans):I am willing to accept this Amendment which, I think, is in accordance with a similar Amendment which I accepted last week. It makes it quite clear that the function of the Authority is not to secure, by positive intervention on its part, that programmes conform to certain standards, but to satisfy itself that all these standards are, in fact, being observed. I think that the addition of these words is an improvement.
  Mr. Shackleton:We strongly suspect that this is another "give away" by the Government. We shall have the Guillotine falling very soon and no proper

  619
  opportunity to discuss this, but we may have to do so on the Report stage. It does appear that this is part of the process of whittling away the powers of the Authority in order to give more powers to the private contractors. We reserve our views on this matter.
  Mr. J. E. S. Simon:I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) that this is a whittling away of the powers of the Authority. It still leaves the Authority exactly the same powers. On the other hand, it is an important point because what the Amendment does is to withdraw the determination of the way the Authority is fulfilling its duty from the scrutiny of the courts and leaves it purely a matter for the discretion of the Authority itself.
  In my submission, that is an objectionable procedure. It is peculiarly objectionable, and always to be resisted, where the rights of the individual are concerned and where the rights of an individual may be invaded by public authority. That is not the case here and, therefore, I am not prepared to divide the Committee against this form of words, although I must say that whenever they appear they should be subject to the most careful scrutiny by the legislature
  Amendment agreed to
  Mrs. Eirene White:I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, after the first "the," to insert "contents."
  I think that it may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discussed the Amendment in page 5, line 16, after "that," insert:
  "in accordance with the Schedule (British proportion of films and other recorded matter) to this Act."
  and the accompanying Schedule; and also the Amendment in page 5, line 17, at end, insert:
  "(f) that no film or other recorded matter which has been exhibited shown or broadcast at home or abroad otherwise than in the programmes shall be included in the programmes without the consent of the Authority."
  The Chairman:I think we might also include the Amendment in page 5, line 16, leave out "proper," and insert "high."
  Mrs. White:The three Amendments which are particularly my concern this
  620
  afternoon make a distinction between programmes which consist of recorded or film material and those which are what we might call live programmes.
  The first Amendment asks that we should pay attention so far as all programmes are concerned, both live and recorded, not only to the tone and style of the programme as mentioned in the Bill, but also to the content thereof. It is quite possible to have a programme which may be devised in a content or style that is British but may, nevertheless, not be British, in that British artistes or workers have not been employed therein.
  It works in the reverse way when British script writers are asked to write in American style, so that their film may subsequently be used in the United States. We think that this part of the Bill could be strengthened by including the word "contents" as well as "tone and style." That is all that we are positively asking for where live programmes are concerned.
  The other Amendment with which I am dealing concerns not direct transmission but films or recorded programmes, or, as they are sometimes called, canned programmes. In other words, programmes which can be used on more than one occasion and in more than one place. We are especially anxious about television in this respect. I believe that hon. Members on the other side of the Committee are also anxious about it because we are very well aware that in television the United States of America, as with the cinematograph films of the past, have gone ahead and have already available, and are likely to have in perpetuity, because of their home market condition, a large number of films which can meet their cost of production in their own country of origin and then be bought for use in this country at a very low price. There is probably no greater possibility of the dumping of products than with films which have already met their costs of production at home and can then be used very cheaply.
  I am told that the cost of producing a live film programme in this country, and used here for the first time, may be as much as £2,000 an hour. I am informed that films of one hour's duration can be bought from transatlantic sources for as little as £50. Once the cost of production has been met in its country of origin, everything afterwards is sheer gain and

  621
  there is no reason why the seller of the American film should worry himself unduly as long as he gets a reasonable return. Even if our own films cost a little less—they can be produced more cheaply than in America—the range of difference in cost between the two to the programme contractor is so large that there would be a constant temptation to use the cheaper medium.
  Therefore, we have tried to devise a proper means of safeguarding British artistes—using the term in its widest sense, to include authors, script writers, song writers, as well as actors, singers, musicians, and so on—so that they do not find that there is no place for their efforts in recorded programmes on television. That is why in the new Schedule we suggest a means of ensuring that British material is preponderantly used.
  The chief difference between we who support the Amendments and some hon. Members opposite is our belief that we will not be able to secure a high proportion of British material for recorded programmes unless safeguards are laid down. Certain Members opposite who have sympathy with our object believe that the position can be left as vague as it is in the Bill, or with the slight amendment of "proper proportion" being replaced by "high proportion." All past experience in dealing with cinematograph films shows the impossibility of ensuring a high proportion without a much clearer definition of what is intended; otherwise, there would be endless arguments and it would be impossible to administer this Bill in the sense in which hon. Members in all parts would wish it to be administered.
  I have had experience for some years as a member of the Films Committee of the Board of Trade dealing with film quota legislation and administration. Luckily, in television the Postmaster-General will not have to concern himself with cinemas; they bring great complications to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. That is completely outside the problem when we consider television.
  We are concerned in the Amendments only with the films or the recorded material. We propose in the new Schedule that where this type of material is concerned, not less than 80 per cent. shall be British. Some people suggest that this is a high proportion and that 80 per cent.
  622
  is a startling figure, but I should like to make clear what we propose.
  If, for the sake of simplicity, we regard a day of television broadcasting as comprising 10 hours, by our proposals two of the 10 hours can be devoted to foreign films—feature films, short films or recorded or canned programmes. There can then be as much live programme as one wants of any origin. This does not satisfy some of the actors' and musicians' organisations, and so on, but we wish to be reasonable. We appreciate the difficulties with live programmes and we do not propose that they should be statutorily limited, although the first Amendment asks that it should be the duty of the Authority to say that even live programmes should be predominantly British. We are not, however, proposing any fixed proportion of live programmes.
  In the new Schedule we use the definition of "film" which is contained in the 1938 Act. This means that newsreels would not be included in the percentage, nor would transmissions of sporting events, which, in the 1938 Act, are regarded as being outside the quota proposals. In the result, there would be the foreign films, the live transmissions and the newsreels or their sports equivalents. It is only the rest that we say should be British. Our proposal is not unreasonable.
  We wish to leave the matter as flexible as possible, because this is new ground for this country and one does not wish to stipulate in a Bill of this kind something which cannot be changed until there is an opportunity for further legislation. It is, therefore, made clear that the Postmaster-General may from time to time suggest other proportions. If the 80 per cent. appears to be excessive, or even insufficient, it will be open to the Postmaster-General from time to time, by order, to vary the proportion. This allows us to learn from experience and provides a great degree of flexibility.
  We have made other suggestions in the Schedule. We are taking into account the very long cognate experience in dealing with cinematograph films. It is for this reason that we suggest that there should be not only a sensible proportion of British material but that it should be within the Authority's power to see that

  623
  that proportion is transmitted during certain periods of the year and also within certain periods of the daily programme.
  That may seem puzzling, but experience of the cinematograph film has shown forcibly that without these provisions we should simply have in television what we had with films. When the quota for films was first introduced, the British quota films were shown early in the morning, often when the cleaners were still in the cinemas and no one else was present to see them. The main programme of the day was devoted entirely to foreign films. We do not wish this type of evasion to be possible with television.
  Under the Cinematograph Films Act, the film quota has to be satisfied within periods of six months. We are not laying down a specific period, but we say that the Authority should have power to suggest that the quota provisions should be met within whatever period it regards as adequate.
  4.0 p.m.
  Then we come to the difficulty of the definition of what is a British film or British recorded material. As far as films are concerned, we suggest that the simplest thing is to follow the definition set out in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, because the Board of Trade has considerable experience in the interpretation of that legislation. As regards other recorded material, the Postmaster-General is himself given power here to devise the appropriate definition. While it is suggested that, in general, he should follow the line of the provisions set out for films proper, he is left a considerable discretion in the matter to do what seems to be practicable.
  I have one other point to make on the third Amendment with which we are dealing, that is to page 5, line 17, in which it is asked that films or other recorded matter which have been exhibited or shown or broadcast elsewhere should not be included without the consent of the Authority. Some people may think that this is an excessive request. The reason for it is that in the United States there has been a most unfortunate position where some very old and inferior British films have been used, I am sorry to say, which has brought the prestige of
  624
  our films to a very low ebb in that country, since the viewers are not told that the films they are being shown are 10, 15 or 20 years old.
  So, again, we think that there should be provision to safeguard people from having this old material palmed off on them. In the cinematograph film quota there is a time limit beyond which a film does not count for quota purposes; something similar, though perhaps not in the way it is put in the Amendment, is desirable.
  We recognise that if this is done for the new Authority there should be an obligation on the B.B.C. to observe similar provisions. We cannot provide for that in this Bill, but I suppose there would be little difficulty for the Postmaster-General in approaching the Governors of the B.B.C. and obtaining a gentleman's agreement, possibly a declaration from them, that they would observe similar conditions.
  All of these provisions are necessary primarily because we are English-speaking. If we spoke French, Italian, German, or any other language the mere fact of language would in itself provide for most of the points with which I have been dealing. The fact, however, that the English language is used so extensively in the world and, in particular, in the countries across the Atlantic, means that we are placed in a position where, if we want to safeguard our own British culture, our British theatre, our British music, our British film industry, we are obliged to take steps to do so.
  I would most emphatically say that past experience shows that this cannot be done by having in the Bill words such as "high" or "proper" and that for adequate administration it is essential to have definite proposals.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst:I shall be brief, because I can assure the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) that in principle she is correct in assuming that my small Amendment to page 5, line 16, to leave out "proper," and insert "high" was designed in sympathy with her views, and particularly in order that we on this side of the Committee should have an opportunity to stress the importance of the argument which she has put to the Government in the hope that they will pass it on to the I.T.A. in due course.

  625
  Where I part company slightly with the hon. Lady is that I do not feel that in these early stages we should tie the hands of the I.T.A. too much. Undeniably, the Authority has a difficult job and, in the early months, it must stockpile programmes. However, because I sympathise with the purpose of the Amendment, I hope sincerely that the Postmaster-General and my hon. Friend will be sympathetic, and will see that the assurances we want will be put firmly to the I.T.A.
  I agree with the hon. Lady that, as far as films are concerned, the simplest way of deciding what is of British content is provided by the existing arrangements in regard to films and the Board of Trade. Here, however, I would go further than the hon. Lady because, if anything is ultimately done in this connection, I would like to see the content more truly British since, as she will know only too well, there is an escape clause about the British film situation.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison:I find the last observations of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) interesting and I shall come back to them in a moment. I assume that the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite accept the proposition that there ought to be a large—to use as neutral a word as I can find—proportion of films of British origin. The words of the Bill are "a proper proportion."
  I have heard the Financial Secretary, on matters where one would have thought more exactitude was required, saying that the word "substantial" had some meaning, but being unable to say what he meant by it. If that can be said about "substantial," "large," and "preponderance," the word "proper" means nothing whatever. Therefore, I regard it as no more than a highly qualified concession to public opinion, a vague thing that would serve as no kind of instruction to the Authority and would give the Authority no power to enforce it.
  In effect, we are seeking to substitute for the vague language of the Clause a definition of what the Authority ought to do. I do not suppose that my right hon. and hon. Friends would be deeply offended if the Assistant Postmaster-General said that he agreed with the need for something of this sort in prin-
  626
  ciple, but that he thought 80 per cent. too high. If he is prepared to say that now, the Schedule and this Amendment provide him with an opportunity of altering the 80 per cent. as soon as he chooses and as soon as he can get Parliament to agree with him. There is no magic in the choice of that percentage although I am fully prepared to defend it and, in doing so, I want to make one or two observations.
  First, my impression is that the B.B.C. practice at present is to have at least this amount of preponderance of British material. Secondly, I should have thought that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) pointed out, that was even more likely to be so in television in non-English speaking countries, where there is a substantial production of films and no doubt will be of other recorded matter. At any rate, our impression is that 80 per cent. is about right and we have not put that figure down at random. It seems to be about right and fair, but we are not here to quibble one way or another about matters of that kind. The best evidence of that is in the terms of the Amendment, which gives the Postmaster-General the right to alter the percentage.
  The point which we are discussing is very simple. Are we to be content with putting into the Bill completely vague words like "proper proportion" or even "high proportion" which really mean nothing whatever, which are intended to have some sort of effect but which cannot possibly have an effect at all? Or are we to give the Authority some guidance upon which it must satisfy itself? I should like to see the Postmaster-General sitting down and satisfying himself that 80 per cent. of the mail was going to arrive some day. He could do that, but if he had to satisfy himself that a proper proportion would arrive he would not have the vaguest idea of what he had to satisfy himself about, nor would this Authority.
  It seems madness and folly to put things of that kind in a Bill, especially when we are dealing with a new organisation, the proper way control of which can only be through the Authority. Surely we should say that we mean something when we put words in a Bill, and we should provide a standard that can be enforceable.

  627
  I come now to the expression "British origin." The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) bore out entirely the stories that I have heard, that the film trade are exceedingly ingenious in trying to get round the quota as applied to films. What would happen if the only quota that was applied to films was that there should be a proper proportion of British films? Does anybody suppose that the high and mighty ones from America or anywhere else would pay the slightest attention to it? What was said about films was exactly the point that I intended to make. We have seen in the film trade that it is necessary to have a fairly strict definition and an administrative machinery to enforce it, yet in the face of all that we have a Government bringing forward a Bill which refers to a proper proportion.
  I understand that the requirement on which "British origin" now largely depends in the film industry is British labour. There are other provisions in the 1938 Act, but if one seeks a definition of a British company one sees at once how easy it would be to get round it. Why should we not give to people who are going to work for this new industry the same protection as is given to those who work for the film industry? Why do we refuse to one set of people that which Parliament after Parliament has given to others? The Government, through their officials, succeeded the other day in stopping Stravinsky for a time at London Airport. If they are so extraordinarily zealous about keeping out Russian composers, they might do something about artistes of other nationalities. They should give to other people the same protection as is given to those employed in the film industry.
  Mr. Hirst:I must mildly correct the hon. and learned Member though he is right in general. The rule of labour content will apply to films for television just as much as they apply to the ordinary cinema.
  Mr. Mitchison:I am very glad to hear it, but I do not know what the effect will be if we put in the Bill the words "proper proportion."
  Mr. Hirst:High proportion.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Mitchison:Proper proportion, substantial preponderance or high proportion, it makes no odds. We must not deny to those who will work in this industry substantially the same type of protection that has been given time after time to the film industry. We have the machinery on hand and it would be folly to set up new machinery. We have a standard which the Postmaster-General could easily apply to other recorded matter.
  I say to the Government and to hon. Members opposite that either they must put into the Bill something which is merely a face-saving concession and is intended to mean nothing whatever, or they must accept precisely something on the lines of the Amendment, with the essentials of a definition of "British origin" and with, at first, a fixed percentage which would be variable from time to time, subject to the wishes of Parliament. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will show some signs of redemption by accepting for a change one Opposition Amendment which really enables him to do what he has protested that he wishes to do.
  Mr. Gammans:It might be an advantage if, at this stage, I indicated the views of the Government on the various points which have been put by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). I should like to accept her Amendment if for no other reason than that she moved it so reasonably and moderately, but I think the hon. Lady will agree, on reflection, that what she wants to do is unnecessarily restricted. I also think that it is unnecessary.
  The Amendment which refers to the contents of the programme would mean that the contents and the subject matter would have to be predominantly British.
  Mr. Gordon Walker:Only the recorded part.
  Mr. Gammans:Yes, but if the music and opera broadcast by the Authority had to be predominantly British we should be getting into a very narrow field of entertainment. Shakespeare's plays, of course, would qualify irrespective of their settings, but some of the finest plays that I have seen on British television have been plays by foreign authors, and in some cases played by foreign artistes.
  Mr. Mitchison:Would Wagner qualify, in the words of the Bill, as predominantly British in tone and style?
  Mr. Gammans:The hon. and learned Member has given me exactly my point, which is that the programme would have to be predominantly British in tone and style, but if we talk about the "contents" being predominantly British we are restricting the type of programme. I do not think that the Amendment is strictly necessary. We have laid a very direct injunction upon the Authority as to the type of programme that it can put out. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) suggested that it was not precise enough, but I believe that this is the only sort of thing that we can do at this stage, unless we are to get into a mess.
  I now come to the second point of the hon. Lady's Amendment, which is that a quota should be laid down. I know that she is voicing the fears of a number of the theatrical unions. I have seen the memorandum which they have sent round about this. I think that they are quite right to try to defend the interests of their members, but I hope I shall succeed in convincing the hon. Lady, and, I hope, the unions, that this can be done in a different way, and that this proposal is not the best way to do it in the long-term interest of these people.
  We have a double responsibility in this matter, and our difficulty is to try to reconcile its two facets. On the one hand, we have to give reasonable attention to the position of British artistes. We accept that, and there is no difference between either side of the Committee on that point. I assure the hon. Lady that we do not want a state of affairs where films which have earned their keep elsewhere can be dumped in this country to the detriment of the British entertainment industry.
  Perhaps I can remove any misgivings which the hon. Lady may have if I say that large numbers of foreign films cannot be dumped unless the Authority fails to carry out the instructions specified in this Bill. If the Authority failed to do that, it would certainly not be seeing that a proper proportion of British films was presented and that the tone and style of the programmes were predominantly British.
  630
  Our other responsibility in this matter is towards the viewer. These programmes are primarily intended for the people who look at them, and we do not want to tie ourselves down with rigid rules, from whatever quarter they may come, by fixing a definite quota. There is always danger in trying to deal with a matter of this sort by means of a quota. Were we to accept the hon. Lady's Amendment, it would mean that only one foreign film could be shown for every four British films.
  Whether the British cinema industry with its other commitments is capable, or even willing, to accept such an obligation, I have no means of knowing: but I believe that it would be quite easy for a programme contractor, if he were subject to such a quota, to get round it if he so wished. I will tell the Committee how. If, for example, he were told that there could only be one foreign film for four British films, and if he wanted to get round that, all he would have to do, so far as I can see—of course, I may be wrong—would be, instead of putting on the proper quota of British films, to record all programmes, in which case the percentage would be upset.
  Mr. Gordon Walker:Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if they can get round a precise thing like this they will not more easily get round his more vague definitions?
  Mr. Gammans:I do not accept that at all. To get round it in that way they would be put to additional expense in the recording of their programmes. Why should they do it? After all, they want to put on live programmes.
  The other point mentioned by the hon. Lady was that if we applied a quota to the I.T.A. we should obviously have to apply it to the B.B.C. At present, there is no quota whatsoever imposed on the B.B.C. so far as films are concerned. There is no injunction in its Charter that the style and tone of the programmes are to be predominantly British. But the B.B.C. has put on a very high percentage of British films, and, so far as I know, there has never been any complaint about the percentage of British or non-British material which the B.B.C. has shown.
  Why should we presume—and this, perhaps, is where both sides of the House differ so much—that a similar authority

  631
  to the B.B.C., and one set up with instructions far more definite than those ever given to the B.B.C., should behave in an irresponsible way? If we cannot agree on that, it is quite obvious that nothing I can say will convince the Opposition.
  Mr. Mitchison:No doubt when the hon. Gentleman put this Clause into the Bill, and certainly when he saw this Amendment, he ascertained what percentage of British films and other recorded matter applied to and was put into practice by the B.B.C. Can he tell us what that percentage is? Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has not explained why he ever inserted in the Bill paragraph (e) which states:
  "that a proper proportion of the films and other recorded matter included in the programmes is of British origin."
  Nor has he given any indication of what he means by "a proper proportion."
  Mr. Gammans:I will deal first with the second point, as to why we put it in. We wanted to make it perfectly clear that it was the intention of the Government that the programmes put out should be predominantly British in style. But we wanted to make that point equally clear in regard to films. The hon. and learned Gentleman might argue that we need not have put it in at all, that as we had left it out in the case of the B.B.C. we might equally have left it out here. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to move an Amendment to delete the whole thing, I shall be very happy to consider it.
  Mr. Mitchison:I should, first, like to find out what it means, because at present I do not know. I am still entirely at a loss to understand why, though the hon. Gentleman recognises this obligation, he is not prepared either to define or enforce it.
  Mr. Gammans:When my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was asked on Second Reading what was meant by "a proper porportion," his answer was perfectly clear. He said:
  "'A proper proportion' is what the Authority think is a proper proportion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1445.]
  I think that is as far as it is proper to go at this stage.
  632
  The hon. and learned Gentleman's second question was what percentage of films sent out by the B.B.C. was British and what percentage was foreign. I do not know the answer to that. I do know, however, that there is a very interesting series going on at the moment about Amos and Andy, and also one about winter sports in Switzerland. I do not know how that would work out if they were subject to a quota, and I do not think that it comes into this question anyway.
  I hope that the hon. Lady will feel that it is unnecessary to press her Amendment, although I know that the Opposition are as interested as we are in seeing that what goes out over the air is the best possible. We are all interested in getting not only the best type of programme, but also the best balanced programme.
  The hon. Lady raised the question of the Cinematograph Films Act. That Act was designed for cinemas, and here we are dealing with an entirely new medium of which there is as yet very little experience in this or any other country. As the hon. Lady rightly said, even in the cinema world this matter of a quota has given rise to difficulties. I understand that some artistes are dissatisfied about the way it works. The hon. Lady has asked us to transfer legislation that was intended for one medium—and about which, I hope, by this time we know something—to another medium about which we know very little indeed.
  It may well be—I do not rule this out at all—that something may have to be done about fixing a quota. Some sort of quota may be desirable for the television industry. All I am saying is that I think it is one of those matters in which experience will have to guide us. We should have to consult the B.B.C., who would have to be brought into any negotiations of this sort. But if there were such legislation it would have to be part of the legislation affecting the cinema.
  4.30 p.m.
  There are one or two minor matters in the Amendment. I see no criterion in it for a limit on costs of production. That appears in the Cinematograph Acts.
  Mrs. White:That affects the exhibitors' quota, which does not apply in this case.
  Mr. Gammans:I accept that. In any case, this is only a minor point. Another is that we should be bringing in a system of dual control. The Postmaster-General as well as the President of the Board of Trade would be concerned. That would mean duplication, or else people would go to the one rather than the other—whoever they thought the easier person to deal with.
  Mr. Mitchison:That would be completely impossible under the Amendment. There would be no question of the trade's going to the Minister concerned who looked the nicest.
  Mr. Gammans:The hon. and learned Gentleman, as a lawyer, may be right, but as I read the Amendment one of the minor objections to it seems to me to be that it would set up two different standards.
  I know that the film producers and technicians want to protect their interests, but I would ask them, in their own long-term interests, not to adopt too restrictive an attitude and not to try to turn the television industry into a sort of closed shop for British-produced films. If they were to adopt that attitude one thing would certainly follow. We should have to expect retaliation. There would be retaliation from countries proposing to set up their own television stations. There would also be the risk that our own people would be denied the chance to see foreign films of very great value.
  Mr. Mitchison:The percentage could be different. It could be 30 per cent., for instance.
  Mr. Gammans:The Amendment talks about 80 per cent., though I admit it can be altered, but I do not think that a quota should be applicable here. I would make a special plea to the unions concerned not to adopt too restrictive an attitude. I believe that we are on the verge of tremendous developments in television. Stations will be set up all over the world, in many places where the number of local artistes is very strictly limited. In such places, if there is not enough local material, they will have to exist on canned programmes—or not transmit at all.
  I believe that we are seeing the beginning of a tremendous market. It has to
  634
  be supplied by somebody, either ourselves or the Americans. We want to be the suppliers. We have so much ability and talent in this country that we could be, if we do not adopt a restrictionist attitude at home to try to protect British films because they are British films, which is what the Amendment seeks to do.
  There may be fears about loss of the home market, but that possibility is not as great as the opportunities for selling British films abroad. We certainly cannot expect other countries to take our films if we do not take theirs and do not allow some measure of freedom to our television producers here. I see no reason why this country should not become the Hollywood of the television world. There are immense potentialities, but those who support the Amendment are approaching them with far too restrictionist an attitude.
  Mrs. White:Can the hon. Gentleman say why it is that this country has not become the Hollywood of the cinematograph film world?
  Mr. Gammans:I should be out of order if I pursued the question. The hon. Lady probably knows better than I do, however, that there are many complex reasons, among which, incidentally, are two world wars. However, with television we are starting a new medium, and I do not want to see our country losing its chances by being bound by restrictions and quotas that I think are quite unnecessary, and that may do a great deal of harm.
  The Government have gone into this matter very deeply. We considered a quota even before the hon. Lady suggested it. We want the programmes to be predominantly British in origin. We do not want the country to be flooded with foreign films, but we do not want by a quota to run the greater risk of harming our own producers' interests throughout the world. The best thing to do is to lay a general charge on the Authority to see, first of all, that the tone and style are predominantly British and, secondly, that a proper proportion of the films is of British origin.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) would like to substitute for the words "proper proportion" the words "high proportion." I hope that the proportion will be high. He assured

  635
  me that it had been high on the B.B.C. I do not see any reason why it should not be high on the I.T.A., and I hope it will become higher as time goes on.
  I must stress again that we are delegating our powers to a responsible body, and if we are not to take those powers away from it or circumscribe it from the beginning, we ought to be prepared to trust it as we trusted the B.B.C. to do its job properly.
  I come to the last point made by the hon. Lady. She wants the programme contractors not to show films that have already been shown unless the Authority gives consent. If that prohibition were to apply we should have to apply it to the B.B.C., too.
  Mr. Mitchison:How can we possibly do that? The suggestion is that the programme contractors should get the consent of the Authority. The B.B.C. is not in that position. It has no authority to get the consent of.
  Mr. Gammans:Any restrictions we applied to this body we should have to apply to the B.B.C. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because they are two similar, parallel bodies doing the same job. It would be quite unreasonable to apply restrictions to one body and not to the other. Let us consider what this proposal would mean. It would mean that some of the old films that have been enormously popular, films of Charlie Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy, could not be put on unless the Authority gave permission. That is not the way one should run a business of this sort. The Authority would have to maintain a much larger staff, merely to answer all the applications for permission to show such films.
  I think that the unions concerned, who, I know, want this provision put in, are adopting far too timid an attitude that does not seem to be worthy of the postwar world in which we live and certainly is not worthy of the opportunities I see open before them. Although I appreciate all the hon. Lady said and the sincerity and the moderation with which she proposed these Amendments, I regret that I cannot accept any of them.
  Mr. Ness Edwards:When we consider that we are working under a Guillotine I must say that the Govern-
  636
  ment have certainly taken a very large part of the time that is available. However, this is a very difficult point and that may be the reason for the amount of time taken by the Government. I think that upon this series of Amendments depends the character of the programmes which we shall get from the I.T.A. They are extremely important for the style, content and tone of these programmes.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General has put up quite a number of Aunt Sallies which he has knocked down. He said, first of all, that we must not restrict the I.T.A. But, after all, Clause 3 is completely restrictive. It lays upon the Authority responsibilities in very general terms, and I suppose that if the I.T.A. wanted some guidance on the meaning of these generalisations there is nobody whom it could consult. The hon. Gentleman has expressed high hopes that the programmes will be predominently British. I have never known an hon. Gentleman having such high hopes and, at the same time, refusing to avail himself of the opportunity of putting them into effect.
  Let me deal with some of the points that have been raised. I entirely agree that we are in a new field. It may well be that we shall have more tele-recordings than films, and we must examine this field now. The programmes can be direct transmissions, they can be tele-recordings of old acts, and they can be films in the orthodox sense of the term. Our greatest fear is that in commercial television in this country the old used tele-recordings and old films made for television in the United States may be dumped here. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to see that happen. Then why not put something in the Bill to stop it? Surely that is the answer.
  There is the other point whether or not these commercial programmes should all be canned programmes or live programmes, or what proportion of either should be included. This is a matter of parity to which the hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself at all. It would have been useful to know whether or not, in the interests of the artistes of this country, the hon. Gentleman was prepared to say that a certain proportion of the programmes should be live rather than recorded or canned programmes. That point has not been considered.

  637
  The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he did not want commercial television in this country to be Americanised, and so on, and he also said that we did not want a closed shop and referred to this great market which was to be opened to us. Are the Government going to repeal the film quota Act? Are they going to abolish the rule that every artiste who comes into this country must obtain a permit from the Minister of Labour? We have laid down a good many restrictions in order to preserve the right of British artistes to a livelihood. That is the Government's practice, and it is operated by the Ministry of Labour. It was done with Stravinsky. What is wrong with doing that in television? That is the sort of thing to which the hon. Gentleman has not paid sufficient attention.
  We do not say there ought to be a closed shop, but we say that it should not be a flooded shop; it should not be a completely open shop, because that would leave the door open for those interests about which we have suspicion, which have been behind this campaign in this country and which are American subsidiaries. We are afraid that if they get the programme contract we shall have American canned programmes. We do not want to leave that door open, and the hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to leave it open. If he does not want that possibility, let us make suitable provision in the Bill. Let us have the safeguard.
  4.45 p.m.
  If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there will not be enough production from our immature television film industry, then he should alter the quota, but at least he should give our industry a chance. He should give it some proportion of the possible market in which to develop its experience, and unless he does that we shall not have programmes which are predominantly British in character. We shall have programmes which are predominantly American in character.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the future markets outside this country. I am afraid that the British television film industry will never be able to exploit external markets until it has got on its feet at home. There must be a basic home market, and one would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have provided a basic home market. But
  638
  he has not done so. This matter is left in general terms for the I.T.A. to decide. Why not say to this immature industry, "So much of the market is guaranteed for you. You cannot be under-sold, you cannot be pushed out of it. You cannot be squeezed out of it by interlocking financial arrangements."
  If the industry were given that assurance, the industry might develop very differently from the way in which the general cinema film industry has developed. That is our general case. We do not want to exclude operas. That is far from our minds; we want as many operas as we can have. In fact, I hope that we shall have many more operas than we have soap operas.
  Mr. Raymond Gower:If any proportion were fixed—let us say 60 per cent., for example—would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in some cases that proportion might be too much? For example, 20 per cent. of recorded classical music might be rather high in this country, while in another field 90 per cent. might be too high. Would the right hon. Gentleman concede that?
  Mr. Ness Edwards:I do not see that that interjection is quite related to the argument. But let me say that I would have no objection at all, if the Government were prepared to do it, to the provision of some basic home market, and they could make it as elastic as they like, so long as we can preserve a special field for the development of this immature side of our activities, and provide at the same time an adequate amount of protection for British artistes and entertainers.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton:Live broadcasts.
  Mr. Ness Edwards:Yes, I am talking about live broadcasts on the one hand, and that applies equally to canned broadcasts—to telerecordings and films which are used for television.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we must not place these obligations upon the I.T.A. unless they are placed also on the B.B.C. If that were the case, there would be no occasion for this Bill. This Bill is supposed to represent, on balance, the general feeling. An hon. Gentleman opposite said a few moments ago that it is a concession to public apprehension which represents compromise.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr:Ill-informed apprehension.
  Mr. Ness Edwards:I would not say that about the very distinguished people in both Houses who have apprehensions about this new development. I would not say that they are ill-informed, especially in view of what they have seen in other countries. It is the Government who have come to the conclusion that responsibilities and obligations should be placed on the Independent Television Authority. The Independent Television Authority is entitled to know what obligation is being placed upon it. What is the size of it? All these generalities can mean nothing or can mean everything, dependent upon the type of person that the hon. Gentleman may get upon the I.T.A.
  All this is left much too loosely, and in the interests of preserving or obtaining in commercial television programmes of a predominantly British style, the hon. Gentleman ought either to accept the Amendment or, on behalf of the Government, say that they will put such safeguards in the Bill as will provide, as is laid down in the Clause, that tone, style and programmes are predominantly British.
  Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing:I do not think there is very great difference of opinion between the two sides of the Committee. Most of us have a natural anxiety that there might be too high a proportion of films coming in, but I cannot agree with the Opposition that it is necessary at this stage to fix a quota. I very much welcome the remark of my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General that we would keep it in mind that a quota might be necessary as the new service develops. At this stage, to fix a quota would be wrong.
  I say that because during the 18 years in which we have had television in this country, the film industry has been thoroughly obstructive so far as television is concerned. I am not sure, therefore, that this is the right moment during their restrictive practice period to say, "All right. You may have a quota and an assured percentage in the future."
  Mr. Gordon Walker:Would the hon. Member agree to an Amendment giving the Postmaster-General power to fix a quota at his discretion but not stipulating what the quota should be?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing:The right hon. Gentleman mentions one of the many ways in which this matter could be dealt with, but I think that at this stage it would be wrong to fix a quota at all.
  Mr. Gordon Walker:Not fix a quota but give the power.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing:That is a matter which could well be considered later in the Bill, but I certainly could not at the moment lend support to it. I will explain why.
  Our film industry has not allowed either its feature films or one foot of its newsreels since the war to appear on the B.B.C. television service. The industry might adopt exactly the same attitude towards the new Authority. If there is a hard and fast quota, it means that no films whatever will be available to viewers on the new programme. That would be disastrous.
  I only hope that the film industry takes to heart my hon. Friend's words, because as television develops in our Dominions there is a golden opportunity for this country to provide the recorded material which is so badly needed. It is unthinkable that some of our Dominion cities, great as they are, cannot possibly produce live programmes for even three hours every day in every week in every year. They will, therefore, either look to this country to provide the film material or, if they cannot get it from us, they may have to go to the United States.
  I therefore urge that notice be taken of my hon. Friend's words and that the film industry, which is not immature—it is old established and could easily adapt its ways to meet the needs of the television service—will meet those needs.
  Mr. M. Follick:Would the hon. Member agree that it is not only films from this country that are wanted on television but that there should be a great interchange of films from all the different parts of the Commonwealth, interchanging between this country and Australia, Canada, the West Indies, and so on.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing:I am delighted to agree completely with the hon. Member. Of course, we can have an interchange, and I think it would be to the great benefit of British artistic employment and British programmes throughout all parts of the Commonwealth.
  Mrs. White:They would all be British films.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing:They would be British films, and come, presumably, within the definition of "British content."
  Anything that can be done to increase the output, not only of this country but of other countries, to serve television needs both here and in the Dominions is obviously to the good. But after a period when the film industry has been very restrictive, I think it would be wrong to give it a guarantee that it will have a quota which is hard and fast. Let us feel our way in this matter, and if there is need for a quota I am sure that my hon. Friend or the Government of the day will introduce one.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton:There will be widespread disappointment at the reluctance of the Assistant Postmaster-General to give the Committee any assurances in respect of the nature, tone, style, content, etc., of the programmes to be produced under the provisions of the Bill. The Assistant Postmaster-General said that he wanted to do what he could to protect the British film industry and British artistes. I wish he could have said a little more about the intentions of the Government about live entertainment and live broadcasts.
  Had he made an announcement on this, it might have helped us to reconcile ourselves to his refusal to do anything in respect of films and recorded programmes. Such organisations as the Variety Artistes Federation and the Concert Parties' Association have a legitimate grievance. They feel grave doubts about the facilities or opportunities that will be available to them under the Bill as it is drafted.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General could have said a little more about the provision that is to be made for live entertainment. There are undoubtedly justifiable fears that the bulk of the programmes will be canned or recorded. At least a little guaranteed niche should
  have been provided or assured for British artistes in the new set-up. The timetable prevents any elaboration of the argument, but I hope that before we finish with the Clause we shall hear from the Government something a little more definite regarding British artistes, who are quite willing and ready to provide the live entertainment.
  They are anxious to know how they will fare under the new arrangements that the Government contemplate. It is very odd that the Government ask us to have complete confidence in the wisdom of the Independent Television Authority, and yet at the same time they try to compromise by asking the Committee to agree to these somewhat vague restrictions which they feel must be imposed upon the future activities of this new and as yet untried body.
  Sir Robert Boothby:I have been hearing a lot of tall talk from both sides of the Committee about "Britain becoming the Hollywood of television," "freedom from quotas," and everything else. I know something about quotas. I have heard everybody saying that we are going to get to the top of the world.
  I ask the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, who has just arrived, whether he will now join with some of us and get the existing quotas on Members of Parliament—British Members of Parliament—in live broadcasting renewed, reviewed and, if possible, removed. We have about the sharpest quota on earth imposed without our will and behind our backs. All this tall talk from both sides of the Committee is humbug.
  It being Five o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That 'contents' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 217.

  Division No. 122.]

  AYES

  [5.0 p.m

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Beswick, F.

  Albu, A. H.

  Baird, J.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Balfour, A.

  Blackburn, F.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

  Blyton, W. R.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  Bowles, F. G.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Benson, G.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Brockway, A. F.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Burke, W. A.

  Janner, B.

  Ross, William

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

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

  Shackleton, E. A. A

  Champion, A. J

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Short, E. W.

  Chapman, W. D

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Clunie, J.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Collick, P. H.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Cove, W. G.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Keenan, W.

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

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Kenyon, C.

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Daines, P.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Snow, J. W.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Deer, G.

  MacColl, J. E

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Dodds, N. N.

  McLeavy, F.

  Stross, Dr. Barnett

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E

  Edelman, M.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Mason, Roy

  Timmons, J.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Tomney, F.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Messer, Sir F.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Follick, M.

  Moody, A. S.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Foot, M. M.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W

  Viant, S. P.

  Forman, J. C.

  Morley, R.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

  Warbey, W. N.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Moyle, A.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

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

  Mulley, F. W.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

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

  Nally, W.

  West, D. G.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Oldfield, W. H

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Grey, C. F.

  Oliver, G. H

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Orbach, M.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon James (Llanelly)

  Oswald, T.

  Wigg, George

  Hale, Leslie

  Paget, R. T.

  Willey, F. T.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

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

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Pannell, Charles

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Hannan, W.

  Pargiter, G. A.

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

  Hargreaves, A.

  Parker, J.

  Willis, E. G.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Pearson, A

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

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

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Porter, G.

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Price, J. T (Westhoughton)

  Yates, V. F.

  Holman, P.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K

  Holmes, Horace

  Pryde, D. J.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pursey, Cmdr H

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P G T

  Digby, S. Wingfield

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

  Bullard, D. G.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Donner, Sir P. W.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A (Saffron Walden)

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

  Carr, Robert

  Duthie, W. S.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Channon, H.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Finlay, Graeme

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

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Birch, Nigel

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

  Bishop, F. P.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Black, C. W.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Foster, John

  Boothby, Sir R. J. G

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Bossom, Sir A. C.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Bowen, E. R.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A

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

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Gammans, L. D

  Braine, B. R.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Glover, D.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Godber, J. B.

  Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Deedes, W. F

  Grimond, J.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Scott, R. Donald

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Shepherd, William

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

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

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

  Heath, Edward

  Maude, Angus

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Maudling, R.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Mellor, Sir John

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife E.)

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Storey, S.

  Horobin, I. M.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Studholme, H. G.

  Howard, Hon. Grevilie (St. Ives)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Summers, G. S.

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

  Neave, Airey

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

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

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Teeling, W.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

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

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

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

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

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

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Tilney, John

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

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

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Kaberry, D.

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

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Page, R. G.

  Turton, R. H.

  Kerr, H. W.

  Perkins, Sir Robert

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

  Lambton, Viscount

  Pilkington, Capt. R A

  Vosper, D. F.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

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

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Redmayne, M.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Low, A. R. W.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  McAdden, S. J.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Wills, G.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Russell, R. S.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  McKibbin, A J.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Drewe and Mr. Legh.

  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Clause to be concluded at Five o'Clock.
  Amendment made: In page 5, line 17, at end, insert:
  (f) that the programmes broadcast from any station or stations contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal specially to the tastes and outlook of persons served by the station or stations.— [Mr. Gammans. ]
  Mr. James H. Hoy:I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, at the end, to insert:
  "and
  (h)that on Sundays, Good Friday and Christmas Day certain hours shall be devoted to religious services that is to say, one hour between nine o'clock a.m. and one o'clock p.m. and one hour betwen five o'clock p.m. and ten o'clock p.m."
  646
  I do not know whether this is the first Amendment which the Lord Privy Seal and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) referred to during questions on business today, but I am sure, whether the conversations have taken place or not, that neither the Home Secretary nor the Government would want to use their political majority in order to defeat this Amendment.
  So far, we have had Amendments which have been complicated, in regard to Government quotas, film quotas, and so on, but this is a plain, simple, straightforward Amendment which I am certain is easily understood by every hon. Member of the Committee. Other Amendments which we have considered have sought to deal with news, sport, languages and political speeches. This one is confined to the question of religious services, and a case in support of it may well be made

  647
  by the service rendered in this connection by both the sound and television programmes of the B.B.C. There is no doubt that these services have brought comfort and hope and inspiration to many thousands of people who otherwise would not have been able to take part in them.
  One is reminded of the physically-handicapped, the thousands of old people and of the sick who are unable to take part in acts of corporate worship in the churches to which they belong. I have no doubt that not only the message they receive but the very fact that they are able to take part in the choral services or listen to the great church choirs has brought them comfort and inspiration.
  At one time we thought that this practice might be fraught with the greatest difficulty, but that has not proved the case. A recent development in these television services has been the televising of the service of Holy Communion. Various religious organisations have taken part in these services. As one who has looked in, I can say that one may feel inspired by the way in which they were handled. It may be that there have been one or two complaints, but they must be few indeed. I do not wish to spend long over this Amendment which is simple, straightforward and easily understood, and because it will do a tremendous good to thousands of our fellow citizens I am certain that the Government cannot reject it.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross:One of the duties laid on the Independent Television Authority is to ensure a proper balance of programmes, and that is something which we seek to have on Sundays, on Christmas Day and on Good Friday.
  Mr. Arthur Colegate:Has Easter Day, which is the principal festival of the Church, been deliberately left out of the Amendment?
  Mr. Ross:I think the point is that Easter Day, although it is a movable date, is on a Sunday, and not on a weekday. I fell into the same error myself and it is quite understandable.
  It may be suggested that we should leave this matter to the Authority, with the Advisory Council which it is proposed to set up. But I think that the Committee has no right to pass on such a responsibility to any other authority without
  648
  making its wishes in this matter as clear as possible. The House of Commons has an ultimate responsibility, and the Government will have a continuing responsibility, because we are to provide this Authority with £750,000 a year, apart from a capital of £2 million. So, we have no right to pass our responsibility for the proper treatment of Sunday programmes to anyone else.
  We ask in the Amendment that one hour be devoted to this service between nine o'clock and one o'clock and one hour between five o'clock and ten o'clock on what is traditionally known in my country as the Lord's Day. Presuming that there are 13 hours of television broadcasting, we are asking that two hours be devoted to religious services. Surely that is not asking too much. I think that it is very important from the point of view of those who would like to be at church, or attending an act of worship, but who cannot be present. It is equally important for those who might just tune in by accident and receive the message we wish them to hear.
  This is a tolerant Amendment. We do not lay down which services shall be televised or which denominations are to participate. We wish merely to preserve at least two hours on Sunday for religious services to be broadcast by this new and powerful medium. When we consider Christmas, and the commercial pressure to which the real spiritual significance of Christmas is subjected, it is only right that on Christmas Day we should have two hours devoted to the festival of the Nativity. It is particularly important for children, who are wakened up in the morning and receive presents, that through television they may get the true Christian message and meaning of Christmas. Therefore this Amendment should commend itself to the Committee.
  As a Scotsman I regret that we overlooked one thing. We should have included Hogmanay as well, because the last hour of that occasion, which is seemingly always considered as a night of revels, is in Scotland more and more devoted to watch-night services—
  Mr. John Mackie:There has always been a short watch-night service broadcast by the B.B.C.
  Mr. Ross:I am very glad that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) has

  649
  referred to that point. We appreciate what has been done by the B.B.C. in that regard and we wish that to be carried forward into this alternative television programme. We do not want just revels and rowdyism during the last hour of the year, or a programme televised from Hammersmith Palais. Rather let us have something like a service from the Tron Kirk in Edinburgh, or some other watch-night service from England, which would be appreciated by millions of our people.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General may suggest that the B.B.C. is not tied down in this manner, but there is a distinct difference between the two cases. First, television is in its early days and there is a limit to the amount of television programme time, but we are here dealing with something which will last for at least 10 years, and we are looking ahead. Secondly, we cannot properly compare television by the B.B.C. with that by the new set-up, because in the case of the new set-up, time is money.
  If that is true during the week, it is even more true on a Sunday. We have only to think of the Continental programmes broadcast from Luxembourg to appreciate that; to them Sunday is a very important day. Since time is money, and television time is even more expensive, there will be considerable pressure, on Sunday, for the programmes not to include even two hours of religious broadcasts.
  Let us consider what the hon. Member for Galloway said about the B.B.C.'s programmes at certain times of the year. No one can deny that the handling of Sunday broadcast services by the B.B.C. leaves very little to be desired. It is very well done, particularly in Children's Hour. All parents will appreciate how well the B.B.C. handles religious themes.
  I am sure we shall have the same spirit in the B.B.C.'s television services, but we have to accept responsibility here and leave nothing to chance. We want to ensure that there is a reasonable devotion of time to religious services and religious worship, which mean so much to this country and to the traditional idea of Sunday. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will accept what is a tolerant, positive and reasonable Amendment.
  Captain Orr:The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has supported the Amendment in a very reasonable tone. If I may say so with all humility, he sounded rather less like the wrath of God than usual. I have considerable sympathy with him, because in the television of the future I should like to see a great expansion of religious broadcasting as well as an expansion of the type of religious broadcasting.
  I should like to see more and more religious points of view expressed. In deference to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I should like to see the Unitarians given a fair crack of the whip, in due course—although I should not, of course, dare to enter into a theological argument with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).
  I find one or two objections to the Amendment. First, it seeks to impose a specific direction upon the new Authority which does not exist in the case of the B.B.C. In one case we have a body of public men and we are to demand that they shall produce religious programmes between certain hours; whereas in the other case we have another body of public men, appointed practically in the same way, upon whom no such direction is imposed.
  The hon. Member argued that there was a difference between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. because time would be money to the I.T.A. He argued that Sunday would be a valuable day for advertising purposes, but he should bear in mind that under the Bill the Authority will have absolute power, in making contracts with the programme contractors, to say to the contractors, "You must broadcast religious services as we direct."
  Mr. Ross:I thought I dealt with that point. I do not think we should leave this matter to the I.T.A. We should accept responsibility in this House. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman note these words:
  "Equally must it be permissible for people who believe that Sunday observance is a matter of public morality to ask that it shall be imposed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 616.]
  Those words were said by the hon. and gallant Member himself on another occasion.
  Captain Orr:I am always delighted when the seed falls on good ground and bears fruit abundantly.
  What I would say in this respect is that the Authority is a public body and it has to judge the amount of religious broadcasting which takes place. It has absolute power in the matter, and it is advised by a religious advisory committee which we understand will be the same in personnel as the B.B.C. religious advisory committeee. The B.B.C. has done very well in religious broadcasting, following the advice of its advisory committee. If in this case it is to be practically the same committee, why not trust the Independent Television Authority to do the same thing? I cannot see why we should write into the Bill anything as definite as this Amendment seeks. If we do, why not include St. Andrew's Day? Why not St. Patrick's Day, too?
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock spoke of 13 hours' broadcasting a day. Certainly if we have 13 hours' television on a Sunday, two hours for religious broadcasting is not unreasonable, but suppose that at the beginning we have only one hour a day—during the first few weeks, for instance. It will be a little difficult to insist upon two hours of religious broadcasting. These are some of the difficulties which I see, and the reasons why I cannot support the Amendment, although I am very much in sympathy with the idea behind it.
  Mr. W. R. Williams:I have not time to follow the many hares started by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). I do not think anybody knows exactly where he is at any given moment on this issue, but I should have thought, judging from the beginning of his speech, that he would have found some place for religious broadcasting in the directions given to this Authority, so as to ensure that the moral and religious interests of the country are safeguarded.
  We have already agreed, in paragraph (c), that the programmes should
  "maintain a proper balance in their subject matter."
  As the hon. and gallant Member comes from the North of Ireland, I should have thought he would agree with me—I come from North Wales—that a proper balance
  652
  in this country, in an essentially Christian country, would contain at least some religious element.
  Captain Orr:I agree entirely.
  Mr. Williams:If the hon. and gallant Gentleman finds no difficulty in agreeing with paragraph (c) why does he find any difficulty in agreeing with paragraph (h), which in my opinion brings about that balance which he apparently and sensibly desires, just as I desire it?
  As I have only two minutes, I had better leave the subject of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I want to ensure that there is a voice in this debate speaking on behalf of the Welsh religious services, and I say that for two reasons. In the first place, I am satisfied that it will do people in England, Scotland and other parts of the British Isles all the good in the world to hear Welsh preaching—in Welsh.
  They might not understand it, but I feel sure that they would overcome that handicap by the emotion which would be generated within them when they heard the marvellous preachers whom we have in Wales. In any case, if they do not understand it, I feel quite sure that they will understand the meaning of the singing in Welsh, and, if it was only to ensure hearing congregational music from Wales, it would be well worth while for the Committee to accept this Amendment.
  5.30 p.m.
  When it was proposed to introduce religious services into the programmes of the B.B.C., I was one of those who doubted the propriety of doing it. I was not too sure whether it was the thing to do, and what we should have broadcast as a result of that decision. I am perfectly satisfied now that nothing but good has accrued from the religious services broadcast by the B.B.C. in the various languages, including Welsh.
  I am also satisfied on a second point. There are a large number of people today who do not attach themselves regularly to church life in its orthodox form, but who look forward to the services as they are broadcast in the B.B.C. transmissions. In an age which has become highly scientific and possibily materialistic, I do not think it is too much to ask that at least two hours on Sundays should be given to provide us with the opportunity

  653
  of thinking about things which are possibly on a higher plane and which may be of guidance and assistance to us in dealing with our more materialistic affairs.
  I therefore feel that we ought to agree to this Amendment, and that, if religious services were a success with the B.B.C. on the radio, it will be an even greater success when introduced on television. I see no reason at all why, if we tell this Authority that it must do all these things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (g) in order to bring it up to the standard which we think is required of it, we should not add the new paragraph (h). We should be doing wrong to leave outside the scope of these directions those matters which are concerned with the higher plane, and I therefore hope that the House will agree to the Amendment.
  Mr. J. Grimond:I should like to say to the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) that, if we are to have these enjoyable broadcasts in Welsh, he will no doubt have to suffer a counter-attack of Gaelic. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It seems to me that the Authority should be asked to ensure that some time on Sundays should be devoted to religious services, and I think the reasons for that are apparent on the face of the Amendment and in the speech of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) who moved it.
  I want to deal only with one or two objections which may be taken. While the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) was speaking, some one interrupted to ask if the Rationalists would be allowed time on television. Personally, I very much hope that there will be a field of free discussion, and I hope that the Rationalists will have their opportunity, though not on Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday. They can have all the other days in the week if necessary. It would be offensive to many people if they were put on a programme on Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday. If the Amendment is accepted, the services themselves will be open to all denominations.
  It has been argued that there is no duty of this sort laid upon the B.B.C., but I reject that argument, because here we are making a new experiment. We are
  654
  not setting up a copy of the B.B.C. We want to try something which is possibly different, which is experimental, and, therefore, that is not a valid argument. It will also be suggested that it is not necessary to give these directions to the Authority, because it will in any case have regard to the nature of Sunday, Christmas Day and Good Friday and act accordingly. If we were to leave the Authority freedom in all its activities I would accept that argument. But we are not doing that. We are tying it very strictly in some ways.
  In Clause 6, the Postmaster-General is given the power to give directions to it to broadcast anything he likes. We have been discussing other directions to do with this, that or the other duty laid on the Authority. If we are going to have these directions and duties specified in the Measure I think it is most reasonable to lay upon the Authority this duty—that some period of time should be devoted to the broadcasting of religious services, though not necessarily as much as two hours every Sunday.
  Mr. William Hamilton:It is very proper that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) should ask that this issue should be decided by a free vote. When the Assistant Postmaster-General replies to this discussion, I hope he will indicate to his hon. Friends behind him that there will be such a free vote, because, on both sides of the Committee, there are sincere, deeply religious Members of Parliament.
  My only objection to this Amendment would be that it lays down that there shall be two hours of formal religious services. I have watched the television programmes and have listened to the B.B.C., and I think the most impressive programmes of a religious character have been the informal religious broadcasts, particularly those directed to children. On the television screen, the depiction of the work in the missionary field is particularly impressive, and the wording of this Amendment gives scope for an extension of this kind of religious work. I would emphasise the informal sort of religious work, rather than the formal services, as laid down in the Amendment, but I cannot see any possible reason why services should not be provided for, and why there should be any objection to them.
  Mr. Gammans:May I deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who, I think, said that he was assuming that there will be 13 hours of television a day? I should like to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and to say that I do not think it is in the mind of the Government that there should be anything like 13 hours of television a day. That would conflict with the standards of moderation which we are laying down in this Bill.
  The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) spoke feelingly of the vital part which religious broadcasts play in the spiritual life of this country, and he referred to the services which had brought comfort and hope to many millions of people throughout the year. All of us would agree about the delicacy and skill with which the B.B.C. has put forward these broadcasts. Today is Ascension Day, and some of us very much enjoyed the service of Holy Communion broadcast at nine o'clock this morning by the B.B.C.
  In what he was saying, I think the hon. Gentleman was tending to mix up, or not to keep a proper distinction between, sound broadcasting, which forms the overwhelming part of the B.B.C. services, and what is done by television. I think it may surprise the House to know to what a small extent in this field the television service has proved itself to be suitable. Taking the two years from January, 1951, to December, 1952, there were only 32 occasions on which a service was televised, or, roughly, one Sunday in three. What this Amendment asks for is two television services every Sunday.
  Mr. A. Woodburn:Is it not the case that in the evening there is the equivalent of a short service, at any rate, every Sunday?
  Mr. Gammans:I assume that the right hon. Gentleman means Evensong, which lasts only a comparatively few minutes. I do not want to quarrel about this, but I do want to make the point that I do not think that we have yet found what is the rightful place of television in religious services. We may yet find it, but I would suggest that, if an organisation with the immense experience of the B.B.C. has only found it possible to broadcast religious services on one Sunday in three,
  656
  we should be starting unreasonably in asking this organisation to put on two services every Sunday.
  Mr. Ross:Would it not be a good thing if this Authority were given the job of experimenting?
  Mr. Gammans:There is nothing to stop it from experimenting. The hon. Gentleman wants to compel them to experiment. All sorts of considerations come into this matter, and one is expense. We have yet to discover the place of television in religious services.
  Mr. Ness Edwards:From where does the hon. Gentleman get that advice? If he saw the televised services from Llandaff Cathedral in Cardiff, he might think them ideal.
  Mr. Gammans:I can only go by the experience of the only organisation that has ever done these things, the B.B.C. If the B.B.C. had discovered the answer to the problem we should have had far more services than one every three weeks.
  There is another point of view which has not been mentioned, that of the Churches themselves. We do not yet know to what extent two televised services on Sunday would be acceptable to the Churches. There is good evidence of misgiving on the part of many leaders of the Church. They think that if people can sit at home and look at the television service they will not go to Church. I have no doubt whatever that if we were to insist in the Bill that the new Authority, come what may had to put on two services every Sunday, we should have very strong opposition from the Churches.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher:Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that the Churches would be opposed to it?
  Mr. Gammans:I should not be at all surprised. I have no authority whatever to say that the Churches would be in favour of it, and I think it likely that they might be against it.
  Mr. W. R. Williams:What difficulty did the B.B.C. have in getting the Churches to agree to the broadcasting that takes place every Sunday now, and more often than not two or three times on a Sunday? What objection was there from the Churches?
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Gammans:The hon. Gentleman is mixing up sound broadcasting and television. The B.B.C. is guided in religious matters by its Religious Advisory Committee, exactly the same kind of committee that we shall ask to act in the case of the I.T.A. is a question to be answered by that committee. It should say what types of service should be televised, and advise on the frequency of the services.
  The only other point I would briefly mention concerns money. We do not know yet what these services will cost. We have given assurances that church services will not be mixed up with advertising, so in all probability they will have to be paid for by the Authority. We are giving the Authority £750,000 a year. To impose upon it the obligation of putting on two services on Sunday, whether or not the Religious Advisory Committee wanted it and advised it, is far beyond what we should do at this stage.
  Mr. Grimond:If the Amendment were altered so that the time was left out and the Amendment asked, for example, for one service of not more than half an hour to be broadcast, would the hon Gentleman accept it?
  Mr. Gammans:No. I do not think I should be prepared to accept anything. We shall ask the advice of the Churches themselves in the matter, which must in the finality be primarily one for them. For these sincere reasons I must resist the Amendment.
  Mr. Simon:I see the force of the argument which my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General has put forward. Could he not, for the next stage of the Bill, put in a Clause to direct the attention of the Authority to this problem and attach a duty to the Authority of including a reasonable proportion of time on Sunday to religious broadcasting?
  Mr. Gammans:We have dealt with that point in a far more effective way by setting up the Religious Advisory Committee. They are the very people who will consider not only the number of services but the frequency, and will advise the Authority what to do.
  Mr. James MacColl:The Assistant Postmaster-General used an
  658
  argument which very much influenced me. He said that religious broadcasting would cost a lot of money and there was only a limited amount of money to go round. Therefore it was going to be difficult and embarrassing to provide religious services.
  That is precisely the reason why it is necessary to have a provision like the Amendment, in order to be certain that reasonable regard will be paid by the Authority to religious requirements, not only on Sundays but particularly on Good Fridays. It is important on Good Friday, because of the secularisation of that day, that the Independent Authority should provide religious services. There is all the difference in the world between the B.B.C. and the Independent Authority. The B.B.C. has no contact with industry. It is non-profit making and has to provide a public service at the highest standard. The Independent Authority will feel a conflict of interests between its duty to the public and to the advertisers. It is precisely because of that conflict that it is necessary to provide in the Bill for religious services. I am certain about it.
  The attitude of the Assistant Postmaster-General to this question will cause a great deal of disappointment to many people who feel strongly about this matter. It is only necessary to remember the efforts which have been made by the B.B.C. to bring to the public some of the finest and most beautiful services in the great Anglican churches to realise the danger that that kind of thing will be squeezed out of television by financial considerations. I am most disappointed that the Assistant Postmaster-General has treated the matter in the cavalier way he has done.
  Mr. Colegate:There is a point which has not been mentioned yet, apart from being lightly touched upon by the Assistant Postmaster-General. What effect will religious broadcasts by television have on the attendances at church from the financial point of view? Churches depend very largely upon the collections made at the services. We know that good political speeches are broadcast, and that as a result it is not so easy to get as well attended a political meeting as before either television or sound broadcasting took place.

  659
  The Assistant Postmaster-General is quite right when he says that before any steps are taken in that direction a committee representing the Churches should be carefully consulted. The Churches' interests here are somewhat in danger or may possibly be endangered, so we should consult representatives of the Church organisations.
  Mr. Hoy:My hon. Friends and myself regard the Assistant Postmaster-General's reply as extremely disappointing. We do not accept many of the arguments which have come from the other side of the Committee but there is a later Amendment on which we may discuss more fully the whole question of a Sunday service. While we do not propose to withdraw the Amendment, we do not intend to take up more of the time of the Committee by dividing on it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir R. Grimston:I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, to leave out from the second "of," to "a," in line 28.
  As this Amendment and that in line 28 go together, I take it that we can discuss them together.
  The Chairman:Yes.
  Sir R. Grimston:The object of these Amendments is to make it possible for the new Authority to produce a series of political broadcasts different from that produced by the B.B.C. As the Bill is now drawn the I.T.A. can only repeat the B.B.C. political broadcasts.
  Let me say at once that we have no intention of upsetting the balance arranged with the B.B.C. by the political parties, but seek to authorise the Independent Television Authority to put on a series with different speakers. That is what it amounts to. If people do not want to hear one hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the B.B.C., they can have another provided by the I.T.A.
  There is the additional point that more hon. Members on both sides of the House will be given more opportunities to appear on television. Speaking purely as a politician, I should have thought that that was a good thing. The present balance is agreed between the political parties, but if we can broaden the basis of political broadcasts I think that we should do so.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn:On one point I can agree with the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston), and that is that as politicians we all have a vested interest in political broadcasts. Speaking on the previous Amendment, the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) referred to the difficulty all except star speakers have in getting well-filled meetings these days. There are so many other attractions that it is difficult to get the big crowds which, if we are to believe our fathers and grandfathers, were a political feature in their day. I speak here only for myself. There may, of course, be many hon. Members who can pack the Royal Festival Hall. The parties must meet this situation by getting at the people through the new medium. I am in favour of more political television broadcasting. Much as I hate much of its works, I should like to see this new corporation available to political parties to get their message across.
  This Amendment, of course, is an absolutely hopeless way of doing it. It does not help or guide us in the difficulties which will arise. One has only to see the arrangements made with the B.B.C. to realise how intensely delicate this matter is. From time to time there are conferences between the parties and the B.B.C. when all these matters of timing and the number of broadcasts are settled by agreement. That is a feature of British party political broadcasting, which, I suppose, goes right back to the time when such broadcasting began. At the time of a General Election there is a formula which is based on the number of candidates each party has in the field, and if one alters these arrangements one gets into terribly deep waters.
  Sir R. Grimston:It is not the intention to alter those arrangements. Though the Amendment is possibly not absolutely correctly drawn, there is no intention to alter the balance in the arrangements.
  Mr. Benn:I am prepared to give credit for good intention, but the Amendment opens wide the door to chaos in the field of party political broadcasting. There is nothing in the Amendment to suggest that the I.T.A. must make the arrangements. As it stands, any programme contractor could run his own series of party political broadcasts. It is

  661
  in effect, extending paragraph (g), and it would be open to any programme contractor to run his own series.
  Sir R. Grimston:May I draw attention to paragraph (f)? That covers the point about due impartiality.
  Mr. Benn:This shows how guilty the hon. Member for Westbury is. All I said was that a programme contractor could run a series. I was not suggesting that he would be partial, but only that he could run a balanced series. The hon. Member's intervention does not deny my point that a contractor could run a series on his own.
  Sir R. Grimston:Why not?
  Mr. Benn:I will come to that in a moment.
  We come here to the most unpopular aspect of political party broadcasting. Up to now the arranging has been done generally through the Party Whips' offices. It might be all right if Gilbert Harding wanted to put the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) into the "What's my line?" programme and have the listeners guess what he did for a living. But if there is to be a political broadcast by the Conservative Party it is up to their Chief Whip to appoint someone to present the party view.
  It would be a very brave thing were a programme contractor, however impartial, to be allowed to pick the speakers, because the feature of party political broadcasting is that the man speaks for the party. In that case, of course, it must be left to the party. It would be perhaps a great embarrassment if the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) were the only hon. Member picked to represent the Conservative Party and speak for them in a political broadcast. It would be very advantageous to us to feel that, unknown to many of his own colleagues, he voiced the real inspiration and philosophy of his own party.
  6.0 p.m.
  Then there is the question of payment. If the programme contractor is allowed to put on a series of party political broadcasts, there is nothing to stop him charging for them. It is suggested that M.P.s are going to get a lot of money out of commercial television. The fact is that
  662
  in America politicians pay enormous sums to be allowed to take part in political broadcasts, and they do not get a penny out of it. Adlai Stevenson went on a network in America and had to pay 75,000 dollars. That was paid out by the sponsors.
  Are we to introduce a system by which parties buy their time, which it is left open for them to do by this Amendment? Are we to allow some programme contractor, with perhaps the most muddled ideas about political organisations, to pick his speakers from each side of the House and let him decide who is to speak for the party? Are we to have the Liberal Party put on at the peak listening hour while the Conservatives are tucked away into a period when the urban housewives are making the beds? All these things have to be decided by inter-party agreement. While I believe for myself that we should get party political broadcasts on television wherever we can, I think that it would be most unwise in general to accept this Amendment.
  Supposing that the Opposition decided that they would not participate in a party political series. I am not threatening, but both parties must agree to this to fulfil the requirements of paragraph (f) that there must be impartiality, and therefore we must get party agreement. If this Amendment were accepted and there were no proper safeguards, it might be that one party or the other would find that it was unable to co-operate, and the whole object of this Amendment would fall to the ground. I hope that before the Assistant Postmaster-General offers to accept this Amendment he will discuss it with my right hon. Friends, because we cannot have an impartial political series operating unless both sides are willing to co-operate.
  Mr. Walter Elliot:The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and I had a short discussion on this matter by telephone earlier in the day. I am sure that he will not expect me to go into it as it was a private conversation, but he will remember that when we mentioned the possible intervention of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) we agreed that there were other hon. Members on his own side who could be equally embarrassing as representatives of party opinion.

  663
  We carry the hon. Gentleman with us to the extent that it would be a good thing if there were more opportunities for politics to be explained on the air to people who are interested, and it is an interesting thought that perhaps in this way we might get an expansion of the rather narrow area of selection which is open at the present time.
  It is true, I think, that if practising political people are to be asked to go on the air, the political organisations will inevitably have a certain amount of authority over them. When the hon. Gentleman is speaking, as I have often heard him speak in "Any Questions," or delighting us in some of the other broadcasts in which he takes part, the very fact that he is not only a very well known member of his own party but bears a famous name means that the views of his party are to some extent represented in the minds of the ordinary man listening by what he says.
  But that is not always the case. The Home Secretary would be aghast if he were held responsible for everything which the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) said as being authorised by the Central Office and carrying the full cache of the party. For all that, my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire was complaining at an earlier stage of our deliberations about the rigid quota imposed on him by the Central Office.
  The interesting point is whether there should be a broadening of the rather narrow approach which exists at the B.B.C. at present. I think that it is a rather narrow approach. The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East spoke of the difficulty of filling great halls. I have just come from a great hall which was filled, and very successfully so, by a leading Member of my own party. It is also true to say that party political broadcasts as such do not attract the audiences they did. They are more "give and take" and discussion programmes. In B.B.C. broadcasting we are seeing the change going on and these things will demand a flexible attitude of the parties towards them.
  Mr. Benn:Concerning the controversial broadcast, we are all agreed in a sense that this is in the field already;
  664
  but these are party political broadcasts in which the man who is picked is picked to represent his party. Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes that he should be allowed to speak for his party if he has not been picked by his party, because that is the key to the whole thing.
  Mr. Elliot:Not quite. I am saying that the party political broadcast will not in the future take the same form as in the past, because I think that it has been to some extent superseded by newer techniques, to put it no higher than that, particularly in unscripted broadcasts where we all have to go a little beyond the strict limitations of our party, and we cannot be held responsible for every single word and sentence that is uttered.
  That brings me back to the point that this is a matter in which I think the Authority will be the appropriate judge. The whole complicated business of political broadcasts is again under the aegis of the B.B.C., and it would be hopeless for the House of Commons to attempt to try to lay down rules which should govern party political broadcasts in a statute. They can be very properly laid down and they have been laid down partly by the Authority—in that case the B.B.C.—partly by the central offices concerned and partly by the developing practice in which the individual always breaks through more or less the rigid rules of the organisations.
  For all that, I do not think that we can go further just now. That is where I come back again and again in our discussions here, that in this new and developing programme we cannot do better than set up a reasonable central authority and trust it to allow the development of these new techniques. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be able to support this even further than he has been able to do yet.
  Mr. Herbert Morrison:I cannot help saying that the more I listened to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), the more I was mystified as to what they meant. I cannot believe that the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove has any sense of grievance about his own appearances on the B.B.C. He does very well—he does

  665
  very well in other directions. He is frequently on the air, so there is no boycott of him.
  I did not understand the interjection of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) earlier on, because he is a frequent and popular appearer on television and on one thing and another. I do not know why they should get agitated, if they want a better chance for other people. We all speak personally; we cannot help it. If a formula could be invented whereby some hon. Members appeared less often and others who wanted to be on more often could do so, it would have a natural appeal to the general body of hon. Members. However, that does not settle it. Hon. Members opposite have not addressed their observations to the actual terms of the Amendment—
  Mr. George Wigg:Does not my right hon. Friend think it highly improper at this stage to introduce into the argument considerations of how much hon. Members are going to get? It seems to me wholly deplorable that there should be that sort of approach to political broadcasts, bringing in the question of how much the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) or the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) get. They get it through special circumstances. In my judgment, no one ought to get anything.
  Mr. Morrison:I know that that is the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), and I gather that he has put down an Amendment on that subject. The argument was started by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire and the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove, and I have only followed it up. I quite agree that all of us who do any broadcasting for fees ought to declare our interests. I do so.
  Mr. Wigg:Hon. Members who broadcast ought to take no fee.
  Mr. Morrison:I do not know about that. I think there is something to be said for the labourer receiving his reward. The point as to whether those of us who were opposed to commercial television ought to appear on commercial television is one for moral consideration in due course.
  Let us see what the Amendment does. It would leave paragraph (g) as it is:
  "subject as hereinafter provided in this subsection, that no matter designed to serve the interests of any political party is included in the programmes…"
  Then there comes the proviso as it is proposed to be amended:
  "Provided that nothing in paragraph (g) of this subsection shall prevent (i) the inclusion in the programmes of relays"—
  Captain Orr:It is "of a series."
  Mr. Morrison:Is "relays" out? I read it another way. I thought it ought to be out because otherwise it would not make sense. It is:
  "… the inclusion in the programmes of a series of party political broadcasts.…"
  These are party political broadcasts. They are not the occasional appearances which hon. Members make in "In the News" or "Press Conference" and other programmes on television or in doing talks or interviews on sound broadcasting. They are party political broadcasts where the individual is announced as "Mr. So-and-so, speaking for the so-and-so party."
  There are two points upon this. First, on this class of broadcast it would clearly be wrong if the party organisation had no voice in the matter at all when the individual was speaking on its behalf. The Parliamentary party leaders meet the B.B.C. from time to time and we have most careful discussions about it. Otherwise, there is bound to be a grievance on the part of the political parties. I admit that there also may be a grievance on the part of individual party members who think that they ought to be selected for the party from time to time but are not. However, they can have their row with the party, and I dare say that they sometimes do. Nevertheless, it works smoothly as a whole.
  6.15 p.m.
  It is clearly wrong to contemplate, as is contemplated by the Amendment that the responsibility for selecting party political broadcasters should rest upon the Authority which is at the head of a highly commercial organisation. That is the other danger.
  This is a highly commercial organisation the greater part of whose revenue will depend upon commercial advertising. It may well be interested in choosing people who are less dangerous to the capitalist

  667
  system of society and to the commercial interests represented by the organisation. It would, therefore, be even more dangerous than in the case of the British Broadcasting Corporation to give the Authority a freedom which nobody is proposing to give the B.B.C. I do not know whether the brewers would have an influence on the Authority. They might be big advertisers. I do not know what the chances would be of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) appearing on those programmes.
  It is right that the political parties should be reasonably protected, but parliament has also to be protected. If an outside organisation, especially if it is of a commercial character, can have complete freedom to build up or not build up Parliamentarians and politicians, it is a dangerous power to give it. It may well affect the authority of Parliament, and that is why the B.B.C. has not been allowed complete freedom in these matters. If the B.B.C. is not allowed complete freedom, it is all the more necessary that this body should not be allowed complete freedom.
  The case against the Amendment is overwhelming. I can only express the hope that the Government will advise the Committee not to accept it. Those who have put it down have not considered it carefully enough, and I hope that they will be inclined to withdraw it.
  Mr. Mitchison:On a point of order. I should like your Ruling about the Amendment we are discussing, Mr. MacPherson. I understood my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) to take the view of it that I do, that it leaves in the context.
  "… the inclusion in the programmes of relays …of a series…"
  but that appears to be denied by hon. Members opposite who support the Amendment. It would be as well to find out what the Question before the Committee is.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson):The Amendment would appear to leave in:
  "…the inclusion in the programmes of relays…of a series …"
  as the hon. and learned Member suggests.
  Mr. Morrison:That is what I thought.
  Mr. Gammans:The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has built up a great bogy about what might happen if we were to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Ross:"What could happen."
  Mr. Gammans:I observe that the brewers have been brought back into the matter. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be relieved to hear that I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment, although I must confess that the idea has many attractions. It is attractive for the reason put forward, that it would perhaps introduce a different type of political broadcasting, one with an element of variety, and—I suppose that all of us have a certain vested interest in this—that it would increase the opportunities for us to appear in front of the television cameras.
  I hope I shall be able to convince my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) why we cannot accept the Amendment. He said, quite rightly, that there is no idea of upsetting the balance. In other words, if the Amendment were accepted, there would be no danger of one political party "nobbling" a station; balance has to be maintained. He sees no difficulty on that score.
  What he really wants is a separate series of properly balanced broadcasts arranged by the Authority. I will give him the reason why I cannot accept that. I must remind the Committee that at first we wondered whether party political broadcasts might have to be cut out altogether. In fact, at one time in our discussions the idea was that they should be. We realised that this was a thorny problem and we thought that, as in the case of religion, it might be better to leave them alone.
  However, in the end we thought that we might accept them, and that if we did so it must be the whole of a series of B.B.C. broadcasts, not a part. My hon. Friend may say that it is illogical to close those doors. It may be illogical, but this is a matter which after many years has been agreed by means of a committee of the principal parties in this House, who have to discuss and agree on the form that these broadcasts shall take, and how many of them there shall be. If we reopen this, we have to reopen it on that

  669
  basis, and I think it undesirable that we should do so.
  There is another, and I hope conclusive, reason why we must resist this Amendment. When my right hon. and learned Friend introduced the Second Reading of this Bill he indicated that this was the way that party political broadcasts would be arranged. We are not prepared to depart from that, and therefore for those reasons I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Shackleton:I hope the hon. Gentleman will not be deterred by any promises that have been given to the House, because he has broken a few of them already.
  Mr. H. Morrison:Mr. MacPherson, I mentioned in the course of my speech that there are occasions when fees are paid to broadcasters. In order that there shall be no public misunderstanding, I should say that in respect of controversial political broadcasts there is no fee paid whatever.
  Mr. F. Blackburn:I am glad that the Assistant Postmaster-General has said that he will resist this Amendment, because I have the feeling that neither the hon. Gentleman nor the people who have put down this Amendment have read the words of the Bill. The mover of it said it was giving a monopoly to the B.B.C., but the Bill says:
  "Provided that nothing in paragraph (g) of this subsection shall prevent—(i) the inclusion in the programmes of relays of the whole (but not some only) of a series of the British Broadcasting Corporation's party political broadcasts."
  It does not say that there shall be a monopoly and my concern in this matter is that I do not think that there are sufficient safeguards about party political broadcasts which may still be put on by the Authority or by the programme companies. The Bill does not say that the Authority shall be restricted to the party political broadcasts of the B.B.C., it says that nothing shall prevent the whole or a series being put on. There is a danger arising from this that other party political broadcasts may be put on in accordance with paragraph (a) with subsequent difficulties. I would ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to deal with that aspect of the problem.
  Mr. Grimond:After the explanation of the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), I feel inclined to say a word in support of it. If the intention is to allow the Authority to put on a series of party political broadcasts different from the B.B.C., there is a great deal to be said for that, though I appreciate that it would have to be subject to careful safeguards. I also appreciate that, if agreement could not be reached about adequate safeguards, the Independent Authority might have to drop the proposal.
  However, the proposal in itself seems an intrinsically reasonable and good one, because we are all agreed that one of the advantages of the Independent Authority is that it will allow more discussion and more representation of political and other controversial views.
  It has been suggested that the situation as regards these party political broadcasts is entirely satisfactory. I do not know how satisfactory it is to the public, because I am one of those who think that these broadcasts are losing popularity and that it is the discussion programmes which attract the big listening public today.
  As far as the Liberal Party are concerned, I have no complaint. I think we are fairly generously treated. There is, however, a question there as to whether it is right for all time to weight these programmes according to representation in this House. This is not the time to go into that question. But it does seem to me anomalous, at a time when the Conservative and Labour parties are roughly equal in numbers, that if one gets a few more seats than the other, the allocation is altered. I do not believe the present method of allocating time between the three main parties can be justified.
  But there are several parties in this country who are not represented at all in these programmes. There are the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the Communists."] Personally, I would have the Communists on as well, though there are those who argue that the Communists are not a political party but a revolutionary conspiracy.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall:Would the hon. Gentleman include the Mosleyites?
  Mr. Grimond:Certainly I would. I have great faith in the old argument that if we allow free discussion in a reasonable democracy, which is reasonably educated, people like the Mosleyites will not get a following.
  Mr. Mitchison:What is to be sent out is not a party political broadcast but a relay. The Bill does not say what party and in what country. I thought it was a device to get in McCarthy while there is time.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing:The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. The Bill says "of relays," meaning relays of a programme by the Authority's transmitters.
  Mr. Gordon Walker:That is not what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Grimond:May I intervene? I agree with the hon. and learned Member. I was considerably confused about the meaning of this Amendment. I think relays are cut out. I do not think we can have Mr. McCarthy. He really is not a political party, and it is official party broadcasts we are discussing.
  Mr. Mitchison:Did we not have a ruling from the Chair that "of relays" stayed in?
  Mr. Grimond:I think there is an argument in saying what a political party is. I accept the reasoning that, if we attempt to define it logically, we are up against appalling difficulties. But there are certain groups of people in this country in whom I have no political interest, such as the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists and the Communists, who clearly would be included under any definition of a political party. If we accept that then they should be entitled to give an occasional party political broadcast.
  Mr. Gordon Walker:Does the hon. Gentleman mean that they should be entitled to broadcast according to the amount of time they can afford to buy? Otherwise how can they be selected under this system?
  Mr. Grimond:No. The Independent Authority must keep the balance, but it should give them some time on the air.
  Mr. Blackburn:Will the hon. Member explain how the Amendment would help?
  Mr. Grimond:That would be a very difficult matter.
  Captain Orr:I agree that perhaps the Amendment as it is drawn does not do what we would like it to do. But there was nothing sinister behind it. All that we had in mind was that the Bill, as drafted, means that no party political broadcasts of any kind can be put on unless they are those of the B.B.C.
  Mr. Blackburn:Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say where it says that in the Bill?
  Captain Orr:Yes, in paragraph (g):
  "that no matter designed to serve the interests of any political party is included in the programmes: Provided that nothing ‖ shall prevent—(i) the inclusion in the programmes of relays — of a series of the British Broadcasting Corporation's party political broadcasts."
  6.30 p.m.
  As the Bill is drafted, nothing can be included in the way of party political broadcasts coming under the aegis of the Authority except broadcasts relayed from the B.B.C. I am not convinced by arguments that it would be impossible, for instance, for the three political parties to get together and say, "We want to put the 'First XI' party political broadcasts on the B.B.C. and we should like to have a 'Second XI' and put them in a programme sent out by the Authority." I do not see why the parties could not come to precisely the same kind of agreement as they have now about impartiality and the length of time of broadcasts. As the Bill stands, they will be completely prohibited from doing all this in connection with the Authority for the next 10 years.
  Mr. Ness Edwards:Would advertisements be associated with these broadcasts, and would the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that these broadcasts would have to be done either by the programme companies or by the I.T.A itself?
  Captain Orr:I cannot see that advertisements could possibly be associated with party broadcasts, but no doubt that would be a matter on which the parties could agree among themselves. On the second point, I have no doubt that if it were agreed between the Authority and

  673
  the political parties that there should be a party political television programme the I.T.A. could say to a programme contractor, "You must give facilities to this or that party on such and such a day." I do not see that that is an insuperable difficulty. If the B.B.C. came to an end within 10 years after the passing of this Bill, no party political broadcast could be sent out by the Authority as the Bill is now drafted.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will look at this point again between now and the Report stage. As it stands, the provision seems to be unduly restrictive. I cannot see why there should be any party disagreement or why we could not devise a means of having party political broadcasts on the I.T.A. system without necessarily having to have relays from the B.B.C.
  Mr. Wigg:I wonder what the giants of the past who struggled for political freedom in this House and in the country must think (if they are listening to our debates from beyond the veil. Surely they must say that they are hearing the death-knell of democracy. The Assistant Postmaster-General handles the questions of politics and religion in this business as if they were so many pounds of fish and chips to be bought and sold in order to make a profit.
  We are not discussing the merits of whether the Communist, Liberal or Conservative Parties shall do this or that. What we are deciding for ourselves and our children is the spiritual quality which shall go to make up our thinking and feeling in grappling with the problems which face us today and in the days that are to come.
  Mr. Gordon Walker:On commercial television?
  Mr. Wigg:I am coming to that. The way in which the Bill has been presented and the functioning of the Guillotine have prevented us from having an adequate discussion of the principles underlying our actions in the Bill, and in some matters from even discussing the principles at all. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) talks about far-reaching proposals in connection with the Bill as if he were dispensing so many pounds of acid drops. He has not the dimmest comprehension of the issues that are involved. We are engaged
  674
  in setting up a body to influence the minds of our people, but whose only concern at the end of the day is whether the right figures are on the right side of the balance sheet. That is the test that commercial television will apply. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks us to trust him, what sort of fools does he think we are? I would not trust him an inch, nor would I trust the forces that are behind him.
  I am very concerned indeed and have been concerned for a very long time with the handling of political questions by the B.B.C., but I am more worried by this new body. It will have vast sums of money in the bank and even greater sums available if a profit can be made. It will be able to mould and control the opinion not only of a large part of the electorate but also of Members of Parliament, and there will be little control of its activities once the Bill is passed.
  I should like to have a declaration from my own Front Bench that these commercial television programmes are evil things, conceived by evil men for evil purposes, that no Socialist will touch them with a barge-pole. I hope that no member of the Labour Party will take a penny profit as a result of doing a political strip-tease when it suits hon. Members opposite to give him an engagement. [An HON. MEMBER: "On commercial television."] We should recognise the fact that in the United States at least they know what their values are and have not so much smug hypocrisy as we have. They say over there that politicians ought not to be paid for going on the air. Indeed they ought to pay for the opportunity to broadcast.
  We should recognise that if people are given time on the B.B.C. or on commercial television they are being given a considerable advantage. Particularly in view of decisions that have been taken this week, I hope that the day is not far distant when there will be an all-party declaration that no Member of Parliament shall receive a single penny piece from broadcasting, either on commercial television or on the B.B.C.
  Mr. Ede:I want to take a line different from that of anyone else who has spoken so far. I do not go quite as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), but I very nearly go there. I believe that during

  675
  the past 20 or 30 years the radio has been the strongest support of dictatorship of any of the inventions of man. Hitler and Mussolini ordered the whole of their populations on to the streets to hear what they were to think.
  I object to political broadcasting altogether. I believe that it has already gone a long way to destroy the vitality of British democracy. It has destroyed the heckler because, after all, the heckler likes a big audience just as much as the speaker from the platform, and the heckler was an essential part of the British way of life in politics. That great orator the Earl of Rosebery alluding to a General Election said that during it the skill of the electorate would lay bare all the secrets in the politicians' hearts.
  Those of us who are old enough to recollect political meetings of the past, in village schools as well as in town halls, know the way in which question time was a far livelier episode than it is now in most meetings. Democracy as we understand it in this country is not listening to lectures, even when one has the power to turn the knob and switch the orator off. Democracy is a co-operative effort between the electorate and the candidate. It may be very comfortable to sit in one's armchair and listen to a great orator or, if one happens to be a candidate in a borough constituency, to go back to one's hotel after doing one's worst and switch on the radio and listen to how the matter is put over by those who understand the job. One can also listen, of course, to the comments of those who are sharing the coffee with one in the lounge.
  I put it seriously to the Committee that in this matter we have to be very careful how far we go, and multiplying political broadcasts is not to my mind doing a real service to democracy on the British pattern. I want to see something done that will restore the active participation of the electorate in the formulation of public opinion when elections take place. I am quite certain that in the old days the elector played a far more important part in shaping policy than he does under the present system.
  I have no complaint against the B.B.C. They mainly employ me to deliver obituary notices, and they never pay me for them. One has to be a bit careful when
  676
  one is making them. They also used to allow me as Home Secretary to do what the present holder of that office does, to implore people to look at the electoral register in order to make sure that their names are on it. Judging from what one hears after an election, there are few less successful broadcasts than those.
  I once had a surprise. I was invited after a debate on the Metropolitan Police to speak for eight minutes about the Metropolitan Police on the European Service. I went, and I did as well as I could. I have not yet heard any complaints from the police, but, probably, they were not listening to the European Service. To my amazement, the day after I spoke, I received a form of contract offering me £5 for the broadcast. I felt rather like Pooh-Bah who, when he received a bribe, said:
  "An insult, and, I think, a light one."
  I would not say that it was an insult, but it was a surprise to me, I am bound to say, that a politician who was asked to give a talk of that kind should be regarded as having made himself eligible for payment. But as it was apparently the rate for the job, I determined that I would take it that time, but that if ever I was again invited I would inquire beforehand how much the job was worth.
  I suggest to the Committee that in all this mass talk and mass propaganda we have to beware how far we are doing injury when we hope that we are giving instruction. After all, it is not instruction that one wants to give, but an education to the electorate, and the soundest education is that in which the pupil actively participates, and he has a job to do that when listening to the radio or watching the television.
  Sir R. Grimston:In view of the operation of the Guillotine, and it being the desire of the party opposite, I think I should offer to withdraw my Amendment. I am perfectly prepared to do so in view of the fact that we have had a very good discussion on it, and that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General has said what he has on the subject. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Hon. Members:No.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman:I recognise that we are working under extremely difficult conditions, that there is a very strict Guillotine, and that we have not the opportunity of properly discussing either this or any other point under the Bill. I hope, therefore, to try to limit the length of time I speak, having regard to that extremely unfortunate circumstance. In excuse, I may say that this is the only occasion on which I have spoken in the course of these discussions, and the only occasion on which I propose to speak.
  I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) offer to withdraw his Amendment, because I am in favour of it. I think it is an extremely good Amendment. I say, against the background that I do not like the Bill at all, that if there were any way of preventing it from reaching the Statute Book, I would advise everyone to take that way. I think that the whole thing is sinister and not very respectable, and I am sorry that the Bill was ever introduced.
  6.45 p.m.
  However, we are now discussing the Measure in Committee on the basis that, unfortunately, it will some day reach the Statute Book. We are discussing, therefore, whether we can in any way limit the evil or improve its operation. We are not discussing at this stage—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) will not think me unkind if I do not seem to agree with what I thought was a very good speech from him—whether people ought to be paid for political broadcasts. I think there is a great deal to be said about that, but it has nothing to do with this Amendment.
  Mr. Wigg:On the contrary, I have not moved my Amendment. My Amendment comes next. I wished to cut down the time, and, therefore, I took the opportunity of making part of my speech now rather than making the whole of it later.
  Mr. Silverman:I am sure that my hon. Friend had the most proper motives for doing the most improper thing. He always has. But it remains true that so far as the Amendment which we are now considering is concerned it has nothing to do with payment. We can agree to my hon. Friend's Amendment and still agree to this Amendment, and no doubt that
  678
  would be a satisfactory thing from his point of view.
  As I understand the position as the Bill is drawn, it is this. There are two ways in which political opinion may be influenced by broadcasting or by television. One is what one might call the official way, the official party broadcast in which, as is quite right, the time is apportioned equitably according to the numerical strength of the parties, and each party has the right to nominate its own spokesman.
  But that is not the whole story. The B.B.C. can and does use political personalities for a wide variety of other purposes—public discussions of all sorts and kinds. They are not the party political broadcasts, and, ostensibly at any rate—I do not know what happens behind the scenes—the parties have nothing whatever to do with the selection of those personalities. That may be a bad thing. Some people think it is.
  If it is a bad thing, then it ought not happen at all. But it does happen, and when the Independent Television Authority is operating there is nothing in the Clause, as drawn, which will prevent it, if it wishes, from developing the second, or, one may call it, the unofficial kind of political propaganda. It can select arbitrarily, and without any right of interference from any party or person, any political personality whom it can induce, with or without payment, to take part in any kind of programme. Who is going to say that political opinion in this country may not be very greatly influenced by discussions of that kind?
  The television programme "In the News" has already gained in the public mind a kind of quasi-official authority, although, ostensibly, the parties have nothing at all to do with it. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Independent Television Authority from putting on a rival "In the News" programme, and putting on it any political personality it likes.
  What does the Amendment propose? It does not propose to interfere with that at all. All that it proposes to do is to have side by side with it, as the B.B.C. has side by side with it, the officially-controlled official political party broadcasts. What is wrong with that? I find it very difficult to understand. If it is a bad thing to have it, as my right hon.

  679
  Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) thinks—and there is a lot to be said for his point of view—then we should not have it at all. But it cannot be a good thing, or a right thing, or a reasonable thing, to have official party political broadcasts of that kind on the B.B.C. and relayed, provided all of them are relayed, by the Independent Television Authority, but only those, and to do that in the name of competition.
  Here is a Bill introduced by the Government because they do not like monopoly, but they are all in favour of preserving monopoly in the only place where monopoly ought not to be, namely in official party political broadcasts. This is the one sector of the whole field in which the Government wish to retain a monopoly, apparently with the support of my right hon. Friend, and I confess that I do not understand it.
  Mr. Benn:Would my hon. Friend explain to the Committee how a second official Labour Party broadcast would break the monopoly of the first official Labour Party broadcast?
  Mr. Silverman:I do not think it would at all. It would not be the party monopoly that was broken, but there would be some chance of lessening a personal monopoly. If we provide two series of broadcasts instead of one, we might, if we were a reasonable party, such as ours is, find that we had the opportunity to use the services of more people. If there are only four or five opportunities during the year, one's choice is inevitably severely restricted, and one has a perfectly good justification or pretext, as the case may be, for ringing the changes on the same group of personalities because there is only a small number of occasions at one's disposal.
  If any party was foolish enough not to avail itself of all the talent available, it would pay the penalty in its hold on the public attention and in its influence on the development of political thought. A sensible party, if it had more opportunities, would use new angles of approach and new kinds of idiom and all that kind of thing, and I am quite certain that that would be done.
  But if we are having this Independent Television Authority at all, and if we are leaving to it the far more dangerous and
  680
  more insidious unofficial political propaganda on the informal occasions, I cannot see why it should be prevented from doubling or trebling or quadrupling, if it is willing to give so much time, the official party broadcasts, of which ex hypothesi the official parties would remain in control all the time. I am utterly at a loss to understand why the Amendment is being opposed, why it is rejected by the Government and why even its putative father wishes to kill it before it is born.
  Sir R. Grimston:I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  The Temporary Chairman:The hon. Member cannot withdraw the Amendment. He has already asked leave to withdraw, and the Committee has not given him permission.
  Amendment negatived.
  The Temporary Chairman:The next five Amendments are not selected.
  Mr. Wigg:Mr. MacPherson, do I understand that the Chair has not selected the Amendment standing in my name, in page 5, line 45, at the end to insert:
  (3) It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that, save in the case of the relays mentioned in paragraph (i) of the proviso to subsection (1) of this section. no remuneration shall be paid for the services of any member of the Commons House of Parliament in connection with any programme broadcast by the Authority including any programme provided by a programme contractor.
  The Temporary Chairman:That is so.
  Mr. Wigg:I do not want to challenge your Ruling—indeed, I cannot—but as the Amendment is in order, I can only assume that it has not been selected because there is only one name to it. That seems to be a complete disregard of the rights of minorities in this House, and I want to protest—
  The Temporary Chairman:It is not for the hon. Member either to ask the reason why the Amendment has not been selected or to suggest a possible reason with a view to finding out which is the actual reason.
  Mr. Wigg:I defer to your Ruling, Mr. MacPherson, but perhaps I may add that so far I have contented myself with putting the Amendment on the Order Paper

  681
  in my own name. What I propose to do is to renew my efforts on the Report stage, and I trust that many of my hon. Friends will give me support to ensure that the Amendment is called on Report.
  Mr. William Warbey:I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, after "of," to insert:
  "and conform generally to the recommendations of."
  I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for the assistance which he has given to this side of the Committee in enabling us to expedite the business and to try to concentrate on some of those matters which we regard as of some importance.
  I do not know, Mr. MacPherson, whether you would regard it as in order to take in conjunction with this Amendment the Amendment to page 6, line 9, at the end, add:
  "and an educational committee representative of parents, teachers and other persons with experience of and special interest in the welfare and education of young persons and children to advise the programme contractors and the Authority on any matter intended for young persons or children included in the said programmes or publications and on the suitability or unsuitability for young persons and children of any other matter included or submitted for inclusion in the said programmes or publications."
  The Temporary Chairman:If it is the desire of the Committee to take these Amendments together we could do so, but I think they are quite different from each other.
  Mr. Shackleton:On a point of order, Mr. MacPherson. We naturally agree with your Ruling that they are different Amendments, but it would make the debate on this Amendment much more relevant if it were possible to refer to that subsequent Amendment, because if this Amendment were carried it would tie up with the later Amendment. I think what my hon. Friend would like to do is to refer to it.
  The Temporary Chairman:There would be no difficulty in referring to the subsequent Amendment.
  Mr. Warbey:I thank you for your Ruling, Mr. MacPherson, because I should like to refer to this other Amendment and call the attention of the Assistant Postmaster-General to the fact
  682
  that during a previous discussion in Committee on the question of educational programmes run under the I.T.A., he stated that the I.T.A. would have the power to set up advisory committees, including an advisory committee on education and children's programmes.
  Therefore, I am going to work on the assumption that, in fact, the hon. Gentleman will accept this later Amendment providing for the specific appointment of an educational committee. Whether or not it is accepted by the Government, or whether indeed it is passed by the Committee as a whole, nevertheless the purpose of subsection (3) is to enable the Independent Television Authority to establish advisory committees for such special fields as it may regard as important. There is a specific reference to an advisory committee on religious matters, and, in our view, there should be specific provision for the appointment of an advisory committee on educational matters and children's programmes as well.
  7.0 p.m.
  The purpose of my Amendment is to ensure that when these advisory committees have been set up the I.T.A. shall follow their advice. That is all we are suggesting. I should have thought this so modest and so reasonable a proposal that the Assistant Postmaster-General would have had no difficulty in accepting it. To save the time of the Committee, since we have other important matters we should like to discuss, I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman now so that he can indicate whether he will accept the Amendment, if it is his intention so to do. A nod from the hon. Gentleman would have assisted the Committee. He gives no sign at all.
  Mr. Mitchison:Try looking at him sideways.
  Mr. Warbey:Since no sign is forthcoming from the hon. Gentleman, I must proceed on the assumption that we are not going to have much assistance from him. Indeed, the Committee gets very little assistance from the Assistant Postmaster-General. Whoever else he may be supposed to assist, it is certainly not this Committee. Whereas the hon. Gentleman has brought forward a Bill in which the Government have written all kinds of restrictions and controls upon

  683
  the I.T.A. and the programme contractors, when we on this side of the Committee propose to strengthen those restrictions and controls, when we propose to make them firm and decisive, the hon. Gentleman says, "Ah, but you do not trust the I.T.A. You are suspicious all the time. Why not leave it alone?" The fact is that we do not trust it. We do not trust a body which is to be set up for commercial purposes and for commercial intentions.
  Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper:Does that apply to the Cooperative Society?
  Mr. Warbey:I was referring to television.
  Captain Orr:The I.T.A. is not to be set up for commercial purposes but to control programmes.
  Mr. Warbey:The purpose of this complicated structure to be set up is to ensure that there shall be an additional advertising medium provided through television. That is the essential purpose, and the I.T.A. is supposed to be the body controlling the whole thing. The purpose of the Amendment is simply to ensure that the I.T.A. shall do its job, and shall have certain specific powers and duties, and shall not be in so vague and indefinite a form as the hon. Gentleman would like to leave it.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General is content with the vaguest kind of wording. When we were discussing another Amendment he indicated that he would be quite happy if this Clause were dropped altogether. He said he would be prepared to consider an Amendment for its deletion, which shows how little importance he attaches to it. He would like to see the whole of it go. We on the contrary should like to see it not only retained but more effective. We should like to see the I.T.A. provided with effective powers and sanctions.
  We have noted the experience of other countries. We have noted that if one relies on voluntary agreements one does not get very far, and that there are all kinds of dangerous departures from what are regarded as the requirements of good taste, high standards, a decent scale of values. In the United States, for example, the National Association of Radio and
  684
  Television Broadcasters in 1952 adopted a television code as a guide to broadcasters. This code states that:
  "Television, all who participate in it are jointly accountable to the American public for respect for the special needs of children"—
  one of these advisory committees should be concerned with the special needs of children—
  "for community responsibility, for the advancement of education and culture, for the acceptability of the programme materials chosen"—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris):As I understand the Amendment, it is concerned with religious broadcasting—
  Mr. Gordon Walker:No, Sir Rhys, advisory committees.
  The Deputy-Chairman:The Amendment is to provide that the advice tendered by the religious advisory committee to the authority should be observed, and that the Authority should act in accordance with it.
  Mr. Gordon Walker:I think any advisory committee. The religious advisory committee is mentioned as a possible one. The subsection says:
  "The Authority … shall, in particular, appoint …"
  that Committee, but other committees may be appointed. The purpose of the Amendment is to make the advice that may be given by such advisory committees as may be set up, which might include one for education, binding on the Authority. The advisory committee for religion is given as one example, as one to which the Government are already committed. The subsection talks in general terms about advisory committees.
  The Deputy-Chairman:Even so, it is still the object of the Amendment that the advice tendered by the advisory committee shall be accepted.
  Mr. Simon:The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) is not correct. The Amendment is literally limited to the religious advisory committee. It seeks to say that
  "The Authority … shall, in particular, appoint, or arrange for the assistance of, and conform generally to the recommendations of a religious advisory committee. …"
  Mr. Warbey:Your predecessor in the Chair, Sir Rhys, indicated that it would

  685
  be in order to refer to a subsequent Amendment that provides for the establishment of an educational committee.
  The Deputy-Chairman:I am not departing from that Ruling. It may be referred to. However, as I understood the argument of the hon. Gentleman, he was doing more than that, and also arguing about what was happening in the United States.
  Mr. Blackburn:May we take it that there will be a separate debate on that subsequent Amendment proposed to page 6, line 9?
  Hon. Members:No.
  The Deputy-Chairman:I must not anticipate. We have not reached that yet.
  Mr. Gordon Walker:The subsection refers to "advisory committees" in the plural. It says:
  "The Authority may appoint … advisory committees to give advice to the Authority … on such matters as the Authority may specify.…"
  It then mentions a specific one, the religious one, but there could be others.
  Squadron Leader Cooper:Is it not a fact that while the subsection generally provides for advisory committees that may be set up it in any event provides that there shall be one committee, the religious advisory committee?
  The Deputy-Chairman:It is true that advisory committees are mentioned in the plural, but the Amendment deals with the religious advisory committee, and is limited to that.
  Mr. Mitchison:I most humbly and respectfully agree with what you have just said, Sir Rhys, but, of course, if at the end of the subsection subsequently another committee were added this similar question would arise with regard to that committee. That was why we were anxious to refer to the educational committee's appointment, because if it were tacked on, as it were, to the end of the subsection this Amendment would refer to it, too. While the subsection does not in terms say more than that the religious committee should give advice to the Authority, it is obvious that, if the Authority were bound in particular to conform generally to the advice of
  686
  one of the committees, there would be some good reason for supposing that it should also similarly conform to the advice of any other committee that might be established.
  The Deputy-Chairman:I think the position is as the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) pointed out and that would come on the later Amendment.
  Mr. Gordon Walker:We could discuss the two Amendments.
  The Deputy-Chairman:I understood that reference could be made to the other Amendment, but that is very different from developing an argument upon it.
  Mr. Warbey:I shall endeavour, to the best of my ability, to conform to your Ruling, Sir Rhys. I was seeking to show why it was important that the Independent Television Authority should be specifically required to conform generally to the advice given by a committee whether it was a committee on religious broadcasting or any other.
  It would perhaps be in order for me to illustrate the necessity for writing such an express provision into the Bill by pointing out that in other countries, although advisory bodies have been set up to draw up codes, give advice and so on, that advice has in fact very often been disregarded. That has certainly been the case in the United States.
  I was quoting from the television code drawn up in the United States and indicating the fairly high standards which were set in regard to matter which might be broadcast, not only in programmes for children, but in programmes generally. I then wished to go on to point out that, despite the high standards set up in this code, those standards have very often been totally disregarded in practice. I wish to quote from the report of the National Association of Educational Broadcasters in the United States which reports that
  "the number of acts and threats of violence in all television programmes (except sports, news, weather and public events) rose from 2,970 in the 1952 week to 3,539 in the 1953 week."
  In other words, despite the adoption of this code in 1952, in the following year there was an increase in the number of threats and crimes of violence portrayed

  687
  on television. The report goes on to say:
  "In children's programmes, the violence rose from 1,278 to 1,412, or about 10 per cent."
  It is quite clear from that example that codes and standards can be completely disregarded if one allows them to remain on a purely voluntary basis. It is equally clear that an advisory committee which can merely give advice—which can talk and make suggestions—but whose advice can be disregarded, is no safeguard whatsoever for the public of this country.
  We are not at all satisfied that the safeguards in this Bill generally are sufficient to protect the public and, in particular, to protect children from the dangerous influences to which they may be subjected. Television goes right into the home; we cannot keep it out and cannot keep children from looking at it. Therefore, it is essential that we should write into this Bill, at every stage, the maximum and most specific safeguards that can be had. It is for that purpose that we move this Amendment.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Simon:I hope that my hon. Friend will resist this Amendment, although I understand and sympathise very much with the motives which have prompted it. The Advisory Committee is a very interesting constitutional expedient to deal with one of the problems we face in the modern State—the placing of very great powers into the hands of Ministers or public bodies.
  The Advisory Committee whereby, in the exercise of his functions, a Minister can draw on the generality of informed opinion is very valuable, but what would be quite fatal would be to turn an advisory committee into an executive committee. That is really the effect of this Amendment. As soon as we indicate that the Authority must
  "conform generally to the recommendations"
  it ceases to be an advisory committee and the responsibility devolves on the committee itself.
  We had the same problem during the war with the advisory committee which advised the Home Secretary on the use of his powers under Defence Regulation 18B. It was a very powerful committee composed of gentlemtn two of whom are
  688
  now judges of the Court of Appeal; others are eminent public servants of various sorts. In 5 per cent. of the cases dealt with by the Home Secretary under 18B, every one of which involved the liberty of the subject—in other words involved the citizen being imprisoned without trial—the Home Secretary failed to follow the advice of his advisory committee and this House supported him in that action at that time.
  Whether he was right or wrong in particular cases—we believe he was wrong in some cases—what would have been absolutely fatal would have been to create what is called an advisory committee and in effect give it the main responsibility. An advisory committee is there to give advice. To say that the Authority must "conform generally to the recommendations" the Advisory Committee makes would make the committee cease to be an advisory committee.
  I do not know whether we are to discuss the proposed Amendment, in page 6, line 9, separately, Sir Rhys?
  The Deputy-Chairman:We cannot discuss it until we reach it.
  Mr. Simon:It was mentioned by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey) but I think it would be more convenient to leave it to a later stage. I ask my hon. Friend not to accept this Amendment so that responsibility may be fairly and squarely placed on the shoulders of the Authority.
  Mr. Gammans:Perhaps it would be as well if I now gave the views of the Government on this Amendment. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey), who moved the Amendment, felt that I did not give him any assistance because I did not nod. I had thought the best way of dealing with matters of this sort is not to acknowledge each other across the Committee but occasionally to make a speech in order to explain our viewpoints.
  By this Amendment the hon. Member would like to make it obligatory on the part of the Authority to accept the advice of the Advisory Committee. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) said, if we did that it would not be an advisory committee; it would be an executive committee. We should be giving the

  689
  committee quasi, if not actual, executive powers. I have never heard of any so called advisory committee having such terms of reference as that the body it advises has to accept its advice.
  Mr. Ross:Why is it that, when dealing with the specific point about religious broadcasting, the hon. Gentleman said that he was going to consult someone else and take their advice?
  Mr. Gammans:I will come to the question of religion in a moment. This argument will revolve round religious broadcasting but I thought it best, first, to deal with the general point of whether, if we have advisory committees, we should make it obligatory that their advice shall always be followed.
  Mr. Warbey:I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has read the Amendment correctly. It says to "conform generally." That is not making it obligatory to follow its advice on every single occasion.
  Mr. Gammans:Well, it is getting somewhere pretty near it. I am not a lawyer but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West is, and I think the point that he made is correct. If we make it obligatory on the part of the Authority or any organisation to follow the advice of an advisory committee then we have pretty well turned that advisory committee into an executive committee.
  It would mean that, in fact, we should be devolving power on two bodies. One would be the Authority itself and the other would be the Advisory Committee to which we propose to give these executive powers. I cannot imagine any person of standing being prepared to become a member of the Independent Television Authority if it were hedged about and had to accept the advice of an advisory committee. He would say, "Obviously you do not trust me or this body which you have set up, and therefore you will not expect me to serve upon it."
  I come now to the religious point, about which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was quite correct. The Religious Advisory Committee is the only committee which we are setting up in the Bill. The other day we had a discussion on this matter, and I think it was the general feeling of hon. Members that on matters of religion we should be
  690
  quite sure that some step should be taken so that the advice of so eminent a body as the Religious Advisory Committee could not lightly be disregarded. I do not think we dissent from that.
  In fact my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gave a pledge then that before proceeding further with this Clause we should have discussions privately with the Opposition to see if we could agree on a form of words which might be put down on Report stage. I hope that these discussions will take place, and as our aim in this matter—at any rate on the religious side—is identical, I do not anticipate that we shall find any difficulty in coming to an agreed conclusion.
  Mr. Mitchison:I am bound to say that I regard the reply of the Assistant Postmaster-General—I am not speaking of him personally of course—as shifty and unsatisfactory. I call it shifty because he seemed to me to give to this Amendment a meaning which it could not possibly have; I think it extremely doubtful if any reasonable person could suppose that it did have. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) pointed out that an advisory committee might have its advice taken in 95 per cent. of the cases, and I should not think that anyone could deny that in such a case the person being advised was conforming generally to the recommendations of that committee.
  This committee is to be concerned with giving advice on religious matters, and in the nature of the case it will not advise on what should be done as regards a particular person. It will probably be general advice as regards programmes. It may take the form of an objection to certain things which have been put in, or which it is proposed to put in, the programme.
  What the Assistant Postmaster-General is saying is, "We recommended the appointment of a Religious Advisory Committee; see, it is in the Bill. We have already said that we are prepared to do more than merely say that it shall give advice. We are prepared to say that some attention shall be given to that advice when it is given." Then, when all he is asked to do is to say that the Authority will conform generally to its recommendations—which seems to

  691
  me to be exactly the same thing—he explains that it is a dangerous matter, that it is regarded by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West as a dangerous constitutional innovation.
  With respect to the hon. and learned Member may I say that I have never heard such rubbish. If an Advisory Committee is appointed why should there not be a provision in the Bill that the Authority—I am not talking about a Minister of the Crown—should conform generally to its recommendations on such matters as religious advice? Where is the constitutional innovation? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give me a parallel, first for this Authority, and secondly, for the Religious Advisory Committee which is to give advice and then for no attention paid to the Advisory Committee.
  Mr. Simon:Can the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) quote any single difference in principle between a Minister of the Crown and the Independent Television Authority?
  Mr. Mitchison:I certainly can.
  Mr. Simon:And since the hon. and learned Gentleman has challenged me, what is the difference between a board, like the Board of Trade and the proposed Independent Television Authority?
  Mr. Mitchison:I find no difficulty whatever in answering that question. A Minister is responsible for his conduct to this House. That is the whole difference. With regard to the Board of Trade, I believe that it has not met in recent years, but its President, who exercises its functions in practice, is a Minister, and is equally responsible to this House.
  That leads me very conveniently to what I was proposing to say next. I say frankly that we regard this Authority as a toothless, aimless, purposeless and hopeless object. We do not know who are to compose the Authority. Originally this Authority was to have some sort of qualifications under the Bill, but they have disappeared. We do not know what are its duties because they are so vaguely expressed in the Bill. It seems to have none whatever, except to make contracts with the programme contractors and, having made them, is to be unable to
  692
  enforce them, such are the provisions of the Bill.
  Then we are told that this Authority and the programme contractors—and I attach some importance to this—are to be advised by these advisory committees. And when, as regards one Advisory Committee—the only one in the Bill—we seek to say, having been so advised, "Please, is this curious Authority to pay any attention whatever, to conform generally, particularly or in any other way to the advice given to it?" we are told by the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West that this is a dangerous constitutional innovation; and by the Assistant Postmaster-General that, though he said something of the sort the other day, this, at any rate, is not exactly what he meant.
  I see no reason whatever why the Government, after what was said the other day, should not accept the Amendment. I can attribute a refusal to do so either to the natural obstinacy of those concerned, who decline to accept a good suggestion when it is offered, or to a continued and persistent wish to make this Authority completely toothless, formless and useless.
  Mr. E. Fletcher:The answer of the Assistant Postmaster-General was most unsatisfactory and appeared to me to be an attempt to whittle down the solemn assurance given by the Home Secretary last week that there should be a discussion with the Opposition about what the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognised was a matter of interest to the whole Committee—and indeed to the country—that there should be adequate safeguards about the religious services to be televised by this Independent Television Authority.
  It is quite wrong for the Assistant Postmaster-General to construe this Amendment as constituting the Religious Advisory Committee as an executive body. It is nothing of the kind. It imposes no absolute obligation on the Authority. It merely strengthens its position. The Assistant Postmaster-General knows perfectly well that he will have no difficulty whatever in recruiting members to the Authority, even if this Amendment is included in the Bill. In fact, I believe that he has already approached people, and I believe that he already knows who will be the members

  693
  of the Authority. To pretend to this Committee that this Amendment will make it more difficult to appoint them is quite misleading.
  I am sure that members of the Authority would welcome a provision in this Bill which would ensure that the status of this Religious Advisory Committee was such that on the general outline of what religious services were to be broadcast and how much time was to be given, its advice would be something with which they were expected to conform. I hope that nothing that the Assistant Postmaster-General has said about this Amendment will be interpreted as whittling down in any way the assurance given by the Home Secretary last week—to which we attach great importance—that there would be discussions on the whole subject with the Opposition between now and Report stage.
  Mr. Gammans:Perhaps I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman on that point. Of course there will be no whittling down of the assurances given last week by my right hon. and learned Friend. They will, of course, be carried out. The real point was the exact powers to be given to the Religious Advisory Committee, which we always regarded as coming within the ambit of the talks which we hope to have with the Opposition.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Walker:I cannot see how the general undertaking given by the Home Secretary can be carried out unless the spirit behind the Amendment is accepted, and that is what the Assistant Postmaster-General will not do. With his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon), he has resorted to rather legalistic arguments to resist it. We do not insist upon the exact form of words in our Amendment. We want to make sure that people who are charged with giving advice in the important matter of religion, and, by implication in education and so on, really shall get their way in these matters, and that the public shall know that that is so.
  It seemed to me that what the Assistant Postmaster-General told us just now was wholly at variance with what he said to us earlier. Earlier he put his whole faith in the Religious Advisory Committee and said that we need not worry because its advice would be taken. He said that the Authority would be only too happy to
  694
  give responsibility to the Religious Advisory Committee in so difficult a matter as religion. However, apparently that responsibility is now to be discarded. The Assistant Postmaster-General cannot have it both ways, and he must make up his mind what he wants. We cannot have one argument on one Amendment and another argument on another Amendment.
  The hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West asked the question which we have heard over and over again: why should we distinguish between the Authority and the B.B.C.? There are two answers to that question. The first is that we are seeking to make the advice of the Religious Advisory Committee binding not only on the Authority but also on the programme contractors. There is a great deal of difference between a programme contractor and the Board of Trade, and here we are dealing with programme contractors and going into the religious broadcasting field, and we want the advice of the Religious Advisory Committee made binding upon the programme contractors.
  We do not accept that the B.B.C. is in the same position as the Authority. The position is wholly different. The Government themselves admit that; otherwise they would not insert in the Bill the extraordinary restriction about "giveaway" programmes which it does not put on the B.B.C. No one has put that restriction on the B.B.C. because the B.B.C. and the Authority are different bodies.
  The Authority will be under tremendous pressure to make money, and it will have to deal with the programme contractors, who will also be under tremendous pressure to make money. We realise that at the beginning they will behave themselves quite well, but two or three years later they will say that they cannot carry on if the restrictions are continued. They will point out that public money is involved and that public money will be lost if the restrictions are not removed.
  We are not really satisfied if the commitments do not appear in the Bill. We cannot accept the arguments put forward by the Assistant Postmaster-General in which he says that he agrees with us and hopes that what we want will come about. He is unleashing into the field of

  695
  broadcasting pressures for profit-making which do not exist under the B.B.C., and that creates a wholly new position. That is why we want certain provisions in the Bill.
  Owing to the monstrosity of the Guillotine, we cannot afford time to divide on the Amendment, although we feel very strongly about it. Our failure to divide is caused solely by the fact that the Government have not given us enough time to discuss all the matters in the Bill, and because we are anxious to deal with a later Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Simon:I beg to move, in page 6, line 4, to leave out "the main streams of religious thought," and insert "religious belief."
  The Deputy-Chairman:It might be convenient also to discuss the next Amendment in line 4 to leave out "main streams of religious thought," and insert:
  "various religious, ethical and humanistic bodies with membership."
  Mr. Simon:Many people feel very strongly that the form of words at present in the Bill is little short of blasphemous. The bodies of people whom we have in mind are not properly described by
  "… the main streams of religious thought …"
  After all, what are
  "… the main streams of religious thought in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands …"?
  What is "the main stream of religious thought in the Isle of Man"? It suggests a lot of people sitting around in a Butlin's camp discussing ethical or religious problems. That is not at all what we want in the Religious Advisory Committee.
  I do not suggest that the form of words which I suggest is perfect, but I ask my hon. Friend to look again at the drafting to see whether the existing words can be improved. To say:
  "… a religious advisory committee representative of religious belief in the United Kingdom …"
  says what we mean. We have in mind religious belief rather than religious thought; it is religious belief that we want represented.
  696
  It may be argued that this will necessitate every minor sect being represented. I do not believe it does. "Representative" does not mean that every minor differentiation of opinion or belief should have its representation; "representative" means what it normally does. The Religious Advisory Committee should fairly reflect religious belief in this country. I ask my hon. Friend to look at the wording again because a great many people object to hearing about "religious thought" rather than "religious belief."
  An argument might be used that this form of words might prevent the Authority from using the B.B.C.'s Religious Advisory Committee. I do not believe that it would for a moment. The B.B.C.'s Religious Advisory Committee is representative of religious belief in this country. I notice that the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) is shaking his head. I well understand the purpose of his Amendment, and I do not dissent from it so far as it refers to ethical and humanistic bodies. He desires that various sections of thought on ethical, philosophical and religious problems should be represented. I am on a rather narrower point, which is not at variance with his. I ask that the wording should be looked at and that there should be reference to what we desire to see represented, not
  "… the main streams of religious thought…"
  —whatever that may mean—but religious belief in this country.
  Mr. George Darling:It is rather a pity that, owing to the Guillotine, we have not more time to deal with this very important matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) has dealt with many of the points I should like to make, although there is a slight divergence between us. Reference has to be made to the B.B.C. Religious Advisory Committee, because, as we have been told by the Assistant Postmaster-General and others, that is the advisory body which will come in here.
  It is an advisory body which is certainly not representative of the bodies we indicate in our Amendment. In fact, it is because of the attitude of the B.B.C. Religious Advisory Committee that we have chosen this form of words in our Amendment. Over the past few years,

  697
  there has been a series of complaints against the B.B.C. and its Advisory Committee for leaving out the religious minorities in this country, which ought to have their place in the broadcasting of religious services and in the discussions on religious thought and so on.
  I do not want to go over the whole field, but those who have taken an interest in this matter will know that a deputation went to the B.B.C. in 1947 led by Lord Russell. On that occasion, the B.B.C. said that it was their highest duty, in this as in other fields, to search for truth. The Governors recognised this in a declaration by the B.B.C. that this would involve the broadcasting of conflicting views, and the declaration went on to say that the Governors were of the opinion that affirmations of widely differing beliefs or even of unbelief could be made constructively. One expected from that declaration by the B.B.C. Governors that something would be done along the lines of the Amendment which I am now submitting to the Committee, but, in fact, nothing has been done.
  The religious minorities are still being left out, and I would ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to look at this matter again, but certainly to take out of the Bill the words:
  "the main streams of religious thought."
  Those words indicate that it will be limited, and that only the big battalions, so to speak, will not only have representation on the Advisory Committee but will also be heard when religious views and beliefs are being broadcast and discussed. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Government, and, therefore, if they will take out these words about which we are complaining, and put in something more satisfying to the liberal views which we all share in this Committee, I think we shall be satisfied.
  Mr. Gammans:I hope I can explain quite shortly why the Government cannot accept these Amendments. I gather that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon), who moved the first Amendment, wants to substitute the words "religious beliefs" for the words
  "the main streams of religious thought."
  He went as far to say that the Bill as it stands is blasphemous. It is a matter of wording, and there could be a differ-
  698
  ence of opinion about it, but I should like to tell my hon. and learned Friend why we chose these particular words. It is because we want to use the B.B.C. Religious Advisory Committee. I think that Committee has given general satisfaction—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It may not have done as far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned, but, taking the country as a whole, once people knew that the religious advisory body in this matter was to be the same as that for the B.B.C., they felt much happier about the whole business.
  Mr. Ness Edwards:Will the advice of the religious body be offered in relation to the I.T.A. in the same way as in relation to the B.B.C.?
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Gammans:That is one of the matters which we can discuss with the Opposition and, if they attach importance to it, we will give it the same consideration. If they want a committee to deal with religious broadcasting, it is up to them to appoint one, but we are bound to take the Bill as it now reads. and I must remind the Committee that at one time it was proposed that there should be no religious broadcasts at all. What deterred us then was not because we believed in secular broadcasts but because we thought that these difficulties might be insuperable, and I know how difficult it is to got agreement on religious subjects of any sort. We said: "We had better wash it out; we are sorry, but we simply cannot have this kind of broadcasting." Therefore, we got round the difficulty, and I think the House generally believes that we did the right thing.
  This Committee does represent the main stream of religious thought, and this is the whole point about it. It represents the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church and the Free Churches associated with the Free Church Federal Council. If I were to accept either one of these Amendments, it would certainly mean that we could not use the B.B.C. Religious Advisory Committee. It might well be desirable to do so—I am not arguing about that question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks it would be, and perhaps my hon. and learned Friend thinks so, but certainly, if we accepted either Amendment, we could not accept the advice of that committee, because it would not be a

  699
  committee representing simply religious belief.
  Mr. Simon:I think my hon. Friend has put the matter the wrong way. We recognise that it would not be a committee representing the main streams of religious thought, any more than the B.B.C. Advisory Committee, which is not representative of the religious beliefs of this country.
  Mr. Gammans:I cannot answer for the B.B.C. They set up their own committees, and they have absolute jurisdiction as to what they set up. What I know is that, in the opinion of the vast majority, that committee has done a thoroughly good job and has solved a very difficult question. It is true, perhaps, that has not given satisfaction to some of the smaller but very sincere sects; I think that is true, and I am not denying it.
  The point is that, if we want to use the services of this committee, we must use these words, or otherwise we shall have to set up an entirely new committee. If we have an entirely new committee, representing all interests which the hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned, we have no guarantee that they would agree. In fact, I should think it would be extremely difficult to get any agreement among them, and so we might have to fall back on something which I would regard as most undesirable—namely, that there should be no religious broadcasts at all. Quite frankly, if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to tell him why we used that phrase, it is because we want to use the B.B.C. Advisory Committee, which does represent the main streams of religious thought.
  Mr. Simon:I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed by my hon. Friend's reply, but, as I should not be justified in detaining the Committee further, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  The Chairman:Is it the wish of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?
  Mr. Ede:No.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Blackburn:I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, at the end, to add:
  "and an educational committee representative of parents, teachers and other persons with
  700
  experience of and special interest in the welfare and education of young persons and children to advise the programme contractors and the Authority on any matter intended for young persons or children included in the said programmes or publications and on the suitability or unsuitability for young persons and children of any other matter included or submitted for inclusion in the said programmes or publications."
  This Amendment provides that among the advisory committees which may be set up under Clause 3 (3), one shall be a committee to advise on educational matters. It is a tragedy that the operation of the Guillotine will prevent us discussing this very important matter for long, and I must try to be brief in order to give the Assistant Postmaster-General time to reply. I am very hopeful about the result of submitting this Amendment, because there must obviously come a time in the life even of an Assistant Postmaster-General when he will have to say "Yes" instead of the continual "No."
  Everyone will agree that it is vitally important, particularly in the early days of educational broadcasting and in television broadcasts for schools and children, that we should be particularly careful about the type of programme which is put over. Most people regard themselves as educational experts, but it is certainly not true. Unfortunately many of them do not realise that. It is important that we should collect together people who are recognised as experts in education, and who can give the necessary advice because they understand the problems of the school and of young people, and the dangers which may arise from unrestricted television broadcasting.
  We seek to set up an educational committee representative of parents, teachers and other persons with experience of and special interest in education. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will not say, "You do not trust the programme contractors or the Authority." It is not that at all. We feel that when special committees are being set up it is vitally important that there should be one concerned with education and with programmes for the young people. Since time is so short I shall not delay the Committee any longer. The case is so apparent that it does not need a great deal of emphasis. The Guillotine is to fall at eight o'clock, so if anybody else is to be able to say a word on this Amendment I shall have to sit down
  Mr. Ralph Morley:I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will accept the Amendment. I cannot see a reason why it should not be accepted. All it asks is that an advisory committee should be set up to advise on programmes and films that are to be shown to children. The Assistant Postmaster-General will agree that we should be careful what films are shown to children. The films should be amusing and instructive, and at the same time contain no element of horror or sadism. They should tell a story—children are always fond of listening to a story—they should be artistic, so that the good taste of the children may be cultivated, and they should ensure that virtue is always triumphant and that vice is defeated.
  There are people who have much special experience of children and who know the nature of the films that should be shown to them. They have experience of children in the schools, as parents and as authors and storytellers. Somebody like Miss Enid Blyton would be a very good member of such a committee. Miss Blyton's stories may not have a very high literary value, but, as I know from personal experience, they are very much appreciated by children. She knows exactly what children's tastes are. There can be nothing against the Amendment. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will say that it is a sensible and useful suggestion and that he is very glad to accept it.
  Mr. Gammans:Hon. Gentlemen opposite said they hoped I was not going to say "No." I am not going to say "No" but "May be." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are two questions raised in the Amendment. The first is whether we should make it obligatory on the Independent Television Authority to set up such a committee. There is so such committee today in connection with the B.B.C. There is a Schools Broadcasting Committee, but no committee specifically responsible for children's programmes.
  Mr. Blackburn:Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there are not the same dangers with the B.B.C.? We must remember what happens in the commercial television broadcasts in other countries.
  Mr. Gammans:There may be a risk, but in those countries there is no Authority, and that is why this Authority is to be set up here.
  If the Authority feels the need for such an advisory committee I have no doubt that it will set it up. We do not yet know what type of programme this Authority will favour. We have always thought of programmes for young children in terms of the B.B.C. "Children's Hour," but the I.T.A. may put on an entirely different type of programme, although equally suitable. I have no doubt that the Authority, in carrying out the duties laid upon it by the House of Commons, will have no difficulty in setting up such a committee, if it feels the need to do so.
  The second reason why I could not possibly accept the Amendment, is that under the Amendment the Authority would have to submit to the advisory committee all programmes broadcast at any time, to see if they were suitable for a young person to look at. I imagine that that means that the programmes would have to be pre-recorded, which would make the work of the Authority and of the programme contractors impossible. I do not want to give the impression that I am in any way unsympathetic to the idea which hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind, but they are asking me to do something which cannot be done at this stage.
  I do not know whether I can convince hon. Members that it is desirable not to press the Amendment, but I can give the assurance that that is the way the mind of the Government is working in this matter. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Warbey:The attitude of the Assistant Postmaster-General towards the Amendment is astonishing. To take a minor point, he has not even read it properly. The Amendment does not propose that the advisory committee on education should consider every type of matter broadcast but only matter intended for young persons or children. Therefore, I should have thought there was no reason for not accepting the need for an advisory committee in this extremely important field.
  Once again, we have been told to leave the matter to the Independent Television Authority—we should trust the Authority. So far as we know it is unlikely that

  703
  there will be any person on this Authority with educational qualifications. This body will be concerned with commercial television and will see that it is run on a business basis. It will not be concerned with education or taste, and so on. Therefore, we have no assurance that the Authority will take the necessary steps.
  If the Government regard religion as so important as to deserve specific mention in the Clause, then education must be equally treated, or the Government do not regard education and the care of the interests of young people as of any importance whatever. We have unfortunately already had some indication of the Government's lack of a proper sense of values in these matters.
  At an earlier stage, the question arose of the importance of allowing the B.B.C.
  an opportunity to introduce a schools television service before the commercial Authority got going. The Home Secretary told us that in his view commercial television should have priority over a schools television service. He thought that was the right order of priority. When we have a Government who consider that commercial interests should be set before those of children it is not surprising that we are not prepared to trust either them or the Authority.
  It being Eight o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 195.

  Division No. 123.]

  AYES

  [8.0 p.m

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Fernyhough, E.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

  Adams, Richard

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Mason, Roy

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Follick, M.

  Messer, Sir F.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Foot, M. M.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Forman, J. C.

  Moody, A. S.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Morley, R.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Moyle, A.

  Baird ,J.

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

  Mulley, F. W.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Nally, W

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

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

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, T.

  Benson, G.

  Grey, C. F.

  Oldfield, W. H

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

  Grimond, J.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Hale, Leslie

  Orbach, M.

  Blackburn, F.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Oswald, T.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Pannell, Charles

  Bowen, E. R.

  Hannan, W.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Hargreaves, A.

  Parker, J.

  Brookway, A. F.

  Hastings, S.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pearson, A

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

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

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Holman, P.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Champion, A. J.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Chapman, W. D.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Clunie, J.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Collick, P. H.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Ross, William

  Cove, W. G.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Janner, B.

  Short, E. W.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

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

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  crossman, R. H. S.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Daines, P.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

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

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Keenan, W.

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgfield)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Kenyon, C.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Deer, G.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Snow, J. W.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Sorensen, R. W.

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

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Ede, Rt. Han. J. C.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Edelman, M.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Stross, Dr. Barnett

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  McLeavy, F.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Manuel, A. C

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Wells, William (Walsall)

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

  Timmons, J.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Willis, E. G.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Wigg, George

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Yates, V. F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Willey, F. T.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Warbey, W. N.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Perkins, Sir Robert

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Heath, Edward

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A

  Arbuthnot, John

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Barber, Anthony

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Horobin, I. M.

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Redmayne, M.

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

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

  Remnant, Hon. P

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

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

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Black, C. W.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)

  Bossom, Sir A. C.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J A

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Russell, R. S.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Johnson, Howard (Kempton)

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Braine, B. R.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Kaberry, D.

  Scott, R. Donald

  Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Kerr, H. W.

  Shepherd, William

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Lambton, Viscount

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

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

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Smyth, Brig J. G. (Norwood)

  Bullard, D. G.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

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

  Speir, R. M.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

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

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Lindsay, Martin

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Storey, S.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Studholme, H. G.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Summers, G. S.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  McAdden, S. J.

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

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

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Crouch, R. F.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Teeling, W.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

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

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Deedes, W. F.

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

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

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

  Donner, Sir P. W.

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

  Tilney, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Drewe, Sir C.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Turner, H. F. L

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Turton, R. H.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Marples, A. E.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maude, Angus

  Vosper, D. F.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Medlicott, Brig. F

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

  Mellor, Sir John

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Gammans, L. D

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Glover, D.

  Neave, Airey

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Godber, J. B.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Wills, G.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

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

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Page, R. G

  Major Conant and Mr. Robert Allan.

  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment, moved by a Member of the Gov-
  706
  ernment, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Clause to be concluded at Eight o'Clock.
  Amendment made: In page 6, line 9, at end, add:
  (4) Nothing shall be included in any programme broadcast by the Authority, whether in an advertisement or not, which offers any prize of significant value, whether competed for or not, or any gift of significant value, being a prize or gift which is available only to persons receiving that programme, or in relation to which any advantage is given to such persons.— [Mr. Gammans. ]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Percy Shurmer:On a point of information, Sir Rhys, and for the guidance of the Committee. Is it right that Fred J. Muggs, of Cincinatti, U.S.A., being an interested party in this Bill, should be within the precincts of this Palace while the Bill is passing through?
  Mr. F. A. Burden:Why does the hon. Member not go out?
  Mr. Ness Edwards:We now see the disadvantage of applying the Guillotine to what is perhaps the essence of the Bill. We have looked at Clause 3 line by line, and now perhaps we can look at its general effect.
  First the Clause is a collection of undefined responsibilities which have been placed upon the Independent Television Authority. A completely new Authority is being set up. It is being told in very general terms what it has to do, but whenever we get down to concrete matters there is no specific guidance at all from this Committee. We get such phrases as "so far as possible," "predominantly British," "tone and style," "good taste," "proper balance," "a high general standard" and "proper proportion." Each of these can mean different things to different persons. As this obligation has been placed on the I.T.A., it is the I.T.A. which has to satisfy itself about these things. Whether it has to satisfy itself in such a way as also to satisfy this House, one does not know.
  I should like to ask the Home Secretary a question. If there is a difference of opinion between the view of this House and the view of the I.T.A. who is to decide, because under this Clause the I.T.A. has complete responsibility in this matter. So long as the I.T.A. is satisfied, everybody else has to be satisfied. It seems to me that it is the
  708
  Assistant Postmaster-General who should be satisfied, because he, not the I.T.A., is answerable to the House. How are we to effect proper Parliamentary control if the responsibility is placed in the way in which it is placed in the Bill?
  Then we had a discussion on party political broadcasts. I thought that the major part of that discussion was really related to the paragraph dealing with the inclusion in these programmes of properly balanced discussions or debates, where persons taking part express opinions and put forward opinions of a political character. The general discussion ranged round that matter. With regard to party political broadcasts, I suppose that they are properly balanced because those who participate in them are, in general, selected by the parties concerned and speak officially on behalf of their parties.
  What disturbs me in relation to discussions or debates generally is the question of opinions and the political character of arguments. That was one of the matters to which we could not give detailed attention in the time that was allotted to us. Subsection (2) deals with the Authority having no opinion of its own, and in general follows the line adopted by the B.B.C. Having regard to the commercial interests and the purpose of this Independent Television Authority, it seems to me that it will be difficult to disassociate a special opinion from those people who have special interests.
  On the next point we had three very good short speeches but there was not time in which to cover the important matter of the advisory committees, especially in relation to television for children. There was also the point which I raised with the Assistant Postmaster-General. If there are to be advisory committees, and in the case of religion the B.B.C. Religious Advisory Committee is apparently to function as the Advisory Committee to the I.T.A., are the reports, advice and recommendations of the B.B.C. Religious Advisory Committee in relation to the advice which it gives to the I.T.A. to be available to Members of this House?
  At present the report of the Advisory Committee is contained in the annual report of the B.B.C. Will the report of the committee in relation to the I.T.A. be included in the Postmaster-General's

  709
  annual report on the working of the I.T.A.? Equally, as we are told that there are to be other advisory committees, will the reports of their work be placed before the House and in that way give the House the possibility of exercising some control over the advice that is given to the I.T.A. and to the programme companies?
  8.15 p.m.
  Our discussions have covered a pretty wide field. I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he will look at that part of the Clause which says:
  "…persons providing the programmes as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy, …"
  It says "persons providing programmes." Are they the programme contractors, or is it the I.T.A.? Who are the persons who are to provide these political controversial items? Are the responsibilities which are placed on the I.T.A. equally placed upon the persons who are to provide these programmes?
  I should have thought that the Minister of Labour would have been represented here in relation to this matter. Here we are providing, under commercial television, for the discussion of important industrial issues and public relations. Supposing, when this body is set up, that we have an unofficial railway strike, which I hope we shall not. Will there be a televised debate upon it? Who is to arrange it? Is the Minister of Labour to be consulted beforehand? The same sort of consideration applies in relation to a political crisis. We ought to know very much more about the proposed policy in relation to these matters.
  Then we had a discussion—and I hope that we shall have a more sympathetic reply from the right hon. and learned Gentleman than we did from his hon. Friend—about the places of religious services. Some of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee were dissatisfied with the reply which they had on this matter. If regard is to be paid to the outlook of the people who are to have this commercial television placed before them, things ought not to be done which will offend their susceptibilities and outlook. I hope that we shall have a very much more realistic reply from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure he will know what I have in mind.
  710
  Merioneth, Montgomery, mid-Wales and North Wales have their traditions and their cultures which should not be offended.
  There is also the question of safeguards and the British content of the programmes. I am afraid that what we have heard so far will not give much comfort to British artistes and to those people in the entertainment, educational and artistic worlds or give them the assurance that they are to have the protection which they ought to have. They have to rely upon another quota—the quota imposed by the Minister of Labour. What astonished me was that, whereas the Ministry of Labour can debar artistes from coming into this country to do the job which British artistes can do, the Assistant Postmaster-General was no prepared to apply the same sort of safeguard to British telefilms.
  We must in some way prevent commercial television in this country from becoming a junior partner in the canned commercial programmes of America. We have been given no assurance at all as to what proportion of the programmes can be canned and what proportion will be "live." I do not know whether the Home Secretary follows my point; there is "live" entertainment—direct transmission with artistes in the studios—and there is the canned programme, either the film or the telefilm. I hope we shall hear something about those proportions.
  Those are some of the points which worry us—points which have been discussed quite inadequately because of the Guillotine. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to tell us in what form the safeguards are to apply, and will be able to tell us much more precisely what those safeguards are. Can be reduce generalities to concrete terms? Can he reduce the hopes of the Assistant Postmaster-General to Clauses in the Bill so that we may know what safeguards there are and so that we shall be able to apply political pressure if they are not operated.
  I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to disperse some of our apprehensions. We regard this as a very bad Bill, but we want to obtain the best results from it, and it seems to us that Clause 3 is designed for the purpose of allowing people to put across the

  711
  worst type of programme. We trust they will not do so, but we are satisfied that, as the Clause is drafted, we can have reproduced in this country all the worst features of American television.
  Mr. Simon:I rise to ask my right hon. and learned Friend if he would indicate whether he does not think that certain of the phrases and the subsections of the Clause should be reconsidered. I hope that I show due deference in that respect in addressing a very great lawyer on matters of drafting.
  The Clause lays down a legal duty on the Independent Television Authority, and presumably we mean that duty to be carried out. If that is so, what we lay down must be specific and understandable. It may be a question of standards, and we may trust the Authority to impose its own standards, but at any rate let us ensure that the standard which we lay down is reasonable and that what we are proposing is also reasonable in its requirements.
  First of all we say that it shall be the duty of the Authority to satisfy itself that "so far as possible" certain things shall take place. That is a far higher standard than the law ordinarily imposes, and I do not know whether it means something more than merely a reasonable duty, which is what the law ordinarily requires. If it imposes only a reasonable duty, why not say so? There is a danger that when we go on to say that as far as possible they must see
  "that the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British"
  we may require them to perform duties far more than can reasonably be required of any public body.
  That brings me to the first subsection, which says
  "that the tone and style of the programmes"
  are to be
  "predominantly British."
  I suggest that in certain important respects that is completely meaningless. Take, for example, opera. I expect that hon. Members listen to opera, and I imagine that one of their favourite composers is Mozart and that one of their favourite operas is "The Marriage of Figaro." We have a Central Austrian composer composing an opera to an Italian librettist based on a French play
  712
  about a Spanish noble household. Is it possible to imagine anything more deplorably un-British? Hon. Members will hear it only if it is prefaced with a liberal dollop of Benjamin Britten and succeeded by a liberal dollop of Gilbert and Sullivan. Otherwise, if the words mean anything, "the tone and style of the programmes" will not be predominantly British.
  The same applies to his other operas—one about a Turkish harem, another about Italians dressing up as Albanians, another about Oriental freemasonry and, finally, one, "Don Giovanni," whose domestic felicities have very little in common with British home life. If these words mean anything at all, those operas would have to be classified by the I.T.A.—performing their duty to ensure that as far as possible
  "the tone and style of the programmes are predominantly British"—
  as regrettably un-British, and they would have to be more than counter-balanced by items which are predominantly British in tone and style.
  Mr. Ross:Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that this is no riddle to a Government in which the Home Secretary, who is given special responsibility for Wales, is a Scotsman?
  Mr. Simon:That is a very good example of the homogeneity of the British way of life, but I hope that it in no way validates my argument on this subsection.
  Sir Leslie Plummer:The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the Independent Television Authority can make the foreign composers honorary Britons.
  Mr. Simon:The hon. Member reminds me of the German professor who claimed that the only composer who was known to the British people was a gentleman whom they called, "My countryman, Mr. Handel." Of course, there, too, it would be sad to think—I speak, I hope with due reverence—that our Easter programmes could be deprived of the Handel oratorios—for, after all, both in tone and style, they are quite un-British.
  Mr. Warbey:There are many who would not admit that. Handel was a German. Did he not accept British nationality?
  Mr. Simon:That really applies to all the musical requirements. It is the same with many other things. If these words mean anything, they will mean that if we have any foreign drama—Greek drama or modern French drama, of which we have had notable examples on the British London stage since the war—it will have to be counterbalanced by items that are considered to be deplorably—I mean predominantly—British.
  Since Shakespeare is time-honoured by now, I am sure that he would be considered to be predominantly British, but in his own time his themes were by no means taken only from these islands. Indeed, most of them were taken from abroad. I suppose that if he were writing today it would be claimed, quite rightly, that all his works except the histories and one or two of the tragedies were caught by Clause 3 (1, a) of the Television Bill.
  8.30 p.m.
  So I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to have another look at this. We all know that the intention is to ensure that the programmes are not taken over, in effect, by foreign entrepreneurs or impressarios. I should have thought that would have been much better done by a form of amendment to subsection (1, e) on the lines of ensuring that a certain proportion, a high proportion, a proper proportion, or a stipulated proportion of the performers, impressarios or entrepreneurs were British in nationality.
  Now I pass to paragraph (b), that nothing is included in the programmes which is against good taste. Whose taste? That again is an impossible standard to lay down. So is decency. There was a famous music hall artiste, R. J. Knowles, who met William Archer shortly after his retirement and asked why he had retired. He said that the halls now contained much objectionable matter, in his turns there was no objectionable matter. Suggestive, yes; objectionable, no. Again it was his taste, and how is the Television Authority to lay down standards of good taste? Decency? Well decency is already taken care of by the existing criminal law. So is incitement to crime, so is incitement to disorder. As for offensiveness to public feeling, I suggest that those words are far too wide. Public feeling is frequently offended, and strongly offended, by matter which would be quite properly televised by the Authority.
  714
  There is one other form of words which I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider, since we do not want to include in this statute matter which is unnecessary. Line 30 commences:
  "the inclusion in the programmes of properly balanced discussions or debates"—
  What does my right hon. and learned Friend consider is added by the words:
  "where the persons taking part express opinions and put forward arguments of a political character"?
  As this is a proviso to paragraph (g) I should have thought those words were unnecessary and, if they are, we should not have unnecessary words in an Act of Parliament. Therefore, if there is an opportunity to consider the phrasing of this Clause, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to do so.
  Mr. Shackleton:I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) has taken the right attitude to this Bill, and to this Clause. It is a silly Bill and this is the silliest Clause in it. We could go on indefinitely with examples of the entertaining kind given by the hon. and learned Gentleman as to what its provisions could mean. In fact, it is a laughable Clause, and it is high time that the House and the country, and even the Home Secretary himself, started to laugh at this Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman was very restrained, but, as a learned lawyer—I understand a very good lawyer—
  Mr. Ede:There are no good lawyers.
  Mr. Shackleton:I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman could suggest a suitable form of words to describe what I mean and could have gone on, as could many others, pointing to the absurdities in the wording. The Government are up against a difficulty here. Once they conceded that they would introduce a Measure of this kind they began to find out some of the difficulties. They then had to decide whether they should give a definite series of provisions or whether they should have an enabling Bill with a number of pious aspirations.
  The wording of the Clause is not even very pious in places. In Clause 3 (1, c), for instance, it states:
  "that the programmes maintain a proper balance in their subject-matter and a high general standard of quality;"

  715
  Does that mean that a high general standard is averaged out and there can be an occasional lapse of taste as long as there is that high general standard? The Home Secretary could not possibly justify that wording. It is on a par with the absurdities to which the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West has referred.
  We have had very little satisfaction from the Government on some of the Amendments which we have moved to help them in their difficulties. The Home Secretary tends to regard us in the classic way as Greeks in this capacity. I am sure that something can be done to make the Bill more workable. I am sure that hon. Members opposite below the Gangway who share our views that this is a silly Bill and this is a silly Clause would also have their particular nostrum. We have no chance to reject the Clause at this stage, but I hope that by the Report stage the Home Secretary will have considered some of the suggestions which have been put forward, even those which the Assistant Postmaster-General has rejected.
  Sometimes the Assistant Postmaster-General has given reasons for his rejection which showed quite clearly that he did not understand the Amendments. I ask the Home Secretary to turn his mind again to those Amendments and to read the report of the debate and consider whether in moving them we were not on points of substance which would improve the Bill. The Government are defending all their actions by saying, "Trust the Authority." It seems to me that they are doing their utmost, as we shall show at a later stage, to see that the Authority is deprived of power to do the very things which are provided for in however vague and ineffectual language in this Clause.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe):I am very anxious to meet the wishes of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I hope that I shall meet those wishes if I suggest that I limit my reply to 10 minutes in order to allow as many hon. Members as possible to take part in the debate. I hope, therefore, that when I reply hon. Members will not think that I am discourteous.
  Mr. C. R. Hobson:I am sure that we are obliged to the Home Secretary. Quite frankly, as a layman I
  716
  am not at all concerned about the nebulous wording of Clause 3. I leave that to the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) and the Home Secretary to sort out for themselves. I suggest, however, that if the Clause had within it a definition of the relationship of the Postmaster-General to the Independent Television Advisory Committee and the responsibilities of that Committee all our doubts and fears would be allayed.
  In the last analysis, the Postmaster-General has complete control over the programmes of the B.B.C. If the Home Secretary would say that the Postmaster-General has responsibilities towards the Independent Television Advisory Committee and that that Committee has responsibilities towards the Postmaster-General, many of our fears would be allayed. It would be possible on certain occasions to question the Assistant Postmaster-General and to raise matters relating to the programmes on the Motion for the Adjournment if a provision of the kind that applies to the B.B.C. were inserted in a charter between the I.T.A. and the Postmaster-General. I hope that that will be done.
  No one on either side of the Committee would argue that the Postmaster-General of a Socialist or Conservative administration has sought to interfere with the programmes of the B.B.C., and equally the B.B.C. has found that it was obliged to keep within the terms of its Charter. I think it would act as a guide to the I.T.A. if there were any tendency to depart from fairness in the presentation of political broadcasts and the news. I think that some form of words ought to be found between now and the Report stage making the I.T.A. responsible to the Postmaster-General in precisely the same way that the B.B.C. is responsible to him.
  My second point is one of detail. There has been a great argument about religious broadcasts. I understand that the advice of the B.B.C. Advisory Committees has been sought in connection with the Amendments on the Paper, but I am not too enamoured of religious advisory committees. I speak as a member of the Unitarian faith. No religious body has had greater struggles than we have to get the B.B.C. and the religious advisory bodies to allow preachers of our denomination to broadcast. In point of

  717
  fact, the religious advisory committees have been more objectionable than has the B.B.C. It was not until such time as the Unitarians visited the B.B.C. that Unitarian preachers were at last allowed to broadcast. Those are the sort of things that want looking at.
  In order to relate my second point to my first, perhaps I may say something which has been raised before when we have been discussing the report and accounts of the B.B.C. It is the question of unfairness in regard to B.B.C. religious broadcasts. We were able to bring that fact to the notice of Parliament, and there is not the slightest doubt that when the Unitarians decided to send a deputation to the B.B.C., despite the bias of the Religious Advisory Council, the debates which had taken place in this House, particularly those on the Motion for the Adjournment, resulted in the B.B.C. doing what we considered the right thing, though very dilatorily. I will recapitulate by saying that there ought to be something in this Clause giving the Postmaster-General the same sort of control over the I.T.A. that he has over the B.B.C.
  Mr. Ross:There is no doubt that this is a very imposing Clause. It contains provisions regarding the whole question of the laying down and the supervision of the programmes to be put out by the I.T.A. These provisions are supposed to contain all the necessary safeguards and to allay the fears which have been sincerely held and widely expressed throughout the country. They are very imposing provisions, rather like the right hon. and learned Member opposite, but, if they really mean what they say, then the I.T.A. will not be able to televise a thing.
  If words have any meaning, then legally all the provisions are such that I cannot see how the I.T.A. will be able to televise a single programme unless, of course, it is prefaced with the words, "In association with Maurice Winnick," so that it suddenly becomes British. Such a procedure offends against good taste and offends public opinion.
  Regarding Sunday television, we must remember that there are many people who do not want Sunday broadcasting of any kind. It offends their feelings. Does that mean that despite that the I.T.A. will be able to televise its programmes? I am pretty sure that there
  718
  is a legal let-out here somewhere, and it starts at the very beginning of the Clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that these words were too tight. They are actually there for the purpose of destroying every safeguard set out in every subsection.
  8.45 p.m.
  We have had all this elaborate business about having an Advisory Committee which can be consulted and which can advise on religious services, but I would point out that, first, a decision has to be taken on whether there are to be any religious services at all. We have been told that there is to be consultation. The Assistant Postmaster-General gave all the reasons calculated to create in my mind doubts that there will be any religious services at all on any Sunday. He told us about the cost, the limited time available and how difficult it was, and I am certain that no one can be sure that there will be any religious services at all on Sundays. We have this elaborate and imposing facade of respectability, but it is completely fatuous.
  Mr. Philip Bell:I hope I may be excused for intervening as I know that time is short, but I did attack this Clause on the Second Reading. In fact, I put down an Amendment, which unhappily was not called, in which I sought to reconstruct the Clause a bit. I might also add that I have been, so far as possible, fairly sedulous in my attendance here.
  This Clause has been under considerable attack for some days. I cannot say that it has resisted like a fortress. It has resisted like a jelly, because there is nothing to get hold of. Every time hon. Members have endeavoured to attack this Clause they have been out-manoeuvred and outwitted by a very simple answer of my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General. He says, "First of all, you must appreciate that the Independent Television Authority is a very respectable and responsible body. Next, you must trust it because you cannot lay down rules."
  It is true that the members of the Authority are to have a good knowledge of industry, trade, finance, administration and education, but apparently they have not necessarily to have any moral character. It seems to me very difficult to believe, even in these wild days, that any

  719
  Postmaster-General would entirely ignore the moral background of an appointee. But it seems to be thought that that is possible, for, amongst other things, I cannot see how any responsible man could stand up to being given this responsible position and then being given Clause 3 (1, b) to take home and read. He might say, "If you think I am the sort of man who 'offends against good taste or decency,' the last place where I should be is this Authority."
  Ignoring all the criminal law, in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is an expert, we already have a nice lot of statutes which cover this matter. There are the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, and the Obscene Publications Act, 1857. Then there is indictable misdemeanour; there are one or two clever catches in the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, which would catch anybody who encouraged or incited to crime. Any such person, I suggest, who was appointed to the Authority might have to go somewhere else for some time.
  Those considerations make me beg my hon. Friend to take this Clause back. Although we may disagree about legislation, we all have a duty to try to make it comprehensible and sensible and not funny. Some powers in this Clause, as has been pointed out, are a form of debased humour. To appoint a man to a responsible position and tell him that he must not commit an indictable misdemeanour is going a bit too far. If we have to have a code it should be a code that is not on the face of it insulting, but is directed to what is really wanted, and which gives the trustees some discretion, and does not bind them hand and foot.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe):The speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) reminds me of the great contribution of Lord Eldon to the code of equity of this country. My hon. and learned Friend is a distinguished lawyer. Lord Eldon reduced the code of equity which was to give wide, beneficent help to the legal process, to a series of standard rules. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will remember, one of the most famous passages in Bagehot is one which proves
  720
  quite conclusively that Lord Eldon could never have existed at all. I have a feeling that the spirit of the noble earl has flourished again in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend.
  I should like to deal with his point because my hon. and learned Friend was emphasising one that the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) made, that the Clause is drawn in too general terms. I disagree. I hope that the Committee will not mind if I remember that I also was once a lawyer and if I remind the Committee that the common law of England, under which we have existed in tolerable security and comfort for hundreds of years, is based on one conception: the reasonable man, and what it is reasonable to do. That is, broadly, the conception we have here.
  I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) is worried about putting in the words "as far as possible," but I do not think that if he were sitting in a judicial capacity he would have much difficulty in interposing the word "reasonably" between "as" and "possible." I know that people are worried about this point, and I am trying to meet it. I put it to the Committee that it is a truism, which, like all truisms, happens to be true, that although no one can say how many grains there are in a heap, equally it is quite possible to know a heap when one sees it.
  I ask hon. Gentlemen to apply some common sense—and especially the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who is the apotheosis of pessimism in these debates—and to apply that reasoning to what has been set out in subsection (1). I say that if we approach it in that spirit "predominantly British" does not present the difficulties which have been elaborated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West.
  I should like to take up his point on opera. I could not help thinking, as he was speaking, of the discussion that took place about the opera "Otello." The Italian conductor said he was going to conduct "Otello" and somebody, an Englishman, said "Shakespeare," and the Italian conductor exclaimed, "Ah, the librettist." But seriously, as we all know, there is an accepted corpus of opera

  721
  which we all go to see when we can, on the few occasions available nowadays. I am sure that if one was applying the term to opera one would not look at the scene of the opera or the source of the story. In that case one would ask that where opera is shown predominantly British opera companies should be given their chance.
  That is the way in which one may answer by applying common sense—if I can use the word with no sense of offence—tests to the difficulties put forward by my hon. and learned Friend. When one comes to his ultimate point and considers Shakespeare, ought one to ask oneself, before deciding whether Shakespeare is predominantly British, whether the source of a particular play was Boccaccio or Holinshed?
  I want to answer one or two of the points made by the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards). I do not think there is much between us on the question of party political broadcasts, and I will leave that question. The other point about which he was worried concerned political programmes other than party political broadcasts and whether the duty was laid on the Authority to see that there are properly balanced discussions or debates. I put it to the right hon. Member that, with the advances we have made so far in our critical assessment of such programmes, someone who selected personalities who were completely out of balance in order to get a better presentation of one side would not only be greeted with a chorus of criticism, but would find that his programme was extremely unpopular and extremely unlikely to carry out his object.
  I should like to consider very carefully the point the right hon. Member made about religious broadcasts. It is not a point on which I can give a decision, but I should like to consider it because I was very interested when he put it forward. I sincerely hope that we shall have religious services televised. I want to assure the Committee that the difference between us there is whether the matter ought to be left to the Authority plus the Advisory Committee, or whether the Authority ought to be enjoined by this House to accept the advice given. We
  722
  prefer the former, but there is no doubt that it is something we want to see, subject to the Advisory Committee assuring us that it is the desire of the Churches as a whole.
  Mr. Hobson:It has been proved beyond a peradventure that the Religious Advisory Committee has been very biased against the Unitarian community.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe:I thought that the hon. Member said that when representations were made there had been a reconsideration of the matter, but I am sure that that is a point to keep in mind. The hon. Member has been at the Post Office and he knows that that should be drawn to its attention. I am sure that after what has passed in this Committee, it will be.
  I have deliberately shortened my reply in order to meet the wishes of the Committee, and I would say to right hon. and hon. Members opposite with whose points I have not dealt that I have listened to them carefully and that I shall read the debate carefully and give full consideration to those points before the next stage.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton:Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say a word about an adequate proportion of live entertainment, as that matter is completely omitted from the Clause as it stands? Will he give consideration to that?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe:Certainly I will give consideration to that.
  Mr. Roderic Bowen:Will any consideration be given to broadcasting by the I.T.A. in the Welsh language?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe:An Amendment, which was not discussed but was brought into the Bill earlier this afternoon, does that.
  It being Nine o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 189: Noes, 170.

  Division No. 124.]

  AYES

  [9.0 p.m.

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

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Heath, Edward

  Pitman, I. J.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Raikes, Sir Victor

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

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Horobin, I. M.

  Redmayne, M.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Black, C. W.

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

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

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

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Bossom, Sir A. C.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Bowen, E. R.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Russell, R. S.

  Braine, B. R.

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

  Kaberry, D.

  Scott, R. Donald

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Kerr, H. W.

  Shepherd, William

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

  Lambton, Viscount

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

  Bullard, D. G.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Burden, F. F. A.

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

  Speir, R. M.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Lindsay, Martin

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

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Colegate, W. A.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Storey, S.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  McAdden, S. J.

  Summers, G. S.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

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

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Crouch, R. F.

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Teeling, W.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

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

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Deedes, W. F.

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

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

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

  Donner, Sir P. W.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Tilney, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Drewe, Sir C.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Marples, A. E.

  Turton, R. H.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Maude, Angus

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Maudling, R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Mellor, Sir John

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Neave, Airey

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Glover, D.

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Godber, J. B.

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Grimond, J.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St Albans)

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

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D

  Wills, G.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

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

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Page, R. G.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Perkins, Sir Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Mr. Studholme and Mr. Legh.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Adams, Richard

  Blyton, W. R.

  Cove, W. G.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Brookway, A. F.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D

  Daines, P.

  Baird, J.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Burke, W. A.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Benson, G.

  Champion, A. J.

  Deer, G.

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

  Chapman, W. D

  Dodds, N. N.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Clunie, J.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

  Blackburn, F.

  Collick, P. H

  Edelman, M.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lawson, G. M.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

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

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Foot, M. M.

  McLeavy, F.

  Snow, J. W.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Sparks, J. A.

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

  Mason, Roy

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Stross, Dr. Barnett

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

  Messer, Sir F.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Grey, C. F.

  Moody, A. S.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Hale, Leslie

  Morley, R.

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Moyle, A.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead. W.)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Tomney, F.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Nally, W.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Hannan, W.

  O'Brien, T.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Hargreaves, A.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Hastings, S.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Viant, S. P.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Orbach, M.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Oswald, T.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Paget, R. T.

  Weitzman, D.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Pannell, Charles

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Holman, P.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Holmes, Horace

  Parker, J.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Parkin, B. T.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Willey, F. T.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Proctor, W. T.

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

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Janner, B.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

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

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

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Willis, E. G.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Ross, William

  Yates, V. F.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Royle, C.

  Keenan, W.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Kenyon, C.

  Short, E. W.

  Mr. Pearson and

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Mr. Arthur Allen.

  TELEVISION BILL

    Clause 4.—(ADVERTISEMENTS.)
    Mr. Gammans:I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, to leave out "by the Authority," and to insert:
    "under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section two of this Act."
    Mr. Hobson:On a point of order. I rise to ask for your guidance, Sir Charles. A lot of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are receiving green cards from "J. Fred Muggs." Is not this a breach of the Sessional Orders?
    Mr. Gammans:The Amendment is the result of a promise given by my right hon. and learned Friend on Second Reading. The objection was then raised that if the Clause as at present drafted remained in the Bill, it would enable the Authority to accept advertisements for those items for which it was paying out of its own money in order to secure a proper balance. I think it was the general feeling of the House that that was undesirable, and my right hon. Friend gave an assurance that steps would be taken to amend the Bill.
    Mr. Ness Edwards:I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not made the matter clear. As I understand what he said, it amounted to this. When the Authority paid for the inclusion of certain items in a programme, it could not itself receive any fees for advertising associated with it. Do I understand that to be the position? Is it the case that the only people who will obtain advertising revenue are the programme companies and not the I.T.A., despite the fact that they will pay for the items, and that the associated advertising will be paid for by the programme company?
    Mr. Gammans:That is right, and that is why we gave the Authority an income of its own of £750,000 a year.
    Mr. Gordon Walker:Is it really the case that public money is to be used in order that people can make private profit? Clause 2 (2, b) deals with the programme companies, and it now appears that public money will be used to enable them to do things which other-

    727
    wise they could not do. They will collect revenue from advertising for doing something which they could not do if public money had not been provided.
    Mr. Gammans:The Committee cannot have it both ways. I thought we agreed on certain items which the Authority could do in order to get a proper balance. I thought that was agreed on both sides when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary brought it forward. It was felt that such items should not be associated with advertising, and that was one of the reasons which justified the granting to the Authority of an independent source of income.
    Mr. Ness Edwards:Surely, what the hon. Gentleman has said is that advertising will be associated with these items and that the programme companies will get the fees for the advertisements associated with items for which the Authority itself pays? This really is a bit of racketeering.
    Mr. Shackleton:Will the Assistant Postmaster-General make some of these points a little clearer, though I appreciate he is doing his best? Is it, in fact, correct that, if the Authority pays for a programme, the programme contractor can derive money from advertising which may be associated with that programme? I think the answer is that they can. That is the first point.
    Mr. Gammans:If there are certain programmes for which the Authority itself wants to pay in order to secure a balance, then the Authority may commission such programmes from any source whatsoever, and it is not intended that the Authority itself should have the power to take advertisements for these programmes.
    Mr. Shackleton:It is clear, then, that any programme commissioned by the Authority is free from advertising? [HON. MEMBERS: "Is it?"] I think that must be implicit in the explanation which we have been given, but, in that case—
    Mr. Gammans:In any programme which the Authority itself commissions, we want to exclude the possibility of the Authority itself being able to charge for advertisements. The whole idea is that the Authority itself is paying for these programmes, and that advertising will not be associated with them.
    Mr. Shackleton:It is quite clear that any programme commissioned by the Authority will be unaccompanied by advertising? Then, I should like to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General, who has said we cannot have it both ways, whether he has seen the full consequences of this? It means that the Authority, with its extremely limited funds, is debarred by financial stringency from developing a balanced programme beyond a certain point. It is, in fact, limited entirely by the money provided by Parliament. It seems to me that, where there are obviously certain items which could not be associated with advertising in certain forms, the purpose of this provision is not simply to put on a religious programme or news, because, in any case, we still do not know what is going to happen about providing balanced programmes.
    9.15 p.m.
    There may be certain programmes which the programme contractors are not willing to put on and which have a particular type of local appeal. There may be not enough advertising revenue to pay the cost of those programmes, which might apply for example to a particular part of Northern Ireland or to Scotland. The I.T.A. may, in fulfilment of their obligations to provide a balanced programme, decide to commission it, and if they can get advertising revenue for it they should be allowed to do so. How otherwise can they make these paltry amounts of money cover the obligations which are laid on them?
    The Government have repeatedly said that the I.T.A. will see that there is a balance, but in order to make certain that the I.T.A. does not get away with any of the profits which their friends the programme contractors are to make, they handicap the I.T.A. in providing a balanced programme. This only serves to indicate once again the attitude of the Government in this particular sell-out.
    Mr. Gordon Walker:It seems that payments will be made to the Authority for advertisements under the Clause which states:
    "The programmes broadcast by the Authority may … include advertisements inserted therein in consideration of payments to the relevant programme contractor or … to the Authority."
    If payments are to be made to the Authority, what will they be for?
    Mr. Gammans:Those words provide for the contingency that the Authority has to do programmes itself because of a temporary lack of a programme contractor. For a limited period, and until it gets a contractor, the Authority can do this.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Hirst:I beg to move, in page 6, line 17, to leave out "advertising or other agents" and to insert:
    "such advertising or other agents as may be accredited by the Authority."
    I do not want to exaggerate the case, but there is some small danger that completely inexperienced agents will be permitted to purchase space—
    Hon. Members:Time.
    Sir Frederick Messer:One can "get time" but one cannot get space.
    Mr. Hirst:Well, time. It is the same thing, in effect. I am not proposing anything revolutionary. It has been the practice for many years for experienced advertising agents to be accredited to various media, like newspapers, periodicals and magazines, and there is some merit in that procedure. The idea here is that the same understanding should apply to the I.T.A.
    One thing is occasionally overlooked by some of us. The expression used is "advertising or other agents," but they are principals. If there was anything in the way of an overdue account or anything of that sort and action had to be taken, the I.T.A. or the contractors under the I.T.A., would have no redress. To have advertising agents accredited by the I.T.A. would be some guarantee that advertisers were getting experienced handling of their work and problems and assure them that the account was safe.
    Sir L. Plummer:For a variety of reasons I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment. Perhaps the most important reason is that it completely violates the principle of the Bill. We have been told repeatedly that the purpose of the Bill is to destroy the monopoly of the B.B.C., and the Assistant Postmaster-General, in urging the Bill upon us, has described the evils of that monopoly.
    The hon. Gentleman now wants a monopoly of advertising agents to be
    730
    maintained. That would not be good for the Bill, but that after all is a minor consideration to those of us on this side of the Committee. It certainly would not be good for advertising, and I submit that it would not be very good for the advertising agents. There is already too much concentration in the hands of the advertising agent. Practically no one can start an advertising agency today unless he gets the recognition of the advertisement managers' committee of both the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the Newspaper Society.
    Indeed, the other day I read that a joint committee of those two bodies is to conduct an annual inspection of advertising agencies to see that they are run in the way that joint committee wishes. This is a most intolerable interference with the free will of people conducting a private enterprise. To suggest now that this new Authority should act in this way is to deny to private enterprise the right to conduct its business in the way that it wishes.
    Mr. Hirst:The hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstands my point. I merely say that the I.T.A. should have the right to accredit agents—not that they should belong to any advertising agency.
    Sir L. Plummer:Yes, I see the hon. Member's point. My reply is that the I.T.A. should allow anyone with the money to be an advertising agent, just as it will now presumably allow anyone with the money to advertise anything.
    We want to get back to the competitive spirit that used to prevail amongst advertising agents. As a boy, I used to sell advertising to old gentlemen in saloon bars in the City—and a jolly race of men they were. This was long before the advertising business was degraded to something near to a profession. It was then a splendid and lively business. No advertising agent in those days was so inconsiderate of his clients' business that he would waste time sitting on the benches of this House.
    Those men went out to get the business in a two-fisted way. They built up this great profession, made advertising the handmaiden of commerce and made the newspapers and magazines of this country the splendid and independent organs that today they claim they are. It is to these old pioneers that this country owes

    731
    so much. I want to see the time come again when the pioneers in advertising can raise their heads—not lower them because they have not a series of letters after their names—as proper representatives of free enterprise in this country. This Amendment will destroy that chance, and I beg the Government, if they have any consideration for the pledges which they have given to this House—and I am sure that the Assistant Postmaster-General has that consideration—to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Gammans:I cannot guarantee to resurrect the old pioneers for the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). All the same, I must resist this Amendment. I think that if I were to accept it, it would in effect mean that the Authority would be asked to accept a responsibility which would be quite wrong to lay upon them by statute.
    I am convinced that the advertising agents wish to ensure the highest possible standard of ethics in their profession. [Laughter. ] Hon. Members may laugh, but I think in fairness to the advertising agents, who are on the Right and the Left in this House, that they should study the very rigid code of conduct which has been laid down for the members of their institute.
    Sir L. Plummer:I was not laughing.
    Mr. Gammans:The effect of this Amendment would be that we should be using the specialised vehicle of the Television Bill to give legal sanction to what is already an accepted code. I think that to do so would go far beyond what is the right province of this Bill.
    This should be a private matter to be arranged between the Authority and the agents themselves. It may well be, and I hope that it will be, that the programme contractors will adopt some practice such as is envisaged here, but I think that it would be going quite beyond the original purpose of this Bill if we were to lay upon the Authority a statutory obligation.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Elliot:I beg to move, in page 6, line 38, to leave out from "Authority," to second "the," in line 39, and to insert:
    "from time to time to determine and publish."
    732
    This and the next Amendment go together—in page 6, line 42, leave out from "employed," to end of line 43.
    I think we are greatly heartened in moving this Amendment by the paean of praise just delivered for private enterprise and the advertising agents by the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). No one could give a more robust and vigorous description of these persons than he did. But the idea of long evenings spent in the four-ale bar and by implication—the more they spend together the happier they would be—is not exactly the business of the Postmaster-General.
    We suggest that this should be in fact, as in all other bodies of the kind, the responsibility of the Authority. I would suggest that it would be quite wrong to bring in the Postmaster-General and to have all these arrangements made simply by the direction of the Postmaster-General. I think that it would be far more appropriate that they should be made by the Authority, which is the body handling and dealing with these things, and that it should from time to time determine and publish
    "descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised, and the methods of advertising which must not be employed."
    The final position of the Postmaster-General is completely safeguarded in the subsequent Clause—Clause 6 (2)—where at any time the Postmaster-General may require the Authority
    "to refrain from broadcasting any matter or classes of matter specified in the notice and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply with the notice."
    9.30 p.m.
    The final authority lies with the Postmaster-General, but it seems to me that the day-to-day working should be left with the Authority whose business it is. If I may take an analogy, it would be wrong for "The Listener," which is a publication containing some very good advertisements and which derives considerable revenue from these advertisements, to be under the day-to-day control of the Postmaster-General of the day. It is under the B.B.C. It is subject to the general direction of these bodies, and that is a much more businesslike way of going about it than the proposal in the Bill.
    Mr. Chapman:The right hon. Gentleman said it would be undesirable for it to be under the day-to-day supervision of the Postmaster-General, but is he not aware that the subsection refers only to consultation "from time to time"? It would not be day-to-day supervision by the Postmaster-General.
    Mr. Elliot:If that is so, then Clause 6 (2) covers the point completely. If it is only to be at long intervals, the point is covered, for I agree that at intervals the Postmaster-General would have to exert his authority.
    I think the hon. Member probably agrees with me that this should not be brought in from day-to-day, but I fear that under the words in the subsection it might be held that a day-to-day responsibility fell upon the Postmaster-General. That might lead to endless arguments, discussions and recriminations as to whether some detergent had been advertised more than another detergent, for example. I think these commercial matters would be better left to the general supervision of the Authority, with the overriding power of the Postmaster-General—which means, of course, this House—in the background. I do not intend to take up long in moving the Amendment, which is a fairly simple and businesslike Amendment.
    Mr. Shackleton:Before we proceed further with the Amendment, I wonder whether the Assistant Postmaster-General, who we now recognise as an expert on definition, would interpret this temporal phrase "from time to time." The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) said it meant "from day to day." When he was corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and told that it would happen only very occasionally, he said that would be all right. It would be helpful if the Assistant Postmaster-General could give his version.
    Mr. Chapman:I will gladly give way to the Assistant Postmaster-General if he wishes to answer.
    The Amendment is very much more dangerous than is realised by the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot).
    Mr. Darling:Hon. Members opposite realise it.
    Mr. Chapman:I think it is a very dangerous Amendment because it means that in the ultimate analysis it will be very difficult and almost impossible for there to be Parliamentary check on the kind of advertisements which are to be allowed or are not to be allowed. If the Postmaster-General is not to be responsible, even in terms of consultation, it will be almost impossible for hon. Members to put down Questions and to raise the propriety or otherwise of the inclusion of particular kinds of advertisements.
    Mr. Elliot:I do not wish it to be a dangerous Amendment. How does the hon. Member interpret Clause 6 (2)?
    Mr. Chapman:The point about Clause 6 (2) is that this directly results from the B.B.C. licence. There is an exactly similar Clause in the B.B.C. licence. In fact, the whole of Clause 6 is based on that. This subsection is entirely and completely intended to deal with an emergency situation. It is an emergency Clause which exists already in the B.B.C. licence. Indeed I put a question to the Postmaster-General some time ago and received the information that this Clause is practically never used, so it would be wrong to use it, because it is not intended in that way.
    I also say it would be wrong for this reason, that Clause 6 would be one that would only come into operation in the way used in the case of the B.B.C. after something objectionable had appeared, the attention of the Postmaster-General had been drawn to it, he was told that it must not appear again, and he gave a direction to the I.T.A. The point being that if we leave this Clause as it is there will be discussions from time to time on the kind, the quality and the types of advertisements, and we shall not be left to use Clause 6 when the dangerous thing had happened and the wrong kind of advertising has appeared.
    Mr. Elliot:May I direct the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the words:
    "to refrain from broadcasting any matter or classes of matter…"
    That applies to the future as well as to something that has happened, and the fact that it has not been necessary to invoke it in the case of the B.B.C. might well mean that it need not be invoked here. but it is invokable.
    Mr. Ness Edwards:We have had some experience of this matter and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this refers to times of emergency. Let me give the most recent example of which I am aware. There was an unofficial stoppage in the docks at Bristol. The B.B.C. were going to put on a programme featuring the unofficial leaders of that strike. Information came to the Ministry of Labour about this, and the B.B.C. were given an instruction that they were not to put on that feature because it would justify an unofficial stoppage. The same thing happened in the dock strike in London after a state of emergency had been declared. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the meaning of that Clause, which is in the B.B.C. Charter, is the meaning which I have given to it.
    Mr. Chapman:Having dealt with that point, perhaps I may come to my main point, but not necessarily answering the right hon. Gentleman. I wonder if it is realised that if we pass this Amendment we shall have the I.T.A. standing entirely by itself, responsible for judging advertisements, without the consultation and without the advice from Government Departments of what is known about certain kinds of advertisers.
    I want to draw attention to what happens in the newspaper world to prevent the inclusion of advertisements which are unreliable and which are advertising fraudulent products and to prevent newspapers from being used in this way. There is in the newspaper world a Copy Committee of the Advertising Managers Committee of the Newspaper Proprietors Association. This committee keeps continual watch on the kind of advertisements that ought not to appear because they are advertising products which are strongly suspected to be fraudulent and which are exacting money from people for products which are worthless. In other words, the newspaper world has its own way of keeping a check on undesirable advertisements.
    If we pass this Amendment, the net effect will be that there would be for the I.T.A. no such kind of equivalent consultation as that could come via the Postmaster-General and the information he has from the Board of Trade. None of that would be advisable, and the Postmaster-General would have no responsibility. The result might be that a lot
    736
    of worthless, fraudulent advertisements were put over in good faith by the I.T.A. simply because there was no means of knowing how reliable were the advertisers. I should like to direct the right hon. Gentleman to that point. It would be much better to retain the stipulation that the Postmaster-General must be consulted from time to time.
    One of the best reasons for doing so is the infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act which we know to be going on. Questions about some of these fraudulent advertisements have been asked in the House of Commons. The President of the Board of Trade, via the Postmaster-General, could make these facts known quite happily and easily to the I.T.A. and so prevent acceptance of advertisements from these people.
    Mr. Elliot:Would the hon. Gentleman agree to its being the duty of the Authority to consult from time to time with trade associations? Obviously the Postmaster-General has no knowledge of these things. It might well be that the Authority should consult somebody, but I do not think that the Postmaster-General is the appropriate person.
    Mr. Chapman:I could show why even a trade association would not be very helpful in these cases. Not very long ago, for example, a smoking cure called "Apal" was marketed and was widely advertised in very good faith, just as it might have been advertised through the I.T.A. It was a thing which was given to people to suck. It was rather like a cigarette holder and was sold for 25s. A public analyst came along and said that the thing was an absolute fraud, that it consisted merely of sawdust and menthol crystals worth about 2d. and by sucking it people might be put off smoking. This thing was made in thousands. What trade association would have had the responsibility for checking an advertisement of that kind? The I.T.A. could not consult a trade association as to whether advertisements of a product like that should be accepted.
    Mr. John Hall:Does the hon. Member think that the Postmaster-General would be in a better position to know?
    Mr. Chapman:We know that the Board of Trade is constantly investigating this kind of racket. Questions are

    737
    addressed to the President of the Board of Trade every week about infringements of merchandise marks and fraudulent selling of this kind. It would be quite easy and proper for the Postmaster-General to collect information from other members of the Government and say to the I.T.A. behind the scenes—acting in rather the same capacity as the newspaper committee to which I referred—that that kind of advertisement should not be accepted.
    Mr. Hall:Would it not be equally easy for the Board of Trade to pass the same information on to the I.T.A.?
    Mr. Chapman:The hon. Member does not appear to appreciate that we want the duty lard upon the Postmaster-General to do this so that the Assistant Postmaster-General can be questioned in the House of Commons. If the Postmaster-General can take his chance as to whether he passes information on or not we shall have no opportunity to check the matter in the House. I hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment, for the reason that we must have a better check on advertisements of this kind which might be accepted in good faith but which might be advertisements of fraudulent products that should be kept from the television screen.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. M. Turner-Samuels:This matter is getting very complicated by reason of far too much advocacy. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman looks at this matter again, he will see that the effect of his Amendment would be diametrically opposite to what he wants it to be. The phrase "from time to time," which appears in subsection (5), means at any time that there is a fundamental change in policy. It means that if the Postmaster-General has agreed on a certain class of programme in relation to an advertisement and it is proposed to make a fundamental change in the programme, then the Authority must go to the Postmaster-General.
    The right hon. Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Elliot) mentioned in Clause 6 (2). That states quite explicity:
    "The Postmaster-General may at any time by notice in writing require the Authority to refrain from broadcasting any matter or classes of matter specified in the notice and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply with the notice."
    738
    The right hon. Gentleman is proposing completely to neutralise that, because his Amendment states:
    "from time to time to determine and publish,
    which completely cuts out the overriding authority which the Minister would have in regard to such programmes.
    Therefore, as a matter of construction, the position, summarised, is this. As the Clause stands, it merely means that the Authority must consult the Postmaster-General from time to time. The object of the consultation is that the Authority shall get the approval of the Postmaster-General concerning the type of programme and the advertisement which is going to be used.
    Clause 6 (2), on the other hand, gives the Postmaster-General the authority to intervene if necessary if the I.T.A. does something in regard to advertisements which it ought not to do, or which is contrary to the policy which the Postmaster-General thinks ought to be pursued. That gives the Postmaster-General the power, of his own volition, and without consulting the Authority, to intervene. Therefore, the two things work in one with the other. If this Amendment were carried, it would undermine and probably destroy that position, and, therefore, I advise the Committee to reject it.
    Mr. Elliot:How does the hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile what he is saying with the words:
    "Without prejudice to any of the duties incumbent on the Authority otherwise than under this subsection…"?
    Mr. Turner-Samuels:That is quite separate from this specific matter regarding consultation. That merely strengthens my argument.
    Mr. Simon:I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept this Amendment. There have really been only two arguments against it. The first was that of the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), which really amounted to the fact that we want to preserve the right of Parliamentary Questions regarding advertisements which are put out over the air and on the screen.
    The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has many times laid down in this House valuable constitutional doctrine as to the limits of Parliamentary Questions over any public

    739
    authority which is set up, and the I.T.A. falls completely within that doctrine. Everything he said about the nationalised industries, the B.B.C., and so on, applies equally to the I.T.A.
    The second argument was the legal one of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) to the effect that if this Amendment were accepted it would nullify Clause 6 (2). With respect, that is quite incorrect. Clause 4 (5) reads:
    "Without prejudice to any of the duties incumbent on the Authority otherwise than under this subsection.…"
    The words
    "otherwise than under this subsection"
    mean Clause 6 (2), which requires the Authority, in effect, to accept the directions of the Postmaster-General not to broadcast certain classes of advertisement.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels:Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if this Amendment were accepted the subsection would read:
    "…it shall be the duty of the Authority from time to time to determine and publish the classes and descriptions…"?
    It is imperative and leaves no scope for the Postmaster-General to do anything about the matter at all, to approve or disapprove.
    Mr. Simon:With respect, I entirely disagree with that interpretation, which disregards the opening words of the subsection. The subsection would read:
    "…it shall be the duty of the Authority from time to time to determine and publish the classes and descriptions of goods"
    which cannot be advertised, and there is an overriding authority in Clause 6 (2) to the Postmaster-General to require the Authority
    "to refrain from broadcasting any matter or classes of matter specified in the notice."
    It is clear that that is an overriding authority, and is intended as such. As those are the only two arguments which have been put forward against the Amendment, I ask my hon. Friend to accept it.
    Mr. Blackburn:I am not surprised that this Amendment has been moved from the other side of the Committee, because there are some who look longingly on the idea of untrammelled sponsored televi-
    740
    sion, and the more they can do away with any sort of control the more they will be pleased. They want to do away with the necessity to consult with the Postmaster-General.
    I can understand their point of view if they believe in sponsored television, but I cannot understand the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) bringing in Clause 6 (2) in support of their argument. They are in favour of doing away with consultation and relying upon direction or dictation. But Clause 6 (2) is expected to be used very rarely indeed. In Clause 6 (2) we have direction from the Postmaster-General, and that is what hon. Members opposite want to put in place of consultation in Clause 4. I sincerely hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will refuse to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Gammans:The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) asked me how I interpreted the words "from time to time." I do not know whether that question was meant as seriously as it was put forward, but I will do my best to answer it. I would regard "from time to time" as meaning when the Authority thinks it necessary to do so, or when the Postmaster-General thinks it necessary to do so. The point is that the situation may change from time to time; new products may come along, and it is then that the consultation which is envisaged in this Bill would take place.
    I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment, and I will give the reasons in a moment. The Government feel that this is not a matter which should be left to the Authority alone, which I gather would be the effect if this Amendment were accepted. I think also that there is a point which hon. Members may have overlooked. That is that a pledge has been given with respect to this matter. I will read the pledge:
    "As regards advertisements, the Corporation would be required to agree with the Postmaster-General the general conditions it would impose, such as the types of advertising and classes of advertisement to be excluded."
    That is a pledge by which we must stand. We do not feel that we could accept the Amendment which would vitiate that pledge and which would in effect exclude the Postmaster-General and, by excluding him, exclude Parliament from all control

    741
    over these matters. I think my right hon. and hon. Friends felt that Clause 6 (2) might cover any defect in that arrangement. I would agree, I think, in that matter with the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who said that this was an emergency subsection and was not meant to be made to cover the sort of contingency we have here.
    Captain Orr:Does the subsection as it stands mean that the types and classes of advertisements could be the subject periodically, say, week by week, of Parliamentary Questions?
    Mr. Gammans:I think that is a different question altogether. Any matter into which the Postmaster-General comes can be the subject of Parliamentary Questions.
    Captain Orr:He comes in here.
    Mr. Gammans:Wherever he comes in.
    Mr. Gordon Walker:Or refuses to come in.
    Mr. Gammans:Or refuses to come in, yes. Wherever the Postmaster-General comes in, then that is a matter which can be the subject of the Parliamentary processes.
    Mr. Simon:If that is right, he comes in whenever there is a duty to be consulted. In other words, he can be questioned in the House as to the
    "…classes and descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised.…"
    Mr. Gammans:That is inevitable, if we bring in the Postmaster-General. I realise what is at the back of the minds of my hon. Friends. They would like the powers of the Minister to be reduced to the minimum. We agree on general principles, therefore. The Bill is drafted with that in mind. However, in this particular case a pledge has been given in the House, and it is not a pledge on which we are prepared to go back.
    We come to the question of publication. It is unnecessary to provide for that in the Bill. The people who will be mostly concerned will be the programme contractors and the advertising agents, and they, of course, will be informed by the Authority what the prohibitions are. Indeed, some of the prohibitions may be incorporated in the contracts between the Authority and the programme companies.
    742
    We envisage that the Authority will have an advisory committee on advertising matters. I sincerely hope it will. I think it will be very difficult for it to do its business without such an advisory committee, and I have no doubt that advertising agents will be only too happy to serve on an advisory committee. I think, therefore, that if there is to be an advisory committee, and if information is to be given to the programme contractors and to the advertising agents, there is no reason for wider publication. Indeed, I can see certain strong reasons against it. I think it would be rather undesirable that a certain product or even the names of certain firms should be singled out, as it were. I think this is largely a commercial transaction, and should be regarded as such, and that to go further than this would be very undesirable.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ness Edwards:I welcome the reply of the hon. Gentleman on this matter. I think it would be a tragedy if the accountability of the Postmaster-General to this House were taken away. The effect of these two Amendments would be to take away from this House the right to question the Minister when. in conjunction with the Authority, he has decided that certain goods shall not be advertised.
    The Clause says:
    "it shall be the duty of the Authority to consult from time to time with the Postmaster-General as to the classes and descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised and the methods of advertising which must not be employed…"
    I should have thought, apart from the general pledge that has been given, that here was a matter which could only be safe in the hands of the House of Commons. In the last analysis the House ought to maintain a continuous control of the type of things we are to see on commercial television. I think the Government are absolutely right on this point.
    The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) made a point in regard to Clause 6 (2) about which I hope he is now satisfied. That provides for intervention in any matter by the Postmaster-General, but it relates to emergencies rather than normal operations of the Television Authority. In these circumstances, if the right hon. Member for

    743
    Kelvingrove presses this Amendment, he can be sure that we shall vote against it.
    Mr. Frederic Harris:Is it really seriously suggested by my hon. Friend that in this House of Commons where we cannot question Ministers on the detailed running of nationalised industries we are to have hon. Members putting Questions on individual products advertised in commercial television, and that they might be briefed by competitors of those making those products? Will the Assistant Postmaster-General be answering Questions about whether a product such as a particular detergent should be advertised or not? That would be making an absolute and utter farce of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Gammans:Such Questions may or may not be desirable, but the fact is that I am not responsible for the nationalisation Measures which went through this House. Those Measures laid down a certain idea of the relationship of the State to nationalised industries, and the House accepted it. This is a different matter altogether. We are laying down the relation of the Authority under a specific Act of Parliament. The fact is that whenever the Postmaster-General comes into the matter he can be questioned in this House.
    Mr. Hirst:He should not come into it.
    Mr. Gammans:That may be the view of my hon. Friend, but the fact is that when the name of the Postmaster-General appears he can be questioned in this House.
    Mr. Ness Edwards:Do I take it that it is the view of hon. Members opposite that if certain people are excluded from advertising on television we are not entitled to ask Questions about those who are excluded? Are not the rights of the individual now to have some protection in this House in the view of Members on the opposite side of the Committee. If there is a list of goods which cannot be advertised, hon. Members may think that there are certain goods in that list which ought to be advertised and will claim the right to raise the rights of their constituents in this matter in the House.
    There is also the problem of a type of goods being advertised which offends
    744
    general good sense, taste and the sense of decency of the people of this country. Is it suggested that hon. Members are not to be entitled to raise that matter on the Floor of the House of Commons?
    Mr. F. Harris:If our constituents suffer from the running of nationalised industries we cannot protect them by asking Questions in this House at present.
    Mr. Ness Edwards:The hon. Member forgets that a pledge was given to see that there should be fair play on television. The pledge was that there should be full accountability to this House for what went on on television. I am not talking of the normal run of advertisements, but of the special action of excluding something from the list of what can be advertised. In my view, such special action is a matter which we should be entitled to raise in this House.
    Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman now adopts the view that an Authority existing outside this House, financed by this House, can take action against a citizen, and that citizen will have no right to seek redress on the Floor of this House? That is the case the hon. Gentleman is making, and apart from the pledge altogether, I should have thought that these two Amendments first defeat the pledge and secondly rob the citizen of the protection to which he is entitled.
    Captain Orr:This is really terribly unsatisfactory—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, it is. I suggest that it will be impossible in this country to get complete agreement as to matters or classes of matters which should be advertised on television. Consequently, if I interpret what my hon. Friend has said aright, we are liable every Wednesday in this House or on the days on which the Assistant Postmaster-General answers Questions, to have Questions from people who dislike a particular type of product. I can visualise the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) being in his place every Wednesday with his quota of three Questions.
    Is that what my hon. Friend envisages? Why should that be? We are setting up an Authority which my hon. Friend has already said that we must trust in great matters, and we have supported him faithly in that. It is an Authority composed of responsible people. Yet we

    745
    say that their actions and the type and class of goods allowed to be advertised shall be subject to day-to-day questioning in this House in a way that no nationalised industry can be subject to Questions. It is as if an advertisement is regarded as a dangerous and improper thing in this country. It has never been thought necessary that we should exercise statutory control of the methods of advertising and the classes of advertisement appearing in the Press.
    Mr. Chapman:Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that so far as the Assistant Postmaster-General is concerned at this moment we can question him about absolutely everything, including the way a letter was delivered from here to there at any time? Over a period of time Parliament has settled down to the proper use and non-abuse of that kind of thing. In fact, with the Post Office we have a very happy system and there is no reason why it should not apply in this case.
    Captain Orr:It is not true that we can question the Assistant Postmaster-General about everything. We cannot do that completely. The Postmaster-General has an overriding responsibility for the B.B.C., but we cannot question the Assistant Postmaster-General about the day-to-day programmes or workings of the B.B.C. The other day there was a very unsatisfactory broadcast by the Bishop of Leeds which offended some people in Northern Ireland, and I could not question the Assistant Postmaster-General about it. Yet Questions are to be allowed to be asked every day about every single possible form of programme—
    Mr. Chapman:Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise—I will take a bet with him—that if the Assistant Post-master-General accepts an advertisement to be included in a book of stamps I can ask Questions about it. If that is so, why cannot I ask the hon. Gentleman similar Questions about another medium of advertising for which he is responsible?
    Mr. Elliot:I do not know if my hon. and gallant Friend has finished his remarks. I do not wish to interrupt him.
    Captain Orr:I have not quite finished. I thought that my right hon. Friend was making another intervention.
    Mr. F. Harris:May I remind my hon. and gallant Friend that we cannot question the Minister of Transport about advertisements which appear on the Underground.
    Captain Orr:I suggest that is very relevant. If the Minister of Transport is responsible, and if there appears an offensive advertisement on public transport, we cannot question him. Why should we necessarily be able to question the Assistant Postmaster-General.
    We want the Postmaster-General to have over-riding authority. If the I.T.A. was so unwise as suddenly to permit some class of advertisement which was offensive to the British people, under Clause 6 (2) the Postmaster-General has absolute authority to stop it. If any representations are made to him, he can require the Authority to refrain from broadcasting. There is no difficulty about the matter at all.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels:Let us get this clear. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman want to cut out the Postmaster-General's authority completely. That is what the Amendment seeks to do?
    Captain Orr:That is not what the Amendment seeks to do.
    It has already been pointed out that the subsection begins with the phrase:
    "Without prejudice to any of the duties incumbent on the Authority…"
    I should like the Postmaster-General to have overriding authority in this matter, which he has already got in relation to the broad policy relating to advertising, but judgment in respect of the classes and the day-to-day insertion of advertisements in programmes put on by contractors should be left to the Authority, a responsible body which we are setting up.
    While I would not necessarily urge my hon. Friends to press the matter to a Division now, I must reserve my position for a future stage of the Bill, because I should like my hon. Friend to look at the matter again.
    Mr. H. Morrison:This is a most illuminating discussion. I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they have any convictions about their philosophy relating to answerability to Parliament, it is time they challenged a Division. Let them divide if they have any—I do not know what word to use which comes within the degrees of order…real courage.

    747
    They make an attack upon the Government, to which I have no objection—I am all in favour of their attacking the Government—but the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with typical cowardice on his part—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—Parliamentary cowardice on his part, though he is willing to get up and attack, when it comes to going into the Lobby against the Government, he runs away. It is typical Parliamentary cowardice.
    What is the argument behind the Amendment? The essential point is that hon. Gentlemen opposite want to cut the Postmaster-General out of authority in this sphere which concerns the use of advertisements in commercial television. Why do they want to cut out the Postmaster-General? The answer is clear. They wish there to be no Parliamentary accountability whatever.
    Captain Orr:No.
    Mr. Morrison:I will come to the hon. and gallant Gentleman in a moment. That is the argument. The hon. and gallant Gentleman really ought to be careful. The whole purpose is to cut out the Postmaster-General, not because hon. Gentlemen opposite dislike the Postmaster-General and not even because they dislike the Assistant Postmaster-General, which, heaven knows, I could understand. The motive is to cut out the right of the House of Commons to challenge these things.
    Captain Orr rose—
    Mr. Morrison:Let the hon. and gallant Gentleman wait a moment. Let us get the Parliamentary doctrine right.
    10.15 p.m.
    They are after cutting out the House of Commons and its rights. That is what they want to do, and, if they want it, let them divide the Committee and let the nation know that, in this matter of commercial advertising on commercial television, the Tory Party is advocating that our television should become commercialised, instead of being a public service, and that they are determined that there shall be no Parliamentary control over it at all. That is what they are about.
    Let us compare that with the attitude towards the nationalised industries, and this is not a Bill for the nationalisation—
    748
    [Interruption. ] Why should I give way? We are working under a Guillotine, and, if the Government will take off the Guillotine, I will give way with pleasure. [Interruption. ] If ever I want to learn manners, I will not learn them from the Tory Party. I would sooner learn them from the working classes, who know more about manners than the Tory Party. They are making a comparison here—
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke rose—
    Mr. Morrison:I hope the noble Lord will not provoke me, because if I start on him, I shall really get out of order. I know the noble Lord; I know his class superiority very well, and I understand it.
    The comparison has been drawn in the course of the argument between this Measure and the nationalised industries. This Bill has nothing to do with the nationalised industries; it certainly is not a nationalised industries Bill. It is a Bill for the purpose of bringing commercial capitalist considerations and control into television; that is what it is for, that is the soul of the Tory Party in this matter, and the Home Secretary and the Assistant Postmaster-General are behind it all.
    What happened about the nationalised industries? When I brought in the London Passenger Transport Bill in 1930 or 1931, the complaint was that there was too much Ministerial responsibility, and it was denounced. When the Labour Government in 1949 brought in their nationalisation Bills, there was a similar criticism, and, afterwards, when those Bills were on the Statute Book, there was a complaint from the Conservative Party that they could not put meticulous Questions on the day-to-day management of those industries. That was their complaint, and they constantly denounced it.
    Tonight, having argued that there should be meticulous accountability to the House of Commons on the day-to-day management of publicly-owned industry, they now demand that there should be no Parliamentary accountability for a service which is not publicly owned, which is not under public control, but which is commercial, capitalist and advertising, in acordance with the wishes of hon. Members opposite all the way along the line.

    749
    I say that there is an utter and contemptible hypocrisy about the whole thing, and I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that, if they believe it, they should have the courage of their convictions, if they have any, which I doubt. The test will be that if they have the courage of their convictions they will divide. If they do not divide, it will merely mean that hon. Gentlemen who support the Government are typical Lobby fodder.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe:I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and I could not help being reminded of an expression of his. He used to conclude the debates about two Parliaments ago with words which became familiar to everyone—"A good time has been had by all." It was a favourite phrase of the right hon. Gentleman, and it aptly describes his speech. No one is a greater master than he, not only at choosing his own arguments but choosing the arguments which he imputes to his opponents, in order to find those which can be most easily demolished.
    He and I know, and we all know, that the question of accountability to Parliament of a public corporation is one of the most difficult points in modern Parliamentary and industrial legislative history. We have all tried to tackle it and we have all been brought up by this difficulty. I believe there is a perfectly genuine difficulty of appreciation on both sides of the Committee.
    I start with the point which was made by one of my hon. Friends. I want to remind the Committee about it again. We said in the White Paper:
    "As regards advertisements, the Corporation would be required to agree with the Postmaster-General"—
    I ask the Committee to note the next words—
    "the general conditions it would impose, such as the types of advertising and classes of advertisement to be excluded."
    We have translated that statement into the words in the Bill. There will be two duties on the Authority. One duty is:
    "…it shall be the duty of the Authority to consult from time to time with the Postmaster-General."
    I shall come to the subject of consultation in a moment. The second duty is:
    750
    "…to carry out any directions which he may give them in those respects."
    I would point out to everyone that I am standing by the Bill as carrying out the policy which the Government have adopted.
    The first duty on the Authority is to consult the Postmaster-General. I believe that on due consideration everyone would think that was a reasonable thing for the Authority to do. Of course, it leaves it to the Authority to consult the Postmaster-General when it thinks that that is right. That surely exemplifies one of the points which we have tried to hammer out. Whether we agree on it or not, it is our intention, after the first disagreement on any Bill setting up a public corporation, to try to improve it.
    Mr. H. Morrison:It is not a public corporation.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe:The right hon. Gentleman says that, and of course his ipse dixit carries a lot of weight in this House. But if he tried so to dogmatise in any place where there was an objective criterion of his decision, it would not have the same happy result. The point that I was making was that that was a fair duty to put on the Authority—to consult the Postmaster-General.
    Mr. Gordon Walker:Can the Postmaster-General require them to consult him if he feels that there is undue delay?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe:It is difficult to know when the time would arrive. I should not like to dogmatise. I go thus far with the right hon. Gentleman, that if there was a failure to consult for a time that would show that the duty was being disregarded. There are methods, which I need not elaborate in the short time available, of seeing that the duty is performed.
    Mr. Gordon Walker:We could ask Questions about it.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe:That is another point.
    The stage at which Questions will come is a matter dependent, as the right hon. Gentleman has implied, on whether or not the Authority is in default of its duty to consult as to the classes or descriptions of goods or services and to the methods of advertising. I think that at an earlier stage in the debate there was

    751
    some confusion between what are termed general conditions and individual goods and services. I think that is a point which my right hon. and hon. Friends should consider, because I think it meats some of the difficulties which have been expressed.
    Then one comes to the second duty—if a position arises in which the Authority has consulted the Postmaster-General in respect to these matters which I have mentioned, and the Postmaster-General has to give it directions. That clearly applies in a wide field of legislation. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, during the war, it first came into considerable use in connection with the War Damage Commission, with which he was very familiar. I think no one can complain about Parliamentary inquiry and control as to whether directions that have been given have been carried out clearly. That is a Ministerial function and something over which Parliament must have control.
    If I may quote the right hon. Gentleman again "a good time has been had by all." I would add that I think the warmth of the good time engendered a few moments ago has been caused by the two sides to some extent exaggerating the difference between us. On consideration I think that both sides will find that we have struck a happy medium. I shall again—as I always promise and always perform—consider very carefully the arguments that have been advanced; but, with great respect, I think that hon. Members have got this matter out of proportion.
    Mr. Elliot:We shall bring this matter up again, but in consideration of the undertaking Which has been given—and, of course, refusing to fall into the very obvious trap which has been laid for us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who is just back from his Continental holiday and a little exuberant with the wine and food of Strasbourg—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment—
    Hon. Members:No.
    Amendment negatived.
    The Chairman:Mr. Shackleton.
    Mr. Shackleton:In the 30 seconds left there is not much time to move my
    752
    Amendment, but I would point out that since the last Guillotine we have been wholly occupied with Amendments moved by the other side—
    It being Half-past Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to Clause 4, and the further Question necessary to complete the proceedings on that Clause.
    Amendment made: In page 7, line 9, at end, add:
    Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting the inclusion, in any part of a programme broadcast by the Authority which is not an advertisement, of any of the following matters, that is to say:—
    (a)items designed to give publicity to the needs of any association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes;
    (b)reviews of literary, artistic or other publications or productions, including current entertainments;
    (c)items consisting of factual portrayals of doings, happenings, places or things, being items which in the opinion of the Authority are proper for inclusion by reason of their intrinsic interest or instructiveness and do not comprise an undue element of advertisement;
    (d)announcements of the place of any performance included in the programme, or of the name and description of the persons concerned as performers or otherwise in any such performance, announcements of the number and description of any record so included, and acknowledgments of any permission granted in respect of any such performance, persons or record;
    (e)such other matters (if any) as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Postmaster General by statutory instrument after consultation with the Authority,
    or as prohibiting the inclusion of an advertisement in any programme broadcast by the Authority by reason only of the fact that it is related in subject-matter to any part of that programme which is not an advertisement.
    (7) Before making any regulations under paragraph (e) of the proviso to the last preceding subsection the Postmaster General shall lay a draft thereof before each House of Parliament, and shall not make the regulations until a resolution has been passed by each House of Parliament approving the draft.—[Mr. Gammans.]
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Benn (seated and covered):May I ask your guidance, Sir Charles? My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) had moved his

    753
    Amendment before the Guillotine fell and, if I am correct, you proceeded to put the following Amendment and did not put the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.
    The Chairman:When the Guillotine falls I have to put from the Chair the Question already proposed.
    Mr. Benn (seated and covered): But you had called my hon. Friend to move his Amendment, Sir Charles.
    The Chairman:Yes, but the Question had not been put from the Chair.
    Mr. Benn (seated and covered): Following that point of order, Sir Charles, and for guidance, when the Guillotine fell was it not the obligation of the Chair to put the Question that had then been moved?
    The Chairman:No, certainly not.
    Mr. Shackleton (seated and covered): If in the course of moving my Amendment, Sir Charles, could I have been speaking for five or 10 minutes, would you not then have been obliged to put the Question?
    The Chairman:No. I thought, when the hon. Gentleman said that there were 30 seconds to go, there was plenty of time for him to finish moving his Amendment, but he did not do so; he went on talking. I have to put any Question proposed from the Chair when the Guillotine falls, and it could have been put if the hon. Gentleman had moved his Amendment at once.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 162.

    Division No. 125.]

    AYES

    [10.30 p.m.

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

    Glover, D.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Godber, J. B.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Amery, Julian, (Preston, N.)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Grimond, J.

    Marples, A. E.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Maude, Angus

    Barlow, Sir John

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Maudling, R.

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Mellor, Sir John

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

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Black, C. W.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

    Heath, Edward

    Neave, Airey

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Bowen, E. R.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Nicolson Nigel (Bournemouth E.)

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

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Nield Basil (Chester)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Noble Comdr. A. H. P.

    Braine, B. R.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Horobin, I, M.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

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

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

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

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

    Page, R. G.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Carr, Robert

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Kaberry, D.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Colegate, W. A.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Lambton, Viscount

    Redmayne, M.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Renton, D. L. M.

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

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

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Roberts Peter (Heeley)

    Crouch, R. F.

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

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Lindsay, Martin

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Russell, R. S.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Longden, Gilbert

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Drewe, Sir C.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Schofield Lt—Col. W.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Shepherd, William

    Finlay, Graeme

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

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

    Fisher, Nigel

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Snadden, W. MON.

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Maclean, Fitroy

    Speir, R. M.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

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

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

    Gammans, L. D.

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

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Tilney, John

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Storey, S.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Summers, G. S.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Turton, R. H.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Wills, G.

    Teeling, W.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Wall, Major Patrick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Mr. Studholme and Mr. Vosper

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Hale, Leslie

    Parker, J

    Adams, Richard

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Parkin, B. T

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Pearson, A.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hannan, W.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Baird, J.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hastings, S.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Benson, G.

    Healey, Danis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Blackburn, F.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Roberts Albert (Normanton)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Holman, P.

    Ross, William

    Blyton, W. R.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Royle, C

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Short, E. W.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Janner, B.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

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

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

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

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Snow, J. W.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Collick, P. H.

    Keenan, W.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Kenyon, C.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Cove, W. G.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Tomney, F.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    McLeavy, F.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Deer, G.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Usborne, H. C.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Viant, S. P.

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

    Marquand, Rt. Hon H A

    Wallace, H. W.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mason, Roy

    Warbey, W. N.

    Edelman, M.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Weitzman, D.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mitchison, G. R

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Moody, A. S.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Morley, R.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

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

    Willey, F. T.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Moyle, A.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Mulley, F. W.

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

    Foot, M. M.

    Nally, W.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Forman, J. C.

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

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

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    O'Brien, T.

    Willis, E. G.

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

    Orbach, M.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Oswald, T.

    Yates, V. F.

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

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Pannell, Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Grey, C. F.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Mr. Holmes and

    Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

    Then the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  PULLMAN CAR COMPANY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir Cedric Drewe.]
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. William Teeling:It is possible that tonight will be the last time that the Pullman Car Company will be debated in this House, for it may well be that within the next few weeks that company will be taken over, or handed over, to the British Transport Commission. I do not think that it will be the last time that Pullman cars as such will be discussed in the House, because it may be that we shall be able to get round the question of whether we are discussing details of administration, when, in the years to come, someone suggests that Pullman cars shall be eliminated, as some of us think that they will be.
  I think my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport may cavil at my describing this as taking over the company. He will no doubt prefer to say handing over, but there is considerable uncertainty whether it is a case of taking over or handing over. Just because the chairman of a company sends out a document saying that he has come to an agreement with the Commission, and, as I understand it, the Commission say that they have not originated the negotiations, it does not mean that the company is being handed over. It may well be that in a sense the directors of the company feel they have been forced to pass this company into the hands of the British Transport Commission. One is forced to ask why this is happening at all.
  I believe that the policy of my party, before, at and after the General Election, has been that we should discourage nationalisation rather than encourage it, and that we should do our best to decentralise and to see that nationalised concerns do not go about swallowing private enterprise concerns. This question of the Pullman Car Company is a national matter. It is also of tremendous international importance to the traveller. When a foreigner comes to this country across the Channel and finds himself in the "Golden Arrow" train, he knows that it is something different from the
  758
  ordinary run of transport on the continent. The service given by the staff on these trains is of a very high class, and is certainly not produced in a few weeks. It is the result of training and the great pride of the staff in themselves and their tradition of service.
  In my constituency we look on this matter as a serious one. There are regular trains, more than once a day to the town, called the "Brighton Belle," or there are Pullman cars attached to ordinary trains. People in my borough are anxious to know what will happen about these cars in the future. They know that the service is excellent, the food is good, and it is known too that on the ordinary trains the staff of the Pullmans go through the coaches and provide passengers with the food and beverage they require. It is only when they have been taken over and we get on the Brighton Belle the general catering services of the British Railways about which the people of the country complain, that everyone will realise what they have lost. Why should the company be taken over, or hand itself over?
  In the last three or four years, and certainly since the Conservative Government came in, the profits of the Pullman Car Company have gone up very considerably. Indeed, its report for last year tells us that it made nearly £70,000 profit that year, a record amount, and £6,000 more than in the year before. It would have been even greater had it not been for the disastrous French strikes at the peak of the holiday season, for these prevented people going to and coming from the continent. The tone of the report last year was one of optimism for the future. The company planned a new form of enterprise. It carried out as a new venture catering arrangements at Apsley House for the Coronation for continental guests on Pullman trains. It went out of its way to improve cars.
  Why did it do that if it thought it was going to collapse and be taken over? It has another eight years to run before the time occurs for the renewal of its contract. It has in hand well over£500,000 of its own. What could the company not do with that if it wanted to? Why does it not want to? That is what we cannot understand. At an annual rate of profit of £70,000 for eight years the company could make well over £500,000,

  759
  and yet it is selling its £500,000 and 206 cars for just over £700,000. It means the company's cars are being handed over to the Commission for about £200,000. We do not understand it. It seems to me very odd indeed, to put it mildly. I can only wonder that the ordinary shareholders are not doing more about it. They still have a few weeks in which to do so.
  It has been said by the chairman of the company that for political and economic reasons this is being done, because in eight years' time it may not be so easy to make an agreement with the Commission; but I understand that the Commission is quite prepared to make a further agreement with the company, even if not for so long a period as before. There are other private enterprise concerns that are working with the Commission—W. H. Smith and Son, with their bookstalls, and the Grosvenor Hotel and others providing hotel and restaurant facilities at railway stations. They have been able to renew their contracts in the last year or two without any difficulty whatever.
  If the Pullman Car Company directors are worried about what is to happen in eight years' time why do they not ask for a renewal now, and get the matter cleared up? Can it be that there is some reason political or economic why they do not? If that is so my right hon. Friend, a Conservative Minister, who has to look after the national interest, ought to make the fullest inquiries why this is being done.
  I know that in years gone by the Commission did not feel very happy on certain occasions about the company. There were, undoubtedly, difficulties between the Commission and the company. On one occasion there was some difficulty about arranging a restaurant car for the Grand National because certain people connected with the railways did not like the idea. Round about Brighton and in other parts of the country there has often been a movement to get rid of Pullmans altogether, especially amongst the trippers going down to the seaside, who said they could not get on the trains.
  But Pullmans are the only trains on which one is guaranteed a seat. Moreover, in Brighton we like people to come down who can afford Pullmans,
  760
  as well as those who cannot. Besides, there are third-class Pullman cars, and in the holidays the third-class ones are those always full. There are other Pullman trains besides the Brighton Belle. There are the Tees and Tyne Train, and the Devon Belle. An hon. Member from the North told me, "I wish it were not that Pullmans were being taken over by British Transport, but that British Transport was being taken over by the Pullman company."
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro:And the dining cars as well.
  Mr. Teeling:We should like to know just what the reasons for all these things are. In the days when Lord Dalziel was in control, he was able to make contracts with the Southern Railway and the other railways, then independent lines. Why should not the British Transport Commission make some agreements as those railways did? Could it be that it is jealous or nervous of having a competitor very much in its line of trade? If that is the case and the British Transport Commission is a bit jealous of the whole thing, surely the Minister should ensure that the Pullman Car people are not being pressed on this point. No doubt he will answer me on that matter later on.
  If it is inevitable that this should happen, I should like the Minister to give us some assurance that the Pullman cars and Pullman trains will not only continue but, in view of the £500,000 which the company has, will be considerably increased. We want them in other parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) has for a long time been trying to get the British Transport Commission to get Pullman trains up to that part of the country. He tells me that he has had very little sympathy from the British Transport Commission in this respect.
  Many of us feel that ordinary promises are not good enough. What we really want is something more definite from the Minister himself. We feel that if we cannot do anything about it, the ordinary shareholders should do something. Why at the last annual meeting was there no mention of this happening or of the possibility of its happening? Everything seemed to be optimistic and to be going well, and there was an increase in the profit.

  761
  The chairman is also chairman of other nationalised companies and concerns. I understand that he is particularly interested in the French Railway cars. I have been down to Bush House—I think it was only fair to do so—to find out who are the biggest shareholders. In his circular the chairman said that a very large proportion of the shareholders had accepted—
  Mr. Nabarro:Would my hon. Friend tell us at this stage, if he is able to do so, what exactly is the connection between the chairman of the Pullman Car company and the chairman of Thomas Cook and Son, or whether the chairman of the Pullman Car Company has any direct association with the British Transport Commission?
  Mr. Teeling:I think it is a very well-known fact that the chairman of the Pullman Car Company is also chairman of Cook's and of Dean and Dawson, both of which are nationalised, and in that sense I suppose he is closely connected with the British Transport Commission.
  With regard to the question of the shares, the chairman said that a very large proportion of the shareholders had agreed. I find that a very large number of the shares are held by insurance companies. Others are held by nominees, and one cannot tell who actually owns them. One must presume that the shares held by the insurance companies must have come into this.
  I am a little worried these days as to the way in which insurance companies are always playing for safety.
  Mr. Ernest Davies:Private enterprise
  Mr. Teeling:I do not like this idea of too many big companies. I would far rather have smaller companies all over the country. I hate monopolies in any form, and I should like to see more vitality in the Pullman company in future if it is not taken over by the British Transport Commission.
  There are only four directors of the Pullman company. One is a Frenchman who is closely connected with Wagons-Lit, which in turn holds many shares in these companies. There is also Lord FitzAlan, a very charming elderly gentleman, whom I know, and I should
  762
  not say that he was a vitally active or knowledgeable person as far as concerns experience of railway companies. There are also Mr. Stanley Adams and Sir Basil Goulding, who lives in Ireland. These four people are in control of the company at the present moment, and as far as we can see, they do not want to go on with it. Could not others take their place?
  We ought to be doing our level best about this since a Conservative Government has come into power and especially in view of the fact that the Prime Minister only today in his speech at the Albert Hall stressed how much we in the Conservative Party are against nationalisation and said how keen he was to set Britain free.
  This evening we are discussing a company with £500,000 in its pocket with the possibility, if it wants to, of renewing its leases and agreements with the British Transport Commission. The company has a tremendous international reputation, which is very largely due to the way in which Mr. Adams built the company up in the years gone by.
  This commercial concern has been built up and has been preserved through these difficult years. It is in a position to go on again to still greater heights, and that is why I want to know why the Minister does not feel that he can intervene in this matter, when to many of us it seems to be not only a matter of local importance to our constituencies, but also a national matter as well. It is the first case of a prominent company being swallowed up by a nationalised industry, without, as far as we can see, any real reason.
  10.55 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd):I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) for cutting his remarks comparatively short to enable me to answer at some length. I must apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the House who I know would have liked to take part in this brief discussion. But Members will appreciate that I wish to make my position in this matter quite clear. If I sit down before the half-hour has elapsed I will carefully consider anything that may be said after I have made my reply.

  763
  The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion was unduly pessimistic when he said we might not have the opportunity on many other occasions of debating services of this kind in the future. This is certainly not a question of nationalisation, and I think that on reflection the hon. Member will agree that that is a misuse of words. These are negotiations, perfectly freely entered into, by two independent parties on the initiative of the directors of the Pullman Company on the one side and the Transport Commission on the other side.
  The point has been made that this was due, on the part of the directors, to their realisation that their splendid business was on the verge of collapse. That is not only very ungenerous, but, if I may be very frank, it is grossly untrue. There is no such question at all. This is a case of competent business people realising that, when their franchise lapses in 1962, if they negotiated a new one it would probably last until 30 years later. Certainly they had this to bear in mind as trustees of their own shareholders' money.
  My hon. Friend raises the question as to my possible intervention. It has been my desire throughout my period as Minister of Transport not to use the Minister's powers of direction on any occasion. I have never used those powers of direction in the many controversies in which transport has been involved. But in this particular case, assuming I had the powers of intervention I should not dream of using them. But have I got powers of intervention? I cannot see that I have on this occasion.
  Under Section 4 of the Transport Act it is clearly not Parliament's intention that the Minister should interfere when the Transport Commission undertakes a commercial transaction of this kind. The conditions under which the Minister's permission would be required are clearly laid down. If hon. Members would look at Section 4 they will see that this particular transaction does not fall in any of those specified classes. So I have no powers to intervene, and even if I had the powers I would not dream of using them.
  In regard to the Pullman Car Company, both for historical and personal reasons I regret the disappearance of any great historic entity which the share-
  764
  holders, as in this case, desire. I do not share the view which hon. Gentlemen opposite might perhaps feel—I hope I am not being unfair—that because the majority of the people do not travel by Pullman therefore those who do deserve no consideration. I think they deserve a great deal of consideration, and that is generally the view of the House as a whole.
  Indeed, the Commission tells me that recently more than ever it has been demonstrated that Pullman services are the most popular type of services with business men to Brighton and many other places, and undoubtedly these extra facilities help to keep people travelling by rail, which is the prime concern of all of us in this House. Therefore the Pullman Car Company and the Pullman services are important, but I have no power of intervention in this case.
  Now as to the situation. The directors of the Pullman Car Company, on their own initiative, started conversations with the Commission. I am a little sorry that my hon. Friend should quote individual members of the board of the Pullman Car Company. There is nothing improper in the same gentleman, a very distinguished person, being Chairman of Thomas Cook and Son, Chairman of Dean and Dawson, and also Chairman of the Pullman Car Company. In all these activities he has won great renown and the trust and confidence of the share-holders and of the travelling public.
  This is the case of a willing buyer and—it looks like—a willing seller, judging by the result of the first week's notice to shareholders. The holders of some 73 per cent. of the A shares and the holders of 84 per cent. of the B shares have already said that they approve of the suggestion of their directors, and there is until 15th June to see whether the requisite 90 per cent. in both groups is attained.
  Why have the directors arrived at this conclusion? They are working on a franchise which expires in 1962. Hon. Members will remember that there was the original agreement in 1932 with the Southern Railway and one in 1919 with the Great Eastern. The 1953 agreement consolidated and streamlined these agreements and covered all the Pullman Car Company's fleet. This agreement expires in 1962. The life of vehicles that

  765
  the Pullman Car Company might have to buy can be expected to be 30 years and therefore, they have to look a long time ahead to see whether it is worth while investing their shareholders' money in this transaction.
  I can say with confidence that the company never asked the B.T.C. to consider any terms on which it could continue after 1962. In the view both of the company and of the Commission it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at terms on which the franchise could be extended. It would have to be a long franchise. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because of the fact that the vehicles concerned would last for a long time. The routes and timings of such services could not be guaranteed over a long period.
  Mr. Teeling:They were before.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd:We are living in a very different world in regard to the future of British Railways and the form of rolling stock and other problems that confront the railways. It takes a wholly different form.
  This is a commercial matter, in which it would be unwise and indeed impracticable for the Minister to intervene. If it is the view of the Pullman Car Company that it should not enter into a long-term agreement without assurances which it realises could not be forthcoming—though it has never initiated a discussion as to whether it should so enter—we must rely on the judgment of those private enterprise people in whom normally my hon. Friend and myself delight to trust. The decisions on the way in which this company will develop must be taken in any event, but it will be far easier for the railways to take them as owners rather than to plan ahead within the framework of some rigid contractual conditions.
  My hon. Friend made some comments about prices to be paid. He has his figures a little wrong. The total purchase consideration, in fact, amounts to £1,148,500, made up by the taking over of £386,000 4½ per cent. redeemable preference stock and £727,500 offered for the A and B shares, together with a small amount of £35,000 for other obligations which the company may be deemed to carry.
  Mr. Teeling:Does that include the £500,000?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd:That is the total sum involved. My hon. Friend referred to the £750,000, the price being offered.
  I must repeat that this is a commercial decision arrived at by a commercial company, and so far endorsed by a very high proportion of its shareholders who are under no obligation whatever to agree to their directors' suggestion or advice, and who are entirely free agents in this matter. At no point has it arisen that that they are being forced into this position because their directors, having asked for certain requirements from the Commission, have been refused them.
  Had there been a situation under which the directors had said to the Commission, "We want to continue. Will you give us the following guarantees?" and had the Commission said "No," then a very different situation would have arisen. But the situation has never arisen of the company asking what the terms would be for a continuation of their franchise. That is a matter between the shareholders and the company. It is certainly not a matter for the Minister to inquire into or to interfere with, and my hon. Friend's natural feelings, both as a Conservative and as a believer in private enterprise, should make him extremely chary about trying to interfere in matters of this kind.
  Will the service be so good? Clearly, the Commission is going to involve itself in heavy capital expenditure of a particular kind, and naturally it will be presumed not to do that unless it will get a good return from it. But the Commission has gone further than this. Not only is it paying a very high price, though not an excessively high price, if the transaction goes through—which suggests that the Commission believes there is continuing health and efficiency before the Pullman conception—but it has also given definite undertakings to the shareholders, to their staff, and to the travelling public who owe them a debt of many years of happy transport.
  The Commission has said that it does not intend that there should be any alteration in the control and operation of the Pullman cars, nor that the specialised services given by the Pullman Car Company should be altered in any way whatsoever. The Commission adds that it is its intention to continue the Pullman car service and to give consideration to the

  767
  extension of this facility to other lines throughout the country.
  I regard a proper Conservative approach to problems of this kind is to retain the good things that we have in a field of this sort and to open them up to more and more people. I am not in favour of dull mediocrity and uniformity. I believe that the Pullman services have given something which is unique, and I believe the words of Sir Brian Robertson and of the Commission that it intends to preserve the unique character of these services. Let us open them up to more and more people who ought to be entitled to enjoy the good things in a developing world.
  I hope that my hon. Friend and others who live on the routes served by the Pullman Car Company will be satisfied by what I have said. This is a private commercial transaction between the company and the Commission. In wishing success to this transaction, should the shareholders so decide, I hope that the advantages of this good service may be extended to even more people than have enjoyed it hitherto.
  11.9 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Davies:For once it is a pleasure to be able to say that we on this side of the House consider that the Minister of Transport has made a right decision in deciding not to intervene in this matter of the acquisition of the British Pullman Car Company by the British Transport Commission.
  What struck me when listening to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) was the somewhat irresponsible attack he was making on private enterprise. It was surprising that he should attack the Pullman Car Company in the way he did. The important thing to remember is that the initiative, as the Minister pointed out, came completely from the Pullman Car Company. There was no responsibility on the part of the Commission to intervene in any way.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Ten Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.

EDUCATION
  School Holidays
  School Holidays
  C.D. Control Centre, West Ham
  C.D. Control Centre, West Ham
  Air-Raid Shelters, Birmingham
  Air-Raid Shelters, Birmingham
  School, Flintshire (Dispute)
  School, Flintshire (Dispute)
  Grammar School Places
  Grammar School Places
  School Meals
  School Meals
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Steel Wire Rods (Import Duty Suspension)
  Steel Wire Rods (Import Duty Suspension)
  Trade Liberalisation
  Trade Liberalisation
  EXPROPRIATED BRITISH PROPERTY, HUNGARY
  EXPROPRIATED BRITISH PROPERTY, HUNGARY
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (TAXATION)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (TAXATION)
AGRICULTURE
  Attested Stock (Movement Control)
  Attested Stock (Movement Control)
  Rabbits (Control Measures)
  Rabbits (Control Measures)
  Myxomatosis, Radnorshire
  Myxomatosis, Radnorshire
  Gin Traps (Prohibition Date)
  Gin Traps (Prohibition Date)
  Slaughter Horses, Ireland (Examination)
  Slaughter Horses, Ireland (Examination)
  British Field Products, Limited (Report)
  British Field Products, Limited (Report)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Domestic Air-Raid Shelters
  Domestic Air-Raid Shelters
  Polling Station Petition, Northampton
  Polling Station Petition, Northampton
  Civil Defence (Revised Plans)
  Civil Defence (Revised Plans)
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Age Limit
  Age Limit
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Fluorinated Water Supplies, Wales
  Fluorinated Water Supplies, Wales
  Confinements (Analgesia)
  Confinements (Analgesia)
  Nurses (Nuffield Hospital Trust Report)
  Nurses (Nuffield Hospital Trust Report)
  Special Type Spectacles (Charge)
  Special Type Spectacles (Charge)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (INFORMATION OFFICERS)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (INFORMATION OFFICERS)
  VETERINARY MALLAMS, NIGERIA (ANONYMOUS COMMUNICATION)
  VETERINARY MALLAMS, NIGERIA (ANONYMOUS COMMUNICATION)
  KENYA (LOANS TO AFRICAN TRADERS)
  KENYA (LOANS TO AFRICAN TRADERS)
  SERVICE OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY)
  SERVICE OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY)
  COAL INDUSTRY (MANPOWER AND OUTPUT)
  COAL INDUSTRY (MANPOWER AND OUTPUT)
  DERELICT HOUSES, LONDON (OWNERSHIP)
  DERELICT HOUSES, LONDON (OWNERSHIP)
SCOTLAND
  Chemist Shops
  Chemist Shops
  Straying Sheep, Lanarkshire (Complaints)
  Straying Sheep, Lanarkshire (Complaints)
TRANSPORT
  Bridge, Hay-on-Wye, Clyro
  Bridge, Hay-on-Wye, Clyro
  Traffic Conditions, Aldgate—Tower Bridge Area
  Traffic Conditions, Aldgate—Tower Bridge Area
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
  Read 2a.
ASHRIDGE (BONAR LAW MEMORIAL) TRUST BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE
4.6 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons' Message of Tuesday last, That they have come to the following Resolution to which they desire the concurrence of this House, viz.: "That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider what alterations, if any, are desirable in the practice and the Standing Orders of the two Houses relating to Private Legislation, having special regard to the desirability of lessening the expense at present incurred."
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Message of Tuesday last be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Message of Tuesday last be now considered.—(The Earl of Buckinghamshire.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, the last Committee which went fully into this matter was a Select Committee of the House of Commons in the year 1930. The
1004
House of Lords appointed a Select Committee at the end of 1942 to consider the question of the cost involved in promoting Private Legislation. That Committee reported in 1943 that no useful purpose would be served in further considering the matter during the war emergency, but they recommended that the Committee should be reconstituted after the end of the war, with instructions to consider the whole matter in the light of such developments as might have taken place in the interval. No further action having been taken by the House since then, I hope that your Lordships will agree to this Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do concur in the Resolution communicated by the Commons.—(The Earl of Buckinghamshire.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

FUTURE BUSINESS
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg leave to inform your Lordships that it is proposed to adjourn for the Whitsun Recess on Friday, June 4, after a Royal Commission which is expected shortly after 11 o'clock that morning. The House will reassemble on Tuesday, June 15, at 2.30 p.m.
As at present arranged, the House will not meet on Wednesday next, June 2. On Thursday next June 3, the House will meet at 2.30 p.m., instead of at 4 p.m., for the Report stage of the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Motion for the Third Reading of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill from Tuesday next to this day.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

NATIONAL SERVICE (ADAPTA TION OF ENACTMENTS) (NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE RE SERVES) DRAFT ORDER, 1954
4.9 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS)THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS) rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the National Service (Adaptation of Enactments) (Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves) Order, 1954, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. The noble and gallant Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I can explain this Order very briefly to your Lordships. The object is to effect a little legal tidying up, in order to ensure that the intentions of Parliament, expressed in the Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves Act, 1954, are carried out.
The Reserves Act makes "Z" and "G" Reservists and men called up under the National Service Act, 1948, whose part-time service comes to an end, liable to recall until June 30, 1959, or the age of 45, whichever is the earlier. The men affected are made members of Reserves governed by the Royal Naval Reserve (Volunteer) Act of 1859, and by the Army and Air Force Reserve Acts of 1950. The object of Part I of the Schedule is to make it clear that a man who is a Naval or Marine reservist by virtue of the Reserves Act of 1954, and who has not been called into actual service cannot be held in the Reserve after the age of 45 or after June 30, 1959. It also provides that reservists who have been called into actual service and released cannot again be called into actual service after these dates. The object of Parts II and III of the Schedule is to ensure that men who are made members of the Army and Air Force Reserves by the 1954 Act are liable to be called out for home defence, If this Order is not passed it might be possible to raise legal quibbles on sub-section (1) of Section 6 of both the Army and Air Force Acts. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the National Service (Adaptation of Enactments) (Navy, Army and Air
1006
Force Reserves) Order, 1954, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament.—(Earl Alexander of Tunis.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, it is such a pleasure to think that the noble and gallant Earl, the Minister of Defence, has joined the ranks of those in favour of legal tidying up, and of preventing legal quibbles, that we on this side of the House raise no objection whatever to this proposal. We only hope that the noble and gallant Earl will continue along the good course which he has now laid out for himself.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I should like to support this Motion very briefly, but from an angle slightly different from that from which the noble and learned Earl opposite has supported it. These arrangements will, I think, be very welcome in industry, because up to now there has been a good deal of doubt as to what men engaged in industry are, in fact, to be called up and what men can be counted on for work of national importance in the event of a future emergency. Managements all over this country will be glad to know where they are in this matter. The arrangements will also have, as a by-product, the result that individuals who have had reserve liability and are now freed from it by this Order will know whether it is possible for them to join the Home Guard, and I hope they will do so in large numbers.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

RUTHERGLEN BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (HAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
4.13 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Amendments reported (according to Order).

CORONERS BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a third time, I should like to thank noble Lords in all parts of the House who have assisted in its passage. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL
4.15 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons be now considered.—(Earl Jowitt.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
NOTE.—The references are to Bill (79) as first printed for the House of Lords

LORDS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 15, line 13, first column, after ("Jay") insert ("Little Owl").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because they are not satisfied that the little owl is sufficiently harmful to be proscribed throughout the country.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Earl Jowitt.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
Second Schedule, page 15, line 14, first column, after ("Magpie") insert ("Moorhen").
Third Schedule, page 15, line 22, leave out ("Moorhen").
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they are not satisfied that the moorhen is sufficiently harmful to be proscribed throughout the year.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on these Amendments. I do so with some regret, because I think our Amendments were very good; but we all want to get this Bill passed and I think the sensible course to take is not to insist on our Amendments, bearing in mind that the Home Secretary has power to move birds from one Schedule to another.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Earl Jowitt.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I should like to support the noble and learned Earl. I regret this, too; but in view of the fact that we want this Bill and have a chance of getting it, I am prepared to withdraw any opposition I had in this regard and to support the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL
4.18 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I regret to detain the House for a moment, but there is a point about Clause 4 on which I am not clear. The clause provides for finance, and I remain rather confused in my mind about how the money for this new project is to be provided and controlled. I am not going to enter into the general question of the use of atomic energy for military purposes, though that is what interests me. So far as possible, I think we should retain Parliamentary control, which is

1009
usually exercised through controlling the expenditure of money. I have looked through the Estimates to find out what references there are to this matter and I am anxious to have it make clear. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Marquess say the other day that one of the wisest things the late Government had done was to conceal expenditure on this project. That was not quite in accord with what the Prime Minister said, which certainly had my support—namely, what he called rather contemptuously" the tricks of the trade."
I believe in straightforward finance, at any rate in peace time. You may tell the House of Commons or the House of Lords that, for security reasons, you will not give them the information; but you have no right to deceive them as to the amount of money you are asking for. Looking through these things, I am in confusion. I do not make any charge whatever. I have looked at everything that can concern this matter of atomic energy. I start with Class I, Vote 5, which is quite simple. That is Privy Council fees, and simply gives the Lord President's salary and the salary of his staff. That is one place where the matter might arise. I then come to Class IX, Vote 7, of the Estimates, and there is the atomic energy estimate, which I thought covered the whole question; that is on page 60 and is for £53 million. Looking through the other Estimates, I find Class VI. That is two Votes for very large sums. The first is for Ministry of Materials strategic reserves, where there is a Vote for purchase of materials of £45 million; and the other is for Ministry of Supply (Class VI, Vote 11), where an amount of £140 million appears for research and development. In addition, there are the Air Estimates; and the Air Estimates, in all, under supplies and aircraft stores, amount to about £360 million. Those are large sums of money, and they are not all concerned with atomic energy projects. But I submit that it is a reasonable thing to ask that some clear information should be available to both Houses of Parliament, not as to the advance we are making in this science, but as to the amount of money we are spending on it. If we know that the amount is growing, it may be an occasion for complaint, or inquiry, or change of policy. But, at any rate, Parliament should have the information.
1010
I would point out to noble Lords that the secrecy which we observe in this matter, and the confusion—in fact, the artifice—is not copied, so far as my reading of the newspapers goes, in the United States. There they have large figures—there was a figure the other day of 7,000 million dollars—for this purpose, and the project has been freely spoken about and explained, which I feel, if it is safe, is a wise thing to do. I would ask the Lord President of the Council whether he would be so kind as to tell me how he expounds Clause 4 (2) of this Bill: that any revenues shall be applied by the Authority in such manner as he may lay down, and any money he asks for is handed over to the Authority. The money that he asks Parliament for must be accounted for, and Parliament can vote; you cannot put your hand into the Consolidated Fund without telling Parliament. But it is not clear whether what he takes under Class IX, Vote 7–the £53 million—is the total, or whether, in fact, when the Air Ministry buy an atomic weapon they pay the Ministry of Supply. When the Ministry of Supply order—because they are the sole persons qualified to order—where is that figure accounted for? Must we look in all these Estimates in order to get the aggregate? It may be a difficult question to answer, but it is put from a sense of Parliamentary precision, and with no desire of general attack. I would ask the Lord President of the Council kindly to give this point his attention.
There is one further suggestion I would make, which might meet the case. In respect of the Services Estimates Command Papers are laid before Parliament. We have them in respect of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force—I am not sure about the Defence Estimates; we have a Statement. I would ask the Lord President to consider this suggestion. The atomic arm is going to become the major weapon of war—I think it is reasonable to say that at present. I remember that, in the early days of the Air Force, aircraft were considered as being something used by different arms, the Army and the Navy. We had a great fight about that some thirty years ago. I think it is right to say that the atomic arm will be the major weapon of war. In that case, would it not be as well to prepare for that day by letting Parliament have, in

1011
the form of a Command Paper similar to that laid in respect of the Services, some information annually, as a matter of form, about his Department? I put these questions with respect. I thank the noble Marquess for giving me the opportunity of making these remarks, and I hope that he will, in the interests of clear Parliamentary control, give some answers to those questions.
4.27 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should like to say that I agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken. I feel that I should say that, because I am, I suppose, one of the persons who ought to stand in the dock about what we, in fact, did. In the circumstances of the day, with my full knowledge, we did expend a large sum of money, as I appreciate now, looking back, disregarding the appropriate democratic machinery. I think there was strong justification for it at the time; but I believe it to be a dangerous principle, and that we should be careful about doing it again. Parliament is so sensible about these matters that I believe the right way to proceed is to go to Parliament and say, "I am proposing to spend this sum of money, and I ask you not to ask for details about it, because security is involved." I hope that in the future all Parties will try to follow that principle. That is the principle for which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, stands, and there, I believe, he is right.
The next thing I want to say about it is this. I believe that the noble Viscount, at any rate, and some other noble Lords, too, would have been much happier if, before we had discussed this Bill, we had staged a debate on the whole question of the use of these non-conventional weapons. I do not blame the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, any more than I blame myself for the fact that we did not have such a debate, because I am sure that, if I had asked for a debate, he would have acceded to my request, as he always does. I believe that my noble friend Lord Stansgate would have felt much happier if we had had some debate of that sort, and had obtained a statement of the Government view and Government policy before we discussed a Bill the object of which is to provide machinery which is better than
1012
the existing machinery. One of the ways in which it might show itself better would be by providing us, inter alia, with better bombs than heretofore, and also better work in civilian research. Some misunderstanding may have arisen, and I blame myself for not asking for an opportunity to debate this subject.
I am not going to say much more about this Bill, but the fact that I say no more, and that we have not attempted to take violent opposition to this Bill, must not be taken to indicate that we approve of this Bill. We do not. I think it is a bad Bill. I think it is a bad Bill for several reasons. First of all, if you take the attitude which the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, took on one occasion, and which, I think, he generally took, that any organisation which is run by the Government is almost certainly bad (and I think he would add that any organisation run by anybody who is not the Government is generally good), there is a strong case for doing this. But I think it is just as foolish to say that every organisation run by the Government is bad, as to say that every organisation run by some body other than the Government is good. I think it depends on the nature of the organisation, the circumstances of the case, and experience.
So far as this particular organisation was concerned, from all I can hear and read, notwithstanding the somewhat Cassandra-like prophecy that was made years ago, the existing organisation has functioned with extreme efficiency. I believe that, having regard to the comparatively limited (from the point of view of American money) amount of money we have spent on it—though in all conscience the figure is large enough—we have achieved wonderful results. I think it is plain that not only have we here first-rate scientists, who have thrown themselves with complete devotion into this task, but that they have achieved very good results. Therefore, I cannot bring myself to believe that the existing organisation is all that defective. Was it not Lord Melbourne who used to say, when somebody suggested change, "Why not leave it alone?" if I am right in saying that the existing organisation has done very valuable work—and I do not think the noble Marquess ever questioned that for one moment—I would say, "Why on earth not leave it alone, for the time being, at any rate?"

1013
I quite realise, of course, that this subject is in its infancy. We quite realise that in a few years' time it may become necessary to deal with this matter. I should not be the least surprised if, in a few years' time, it were possible to have a dichotomy here, and have one organisation dealing with the military side and another organisation dealing with the civil side. I do not say that it will be possible—I have not the necessary skill or technical knowledge to know; but such a conclusion might become possible in a few years' time. Therefore, I should have thought that there was a strong case for leaving the existing set-up, which has worked, I think, with extreme efficiency, as it is for the time being.
I wonder whether the Government are really going to reap any benefit whatever from this change. This Bill now sets up an organisation or a corporation (I am not sure which) which is under the control of one man. That man is the Lord President of the Council—at present the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I say at once that I should be delighted to put any important organisation under the noble Marquess, but I do not like putting active organisations under the Lord President of the Council. My experience in years past has been that the Lord President is an officer of extreme value, simply because he does not come in as a competitor in the ordinary day-to-day trading activities, as so many other Ministers do. He stands, if you like, a little aloof from the battle. He presides over a Committee and, by reason of his position—because he is always a very senior Minister—and the fact that he is not a competitor, he is able to carry great weight.
I say at once that I am sorry that the effect of this Bill is to take this organisation away from the Minister of Supply and to put it under the Lord President. I believe (the point was made earlier, and the Leader of the House gave us some assurance, so far as he could) that it is bad that the Minister of Supply should have to deal with this corporation at secondhand, and should no longer be their master, because if he is to do his job properly he must know what sort of goods to order; and he can do that only if he himself is concerned with the research about these goods. At the present time, he has that great advantage. In future, he is to be, as it were, an outsider, and although I have no doubt that the noble
1014
Marquess will take him into consultation in every way he can, and show him all the relevant considerations, yet it is not quite the same thing as having this research organisation under his own control. Therefore, I say at once that, so far as I understand this Bill, I think there is nothing to be said for it.
It is the fact, however, that this Bill has been supported by noble Lords in this House who have far greater knowledge of this subject than I have or, indeed, any other Member, and I cannot help feeling that there must be some reason for this Bill which has not really been put to us. I am wondering whether it is either, on the one hand, that there is some doctrinal reason behind it to which noble Lords are shy to admit, or whether there is some security reason which, naturally enough, they are anxious not to reveal to us. I am bound to say that, in my experience, I have never known a change advocated which seems to me to be supported by less reason than this. The Government are breaking up an existing organisation which I believe has done extraordinarily good work. They are taking responsibility away from the Minister of Supply and giving it to the Lord President of the Council; and in my view there is nothing whatever to be gained by this procedure.
I wanted to say that, because I did not want a mere silence to let your Lordships think that we were convinced, or that we agreed to this Bill. Following our traditional practice, we never obstruct and never try to be unreasonable. The Bill, of course, is going to pass, and I wish the Authority all possible luck in their endeavours and activities, and I wish the noble Marquess, the Lord President of the Council, all possible luck in his work. On the other hand, if your Lordships will forgive me for these few moments, I am, as I say, not convinced. I regret the course which the Government have taken. I wish they had waited a few more years, when it might have been apparent to us that some wholly different development on wholly different lines was the right way of approaching this matter.
4.36 p.m
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am distressed that, after what I thought was an extremely clear explanation I gave on the Committee stage, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, still

1015
has doubts as to the extent of Parliamentary control which exists over Government expenditure under this Bill. I assure the noble Viscount that I do not in the least complain that he asked for further clarification. That, no doubt, is his duty in this House, and it is my duty to give him that information, so far as I can. Indeed, perhaps I was to blame. At any rate, I will do what I can to relieve his anxieties.
I would assure the noble Viscount, first, that there really is nothing new, nothing novel, in the general provisions of Clause 4, which deals with the question of finance. Subsections (1) and (2), to which he has referred, follow the wording of Section 3 of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1951, and the procedure proposed under the clause is one with which I think Parliament is already very familiar in the case of bodies financed out of grants, such as the Overseas Development Corporation, and other bodies which are financed by the Government. The procedure will be as follows. The Lord President will, like any other Departmental Minister, ask Parliament each year for a Vote to provide for the activities for which he is responsible. For this purpose an Estimate will be submitted to Parliament in the normal way. This Estimate will be in two parts. The first part will cover quite a small amount—a few thousand pounds—for the expenses of the small office which will assist the Lord President to discharge his atomic energy function. I can say, in passing, that it will be my object to make that office as small as I can, because I do not believe in the re-duplication which can conceivably occur by having a Board and a great Government Department running the same business. Such things have been known in the past, but I hope they will not happen in this particular case. The statutory sanction for this office is not in the Bill but in Section 16 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1946, as modified by the Transfer of Functions Order.
That is the first part of the Estimate. The second part will contain the great bulk—I believe well over 99 per cent.—of the total money which is to be spent. This will represent the money which the Lord President will pay over to the Authority. It will be broken down under a number of headings, either on the face of the Estimate or in an Appendix.
1016
While I am giving this explanation as clearly as I can, the House will realise that this is a machinery which is being developed; this is what we intend to do, rather than something which has already been done. Having regard both to security, which is vital on this particular issue, and to the main object of setting up the Authority—that is, to create a body with freedom to run its own day-to-day affairs—this information is bound to be rather less detailed than is usual in an ordinary departmental Vote. But the main headings, such as capital expenditure, current expenditure, salaries and wages, together with appropriations-in-aid, will be shown. The exact form of the presentation is still being discussed between the Treasury and the Department of Atomic Energy.
That is as much as I can give your Lordships to-day. This breakdown of the Estimates will not, however, enable a distinction to be drawn between expenditure for civil purposes and expenditure for defence. This is due not only to the need for security but also to the impossibility of distinguishing one type of expenditure entirely from the other. Much of the work has value for both civil and military purposes. The Estimate can be selected for debate in another place like any other Estimate, and it can be examined by the Select Committee on Estimates.
In addition to the Lord President's Estimate, the Ministry of Supply's Vote, to which the noble Viscount referred, includes provision for some payments to the Authority for work on atomic weapons. Part of this expenditure will be recoverable from the Service Departments whose Votes will, accordingly, include provision for such payment. For security reasons, the sums included in the Ministry of Supply and Service Department Votes will not be shown separately. At the end of the financial year the Lord President will submit for audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General an Appropriation Account in the usual form. In addition, the Authority will prepare accounts
"in such form as the Treasury may direct."
That is a quotation from the Bill.
These accounts also will be examined and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, who will lay them, together with his Report thereon, before

1017
each House of Parliament, and they will be examined like an Appropriation Account by the Public Accounts Committee. The degree of Parliamentary control for which Clause 4 provides is, therefore, I would suggest, substantially greater than that which has obtained in practice in the past, when no indication was given even of the total expenditure on atomic energy, which was all wrapped up in the general Estimates of the Ministry of Supply. That is all I want to say on that particular question. There are, however, one or two other things that I should like to say.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I should not like to interrupt the noble Marquess except with his leave. I am very much obliged to him. It is clear from what he has said that the research work goes in one body, and he tells us that it is impossible to say whether the research is to do with the civil or the military side. There may be something in that, but it is not the most important question. I wanted an assurance from the noble Marquess that the ordinary Member, of either House, will be able, by examining the Estimates, to ascertain whether there is a growth and, if so, roughly what the order of the growth of expenditure is on atomic weapons.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think he will be able to find that out—I must be quite frank with the noble Viscount. If he looks at page 63 of the Civil Estimates, Class IX, 1954–55, he will there see an item—
"C.1—Stores, materials and services for establishment,"
and that is marked "net." Then there is a footnote which says—
"Net of receipts not disclosed for security reasons."
There is a certain amount that will be balanced off, and the net expenditure, which is what Parliament will be concerned with, will be put in. I cannot give more than that, to be quite frank, any more than the late Government could. There are things in this realm of atomic energy which simply cannot be exposed without giving information of inestimable value to other countries, which may be potentially hostile. Therefore, it is not possible to give more than we are giving; we are giving all that we possibly can. I do not believe that
1018
the good sense of the House would require anything else.
Now I will go on, in conclusion, to say this. I cannot help suspecting that in the noble Viscount's mind, and perhaps in the noble and learned Earl's mind, and in the minds certainly of other people who have been worried about this procedure, there is an uneasy feeling that somehow, somewhere, this Bill gives someone a power which he had not got before to manufacture new and ever more powerful weapons of war. I cannot help feeling that in the case of a number of people it is this suspected new power which is really worrying them. If that is the case, I do assure them that this Bill does no such thing. If there had been no Bill at all, if the situation had remained exactly as it was when the Party of the noble Lords opposite was in power, the position in that respect would have been, I believe, exactly the same as it is now. Any decision with regard to these new weapons—and these are broad decisions—must, of course, be a decision for the Government as a whole; they must take the responsibility for it. Then, when a decision has been taken, the Ministry of Defence must be responsible for giving instructions to the Ministry of Supply; and the Ministry of Supply will see that that policy is carried through, with the co-operation, so far as necessary, of the Atomic Energy Authority.
The chain of responsibility is exactly what it has always been, from the top downwards. The control of Parliament, so far as security considerations allow—I make that proviso quite deliberately—is, I believe, greater than under the earlier system when, as I say, no information at all was made available on atomic energy as such. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said that I had said that the late Government were wise to conceal this fact. I may have said that. If so, I rather regret it, because it is not what I intended. What I do think is that they were wise to decide to make the bomb—I think they were absolutely right to do that. The question of how far it was necessary to conceal the fact that they had taken that decision is, of course, a matter for them and not for me. The actual decision at the time it was taken was, I believe, the right decision, and I do not criticise it in any way.

1019
I have tried to explain, so far as I can, the machinery which is being devised to give Parliament such control as is practicable over this matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Before the noble Marquess leaves that and goes to the general ending of his speech, may I return to this question of finance. We have been very much helped by the explanation so far given as to the form it will take—the breaking down into two main parts. I accept entirely what the noble Marquess says about the reasons for security, which is especially important in regard to both fundamental and applied research. But I am concerned about this change at a time when we are just beginning to go into the possibility of commercial usage and production. I should like to know how that is going to be dealt with, because there is in the public mind always a grave suspicion about Government grant-aided institutions of this kind.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was just coming to that point, because that was, very largely, the subject of the noble and learned Earl's speech.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I was going to ask the noble Marquess another question, though I do not want to interrupt him. I am much obliged to him. It appears to me that a question which I put yesterday in the debate, as to whether we were formally committed to proceding along the hydrogen bomb road, is answered in the affirmative.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No; I certainly have not said that. It is not something which I would be in a position to say. As I think the Prime Minister or the Minister of Works said in another place, it would be quite contrary to the national interest to make any declaration on that subject at the present time. I certainly hope that nothing that I have said in my speech would give that impression.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: There is no obstacle to proceeding on that road.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The machinery exists for proceeding on that road if we wish to proceed along it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is the answer.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Now I come to the point made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, to which reference has been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough: why make this change at all? Why make it now? The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, asked: what are the arguments in favour of making it? I should be grateful if he would read my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, and also my speech at the end of the debate, which was entirely devoted to that special point. The brief answer is this. The change is being made because times have changed. At the time when the late Government made their decision, about which I do not complain, to put the Minister of Supply in control, the only aspect of atomic energy which was of the slightest interest to the Government or to the country was the military aspect—it was the question of the bomb. It is only in the last two years, I think, that this civil aspect has come to the fore at all, and the civil aspect has now become of immense importance. I hope that it will ultimately prove to be much more important than the other aspect—I think we all do. At any rate it is coming very much to the fore now. That is the reason why we could not leave things alone. I was interested to hear the noble and learned Earl quote Lord Melbourne. I do not know whether it means that the Socialist Party are adopting Whig principles, but it was agreeable to hear from those Benches a very old-fashioned, indeed, an almost anachronistic, view. I hope, though, that it does not mean that they are moving entirely into the past. However, it does indicate some faint change of heart on their part. I would suggest as an alternative rule of conduct, taking time by the forelock. That, I think, would be more applicable to the Conservative Party—and that is why we are adopting the present policy.
Of course, experience and time alone will show whether we are right in taking this step. We believe that it is right, and we believe that it is right to put in charge, I do not say myself, but the Lord President of the Council, and for this reason. As I said just now, when the late Government took their original decision, the military aspect was the only thing which was important. Now there are these two conflicting interests: there is

1021
the military interest, the interest of new weapons; and there is the interest of the civil use of atomic energy, and, above all, its use for electric power. That is becoming, and, I think, will surely become, vital. I think I explained in an earlier debate to the House that the experts on this subject, amongst whom I certainly do not include myself, anticipate that in fifty years' time the whole of the electric power for industrial and domestic purposes in this country will be derived from atomic energy. Therefore it is extremely important that there should be a proper balance of the use of this extremely rare material between military and civil purposes.
If the total control is left in the hands of the Minister of Supply, he is in charge of a Ministry which is entirely concerned with the military aspect. The purpose of the Ministry of Supply is to supply the Service Departments with the weapons they desire. Therefore there is bound to be a certain bias on the part of the Minister in favour of the Department with which he personally is connected and the Service Departments which that Department is supposed to serve; and there might be a violent conflict of opinion between him and those who are to have charge of the use of atomic energy for civil purposes—notably the Electricity Authority. I think this has a bearing on what the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said. He was worried, I think, because the large sums of money which have been voted by Parliament might be used for the boosting of some particular private enterprise or individual private firm. At present none of the energy which will be created will be allocated to private industry. All this electric power will be in the hands of the Electricity Authority, which is, of course, another publicly owned corporation, and it is they who will ultimately transmit the power to industry. Therefore industrial firms will not be creating atomic energy—they will be the consumers rather than the producers.
What is, of course, true is that we hope that British industry, in this as in other respects, will be in the forefront of the production of machines for the use of atomic energy. These, we hope, will be sold abroad and will be of great value to this country. Therefore, in this Bill
1022
we have a particular provision which encourages in every way we can the training of people for that purpose, and we hope that that provision will be used. The idea that atomic energy will be produced by private enterprise for private enterprise may come in due course—I do not know—but at present it is certainly not in accordance with the fact.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I must say that I feel very well satisfied with that part of the noble Marquess's answer. I see the point with regard to the production of this energy by the publicly-owned electrical industries, and it is quite sound. But we have already, for instance, the other great nationalised industry for the production of coal and its by-products. Only by obtaining some more information as to how the finance is being administered on the training side can we get some idea of what is the ultimate day-to-day policy of the Government in dealing with other great nationalised industries.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, for the moment the only purpose is to produce electric power, except, of course, for isotopes, and that sort of thing. That is the only purpose for which this atomic energy will be used in the civil field. At present even that has not reached the stage when it really is a factor in the production of power in this country; but that will come. In that case, the actual production will be in the hands of, I anticipate, the Electricity Authority and not of any private body. But I do emphasise that we welcome in every way we can the co-operation of industry where they can be of use in this field, in producing machines and in other ways, and in the use of isotopes, and in all the ways in which private industry can be of use without involving danger to security. I am sure that that would be the view of noble Lords opposite.
Therefore, in conclusion I would say that the reason why this Bill has been brought in is, first, to create this Authority, and, secondly, to put in charge of it, for instance so far as the Government are concerned, a Minister who is, and we hope will be, unbiased as between the military and civil uses of the power which is being created. If we can do that, I believe that in the long run we shall have done the right thing. I am

1023
not going to pontificate to your Lordships, because this is a new field—we are all feeling our way. Noble Lords may say to me afterwards that I was wrong, and perhaps I shall be wrong; but we have thought this over very carefully. It is what has been done by every other producer of atomic energy, and I feel certain that if we follow the lines which are indicated in this Bill we shall be doing something to the ultimate advantage of the country.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ADJOURNMENT: PERSONAL STATEMENT BY LORD TWEEDSMUIR
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I should like to detain your Lordships but a few moments in order to tender my most humble apologies to the House for my absence from my place when the Protection of Birds Bill was considered. I had perceived that there were nine items preceding the Bill upon the Order Paper and I thought I had more time. But that is no excuse, nor do I seek to offer it as one. I apologise most humbly to those noble Lords who, having a special interest in this Bill, were in their places this afternoon. I thank the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt for jumping into the breach most nimbly and doing my job for me. Besides tendering this apology, which I trust will be received in the spirit in which it is offered, I should like to tender, also, my very warm thanks to all those of your Lordships who helped me during the five days of Parliamentary time when I sought to steer a difficult course between "Priscilla and Charybdis," and, on this sixth day, for their co-operation in my absence.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  USE AND DISPOSAL OF SWILL
  USE AND DISPOSAL OF SWILL
  LONDON TRAFFIC CONGESTION
  LONDON TRAFFIC CONGESTION