Sitting of 18 July 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
TAY ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confirm an Order to provide for the construction and maintenance of a road bridge across the Firth of Tay from the City of Dundee to the County of Fife and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sum lent by the Secretary of State under the said Act.
Resolution agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  GERMANY

    Federal Republic (Compensation Payments)
    Mr. Woodnuttasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the total amount paid by the Federal German Government under the Federal Restitution Law of 1957; what percentage of the total amount due this represents; what proposals the Federal German Government have made to pay more than the limit of 1,500,000,000 Deutschmarks agreed by the three Western Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany at Bonn in 1952; and if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will insist on compensation in full before a peace treaty is signed.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): According to information recently supplied by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, the total amount paid under the Federal Restitution Law of 1957 up to 1st April, 1962, was
    400
    1,283,884,885·76 Deutschmarks. Claims up to 20,000 Deutschmarks are paid up to 100 per cent. and higher claims have in general been paid up to 50 per cent. Furthermore, claimants who are 65 years of age or more receive 75 per cent. of their claim, up to a maximum of 100,000 Deutschmarks. The Government of the Federal Republic have made no proposals to Her Majesty's Government for the payment of more than 1·5 milliard Deutschmarks; however, I am informed that the responsible authorities in the Federal Republic are examining whether and to what extent arrangements more favourable to the claimants might be made as a result of amendments to the Federal Restitution Law which are being prepared.
    Mr. Woodnutt: Will my hon. Friend answer the last part of my Question? If the Federal Government do not agree to pay these people in full, could we insist that they do so before we sign a peace treaty? Is my hon. Friend aware of individual cases in this country of people who have had half the money which is due to them and who have been told that they must wait until they are 65 years of age before they receive the balance? This is causing considerable hardship to a lot of people. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as individuals are expected to meet their liabilities in full, the Federal Ger-man Government should be expected to do likewise?
    Mr. Thomas: I am aware of the hardships which exist, and I know of one particular case which my hon. Friend has brought to our notice. As I said, the Federal German Government have under consideration the possibility of further legislation. Our Embassy in Bonn is in touch with the German authorities on this subject, and I do not think that anything more can usefully be done at present.
    As regards the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, if this matter is still outstanding it will certainly be one to be considered when the peace treaty is negotiated.

    East-West Border (Incidents)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps are being taken, apart from military protests, to avoid incidents on the border of East and West

    401
    Germany; and whether the United King-don Government have taken any action in the matter.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): In their note on 25th June to the Soviet Government Her Majesty's Government, together with the United States and French Governments, proposed that the four Powers should examine means of preventing a recurrence of the incidents that have recently taken place on the sector border of Berlin. In our view, the Soviet Government have a clear responsibility to co-operate for the prevention of incidents provoked by the East German police and it is most regrettable that they should have turned down our suggestion in their reply of 14th July.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not it obvious that, after this long period of time, all the negotiations that have taken place, and all the objections to the alleged intransigence of the Soviet Union and so on, the only solution to this problem of border incidents of this character is to recognise the East German Government? If there were recognition of the East German Government a solution would naturally follow and we should save ourselves a lot of expenditure in Berlin.
    Mr. Heath: No, Sir. I cannot agree with the suggestion in the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question or the implications of the second part. These are incidents which could perfectly well be dealt with by responsibility on the part of the East German Government and the Soviet Government, and we have suggested a perfectly reasonable and practical way of dealing with them.
    Mr. Mendelson: While agreeing that the inhuman barrier in Berlin is in itself a serious obstacle to any further agreement, may I ask whether the Lord Privy Seal would agree that the time has come when Her Majesty's Government together with the United States Government should resume talks with the Soviet Government on a general settlement of the problem of access to Berlin? Would not that be the best hope of getting agreement and avoiding incidents on the border in the future?
    Mr. Heath: Talks have been continued between the Soviet Government
    402
    and the United States Government, and Her Majesty's Government and other Powers concerned have been kept fully informed. No doubt there will be another opportunity at the meeting of the Foreign Ministers in Geneva in this forthcoming week for further talks to take place.
    Mr. Shinwell: If the Soviet Government continue this alleged intransigence and refuse to adopt the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government, is not this trouble going to continue for a very long time, and would it not be worth while trying out what will become inevitable some day, that is, recognition of East Germany?
    Mr. Heath: I cannot agree that this is the policy which Her Majesty's Government should follow.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent details of all Government aids, credits and subsidies at present available to horticultural growers within the Common Market, are available to the British negotiating team in Brussels; what, in general terms, these aids are; and what study has been made of them in the context of Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome.
    Mr. Heath: The types of assistance available to growers in the European Economic Community vary from country to country but most commonly take the form of subsidised or guaranteed credit facilities and of grants for the structural improvement of holdings. Certain countries also subsidise the cost of machinery, fertilisers and transport. Our delegation does of course, have information on these. As from 30th July, Articles 92 to 94 of the Treaty of Rome, which deal with State aids, will apply in full to the production of, and trade in, most fruits and vegetables. We have studied the implications of these Articles in relation to aids to growers with great care because, if we joined the Community, we should wish to help our horticulture industry to adapt itself to Common Market conditions.
    Mr. Hastings: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, since protection for

    403
    this industry is unlikely at the end of the transition period except in the most exceptional circumstances, it is absolutely vital that we ensure equality of credit to our growers under our own Horticulture Act? Also, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the antidumping regulations to which he alluded —under Article 91 of the Treaty, I think —are really fast and effective?
    Mr. Heath: It is not possible to deal with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question until we have completed the negotiations, but I entirely agree with him about the second part, that there must not be any discrimination between member countries on these two very important points.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that horticultural growers are likely to be prejudiced more than other agricultural interests by entry into the Common Market, and will he, therefore, take special steps to ensure that this important industry in this country is safeguarded in the negotiations?
    Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir; we fully appreciate the present position of the horticultural industry, but parts of it today are extremely efficient and I am 9ure that it is possible for the industry to compete effectively.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects the negotiations between the European Economic Community and the European Free Trade Association countries to have reached a stage at which Her Majesty's Government can decide whether its guarantee to the European Free Trade Association countries has been fulfilled.
    Mr. Heath: It is too early yet to say when that stage will be reached. All the other European Free Trade Association countries have now submitted their applications, but negotiations with some of them will not begin until the autumn.
    Mr. Ridley: Does not my right hon. Friend think that there has been some delay over this matter, because it is a very important part of our guarantees before signing the Treaty of Rome? Does it not now look as if our decision may be held up? Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is every
    404
    reasonable chance that the position with regard to the E.F.T.A. countries will not hold up our own signature of the Treaty of Rome?
    Mr. Heath: The date of application was a matter for decision by each individual E.F.T.A. country. The negotiations with the Danish Government are quite far advanced. Those with the Norwegian Government have begun, those with the Swedish and Austrian Governments will begin on 28th July and those with the Swiss and Portuguese Government will begin later in the autumn.
    Mr. H. Wilson: First, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, or re-confirm, that it is the Government's position that there is a binding commitment on this country not to enter the Common Market unless the economic interests of our E.F.T.A. partners are seen to be fully safeguarded? Secondly, in view of what is to the minds of many of us all the nonsense being talked about the position of the neutrals, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that Her Majesty's Government consider that neutrality should not be a reason for barring these countries from association under the Treaty of Rome? Will he also make it clear in the negotiations that we are not content to see our E.F.T.A. partners put in the same position as third countries, such as Argentina, Guatemala, or any country of that kind?
    Mr. Heath: I have constantly made clear to the House the exact nature of the obligations of the British Government towards the European Free Trade Association countries, and we adhere to them.
    Mr. Turton: When my right hon Friend talks about negotiations with other countries not taking place until the autumn, does that mean that Britain cannot come to a decision on this whole question until some time later than October?
    Mr. Heath: The United Kingdom Government, having been present at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, can obviously form their own conclusions about the negotiations as far as they affect the United Kingdom, and Parliament can also form its views, but under our obligations we have to

    405
    wait until the E.F.T.A. countries are able to form their views about their own stage of the negotiations.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Has the Minister had special consultation with Sweden in view of that country's feelings about the closer political association which is likely to arise between the Six? If so, what was the result of that consultation?
    Mr. Heath: Throughout these negotiations we have been in the closest touch day by day with all the Governments of the E.F.T.A. countries, and after each Ministerial meeting I have seen the E.F.T.A. ambassadors in Brussels myself. We have therefore been able to advise each other, not only at the Ministerial meetings, but in the individual daily contacts. Of course, the Swedish Government have applied for association under Article 238 of the Treaty, which does not involve any political obligation.
    Mr. H. Wilson: May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer to his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), combined with his statement that the real negotiations with the E.F.T.A. countries will not be under way until the autumn, that there can be no question of a decision by Her Majesty's Government or any firm recommendation to this House until after the negotiations with the Six are complete—in other words, until very, very late this year at the earliest?
    Mr. Heath: I have indicated that it is possible for the United Kingdom Government to form their own opinion about this, and for the negotiations affecting the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] Subject to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, of course. It is perfectly possible for the United Kingdom Government, having been in full consultation with the Commonwealth, after the Prime Ministers' Conference and When we reach the final stage of the negotiations, to form their opinion about the negotiations as far as the United Kingdom is concerned. They can also, if they wish, put it before Parliament and Parliament can express an opinion about the negotiations as far as they affect the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. It is then a matter for the E.F.T.A. countries together to
    406
    discuss the remaining stages of the negotiations. That is clearly laid down in the communiques of July and August last year.
    Mr. Wilson: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but is he telling the House that, whatever provisional view the Government or, indeed, Parliament may express on the negotiations as far as they have gone by September or October, there will be no final decision, and any provisional view is capable of being upset if at the end of the E.F.T.A. negotiations our guarantee cannot be met? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely plain that we are bound by that guarantee?
    Mr. Heath: There is absolutely no reason for the right hon. Gentleman to cast any doubt whatever, as he repeatedly does, on the integrity of the British Government towards the European Free Trade Association countries. They are absolutely clear themselves that we are bound by the obligation to see that each E.F.T.A. country has its legitimate requirements met and Chat the arrangements come into operation on the same day.
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will inform the South African Minister of Finance, who is at present in this country, that Her Majesty's Government cannot seek to secure special protection for South African exports to the Common Market such as are being sought for Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Heath: The South African Government are fully aware that the special arrangements which we are seeking in the Brussels negotiations are limited to Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Strachey: In that case, may we be assured that the High Commission Territories, particularly Swaziland, will have their economic interests fully protected and, in particular, that Swaziland sugar will not be lumped in with South African sugar but will enjoy the full rights of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, which is not proposed at present?
    Mr. Heath: We have already put forward proposals for dealing with the High Commission Territories by means

    407
    of association under Part IV of the Treaty. Sugar is, of course, one of the commodities about which we are negotiating on the basis of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
    Mr. P. Williams: Will my night hon. Friend agree that tine witch taunt which continues about South Africa is really in the long run damaging to sound policies developing in that country? We should be more sensible about our treatment of South African affairs.
    Mr. Heath: We naturally wish to continue trade with South Africa, which is to the benefit of both our countries. When the South African Minister was here recently, we had talks with him about this.
    Mr. Strachey: There is no question of a witch fount about South Africa but simply that she cannot be a member of the Commonwealth and not a member of the Commonwealth at the same time.
    Mr. Wallasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of recent negotiations between the European Economic Community and ex-French African colonies, he will now make a statement about his own negotiations concerning the association of African members of the Commonwealth with the Common Market.
    Mr. Heath: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made to the House on 2nd July.
    Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it will be possible to get any answer on this matter till the Six and their African associates make up their minds about their own problems, and will he assure the House that he will stand out for no less generous treatment for Commonwealth countries in Africa than that to be afforded to French colonies in Africa?
    Mr. Heath: We have been in constant consultation about this in the course of the negotiations. The members of the Community have not yet finally agreed the existing associates' form of new convention to come into operation next year. It has been agreed that there should be no discrimination between the present associates and the new associates from the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that the next meeting between the Six and their associate territories will not take place till after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and that, therefore, this question cannot arise at that conference? In the second place, can the Lord Privy Seal tell us what provisions the Government are requesting for those Commonwealth countries which will not accept associate overseas territory status as negotiated between the Six and other African countries? In particular, will the Government insist that the same provision must be made for these countries as well?
    Mr. Heath: Yes, I think I am right in saying that the date for the meeting between the Community and its associates has not yet been fixed. At the moment it is to be early in September. We have also, of course, a great deal of information about the nature of the new convention, which has naturally been communicated to the countries of the Commonwealth also, and therefore it will not be necessary to exclude it from the Prime Ministers' Conference. There are problems of alternative new arrangements. Naturally these have also been in our minds in relation to the negotiations, in particular as they affect particular commodities from those countries.
    Mr. Healey: But with respect to the Lord Privy Seal, how on earth can the Government know the nature of the new agreement when it has not yet been reached?
    Mr. Heath: For the simple reason that we know what the proposals are which are being put to the associates and that area in which agreement has been reached even though the political nature of the new convention is not settled.
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the agreement reached in Brussels on the future of Commonwealth exports to Great Britain and to Europe of temperate zone products; and to what extent he has received assurances that Commonwealth countries will have comparable outlets for their produce.
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Lord Privy Seal if, as a result of his recent

    409
    negotiations, he will now make a statement on the future of Commonwealth exports of temperate zone products to the United Kingdom and the Common Market.
    Mr. Heath: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) on 11th July.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Minister make clear the minimum terms he is prepared to accept to meet the pledge which has been made that the Commonwealth will be protected, or has that pledge now been withdrawn?
    Sir C. Osborne: The hon. Member must not keep saying that.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister demanding that the Commonwealth countries will have comparable outlets in the enlarged Community, similar to those they now enjoy with the United Kingdom? Will he now make that position clear?
    Mr. Heath: None of the pledges to the Commonwealth is being withdrawn and the basis on which we are negotiating was set out very clearly in my statement of 10th October in Paris. It has been brought up to date in reports to the House after each Ministerial meeting.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the main commodities involved, tea and cocoa, are at approximately the same figure of the percentage of the total temperate zone products involved? Will he further confirm that he has asked for a nil tariff only for those products and remind the House that there is no substantial conflict with the associate territories and the Commonwealth on these commodities?
    Mr. Heath: On temperate products, we are dealing with cereals, meat, and dairy products. We have asked for a zero tariff for tea in the category of tropical products, and for a reduction of the tariff on cocoa.
    Mr. H. Wilson: On temperate zone products will the right hon. Gentleman now make it quite clear—I am not casting any aspersions on him: we should just like a clear answer, that is all— that the Government for their part will make it clear that no temporary relief
    410
    for the problem of the Commonwealth will solve this problem? What we are all concerned about is the state of affairs which will appertain after 1970, and that neither this system, however generous the temporary relief may be, nor an international commodities agreement will of itself provide the answer which we seek.
    Mr. Heath: Yes, I have constantly made it clear to the House that we have fully explained in these negotiations the Commonwealth position both for the transitional period for whatever length of time may be negotiated for particular products and for the long-term period which follows that.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to explain the Commonwealth position is not enough for this House? What we are asking him is whether he will give a clear undertaking that the Commonwealth position will not be sacrificed by, for example, regarding temporary relief as enough for the Commonwealth and riding out on questions of worldwide agreements.
    Mr. Heath: My words cannot possibly be taken in the way the right hon. Gentleman has used them. He must understand quite clear English. I have explained the Commonwealth position. We are negotiating to get arrangements in respect of these products for the Commonwealth countries. There is no question of riding out on worldwide agreements. Of course, we want worldwide agreements if they can be obtained. I always understood that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends wanted them. Therefore, the problem for the Commonwealth is to agree on principles by which we can work for worldwide agreements at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman, if that is his view, explain why, when worldwide commodity agreements were proposed at the recent G.A.T.T. conference in Geneva by the French, supported by the Commonwealth countries, the Government voted against them?
    Mr. Heath: Because we were not in favour of that particular type of worldwide agreement.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will now make clear

    411
    in the negotiations in Brussels that any tentative agreement on economic questions are subject to the overriding consideration that Great Britain will not form part of a European political union.
    Mr. Heath: No, Sir. The basic conditions which we are seeking to meet in the negotiations are those set out in the Resolution adopted by this House on 3rd August, 1961.
    Mr. Turton: Is there not a contradiction between that attitude and the broadcast of the West German Foreign Minister last Sunday in which he declared that a plan for European political union was being formulated on the basis of British entry into Europe, and does not he think the present evasion by Her Majesty's Government on this issue is likely to cause misunderstanding not only in Britain and the Commonwealth but also in Europe?
    Mr. Heath: I have tried to explain fully to the House on a number of occasions, including the last two-day debate, the position on political union. There are discussions on this in which we have not taken part because we are not members of the Community at the moment. These discussions were under the Fouchet and now the Cattani Commission. I explained the views of the British Government on political union in the Western European Union meeting of Ministers of 10th April. These views were published in a White Paper and laid before the House, and these are the views of Her Majesty's Government. There is in no way an equivocal attitude about them. The Foreign Ministers of the Six countries of the Community were present and heard my statement and there can be no misunderstanding about it.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman began his Answer with the words, "No, Sir", which could bad to a misunderstanding about the position, would he once again confirm that the mandate given to the Government by this House on 3rd August, 1961, gave no power whatever to negotiate any political commitment? Whatever may have been said by the right hon. Gentleman about inter-governmental arrangements, will he again make it clear that
    412
    there is absolutely no commitment in the mind of Her Majesty's Government about entering into any form of federal union in Europe?
    Sir C. Osborne: Put it on a gramophone record.
    Mr. Heath: I have explained the view of Her Majesty's Government in the statement in Western European Union and I have made plain exactly what our views are on political developments. We cannot, on the other hand, tell how countries working more and more closely together are going to develop their institutions in the course of time. In that respect, each country must make its own contribution.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the Lord Privy Seal also confirm that the representatives of the Six have made it clear that in their view an economic union will not lead to success unless it eventually leads to complete political union?
    Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is begging the question when he says "complete political union". The six countries of the Community have had discussions among themselves and have prepared texts of which they have kept us completely informed. These texts are what would be commonly described as confederal texts, in which any decision taken must be by unanimous vote. That is the stage which the six countries of the Community have reached at this moment.
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent the terms he is negotiating for the economic association with the European Economic Community of the African members of the Commonwealth impose on the latter the obligation to apply Common Market tariffs against imports from other countries, and to maintain their tariffs against imports from European Economic Community countries at levels not exceeding those of colonial times.
    Mr. Heath: Our objective is that, if we join the European Economic Community, the Commonwealth countries referred to should have the opportunity to become associated with the European Economic Community, if they wish to do so, on no less favourable terms than the Community's present associates.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not true that the Community's present associates are required to keep their tariffs against Common Market countries at substantially the same low levels as prevailed in colonial times, while applying Common Market tariffs against outside African States? Is not that objected to by Ghana and several other African members of the Commonwealth as tending to keep them in the position of primary producers and to prohibit them from forming an African Common Market of their own?
    Mr. Heath: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in all three parts of that supplementary question. The associated countries are not required to apply the common tariff to other countries. They are entitled to protect their own emerging industries as they think fit, and as far as I know the view mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is not the view expressed by the Ghana Government.
    Mr. Healey: As the right hon. Gentleman has said that he knows the broad details of the negotiations with the A.O.T. States, can he tell us what proportion of the European aid fund is to be provided by Her Majesty's Government and What proportion is to be spent in Commonwealth countries in Africa?
    Mr. Heath: Arrangements for the financing of the fund will, of course, depend upon the number of Commonwealth countries which wish to accede to the association. The fund itself will be used, in greater part, for projects as they are brought forward, although in particular cases it will be used for loans and fox commodity arrangements as the result of reductions in preferences.
    Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion will be provided by Britain and what proportion will be spent in the Commonwealth? Will it depend on the populations of the Commonwealth countries which accede to A.O.T. status?
    Mr. Heath: These matters are not dealt with purely in accordance with population but by projects as they are brought forward.
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in his latest talks in
    414
    Brussels, he insisted that Commonwealth preferences must continue until the European Economic Community had provided comparable alternative outlets, either by quotas, tariff cuts, international trade agreements, or some other definite and equivalent commitment.
    Mr. Heath: I have nothing to add to what I said on 2nd July.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that reply he did not make it clear that the Government would insist on an agreement, signed, sealed and delivered at the end of 1970, that Commonwealth preference would continue until there was a definite quid pro quo? Will he give an assurance that he will not allow Commonwealth preference to lapse in whole or in part by the exchange merely of undertakings to negotiate worldwide agreements?
    Mr. Heath: I have explained the basis on which we are negotiating for these commodities on a number of occasions, and the hon. Member must now wait and form his own judgment on the outcome.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the representations made by Commonwealth Governments to Her Majesty's Government during the last two weeks, if Her Majesty's Government adheres to the intention not to enter the European Economic Community unless favourable agreements are reached on trade matters affecting the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Heath: The Government have repeatedly made their intentions in this matter entirely clear and they adhere to them.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while we all recognise his undoubted ability and sincerity, he should devote himself to the economic rehabilitation of this country instead of going cap in hand to the Six and asking permission to enter the E.E.C.? In view of all the hesitations, reservations and qualifications, the protracted negotiations and the divisions in the Conservative Party and in the Labour Party, surely it would be better to abandon the whole project and get on to something worth while.
    Mr. Heath: I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his complimentary remarks about me. My only regret is that his very long experience and undoubted still great energy should be used for such a misguided purpose as to oppose this project.
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Lord Privy Seal what reassurances he gave in his recent conversations with Commonwealth Ministers about the prospects for Commonwealth trade in the event of the United Kingdom joining the Common Market.
    Mr. Heath: Our discussions were confidential. Her Majesty's Government adhere to their undertakings, which have been repeatedly stated in this House.
    Sir T. Moore: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for that reply. Will he appreciate, however, that it is this very question which is agitating so many thoughtful people throughout our country who might otherwise be favourable to our entry into the Common Market? Will he bear in mind that some reassurance of this kind will really be essential if he is to get this job through?
    Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. I fully appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. The visits of many Commonwealth Ministers have given us the opportunity of going over each aspect in minute detail, and we are fully informed about this question. After Question Time, I am flying to Paris to carry on talks with Mr. Desai, the Indian Finance Minister, about India's problems.
    Mr. M. Foot: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in dealing with Commonwealth trade and possible political union, it is most damaging to his position in the negotiations that we should have statements from President Kennedy or Herr Strauss, the West German Defence Minister, suggesting in effect that Britain is already in the Common Market or that the decision has already been taken? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is also extremely alarming that such an authority on the negotiations as M. Spaak should be apparently astounded when he hears clearly stated the condi-
    416
    tions on which this country might be prepared to enter? Does not the right hon. Gentleman seriously think that it would an advantage for the Government to state the position so clearly that the President of the United States can no longer go on saying that in effect the whole deal is done and that Britain is in already?
    Mr. Heath: I cannot be responsible for statements made by members of other Governments. The Governments of the Six are quite clear about the British position. M. Spaak, at the Ministerial meeting which began on 8th May, complimented the British delegation for the way in which they were putting forward the position of the Commonwealth and the requirements for Commonwealth trade. He is under no sort of misunderstanding about the British Government's position or about the Commonwealth's position.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will now give an assurance that no British commitment to enter the Common Market will be made prior to the next Session of Parliament.
    Mr. Heath: As I told the House on 7th June, there can be no British commitment to become a member of the European Economic Community until Parliament has approved.
    Mr. Warbey: As that statement was as ambiguous as the one the right hon. Gentleman has made since on the question of timing, will he now clarify the matter if I put my question in a slightly different way? Will he give an assurance that this House will not be asked to express a view, even a provisional view, of British entry into the Common Market before the leaders of the parties have had the opportunity of consulting their rank and file at the October conferences and before we know the outcome of the negotiations with the other E.F.T.A. countries?
    Mr. Heath: I have made the position quite plain. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will want to consult the hon. Member before he himself makes any decision.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the current British liaison with the

    417
    Cattani Commission now considering the political implications of the Treaty of Rome.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has asked that talks on the political future of Europe should be held with the Common Market members; and when he expects them to begin.
    Mr. Heath: The Cattani Commission has held no meetings since the Foreign Ministers of the Six member Governments met in Paris on 17th April. There have been some exchanges between the Governments concerned through the diplomatic channel during the last three months. We have been kept informed of the progress of these exchanges.
    We have made it known to the Six Governments that we wish to be fully consulted on the text of the political treaty after they have reached general agreement among themselves but before the treaty is finally concluded. I cannot give any estimate of when that will be.
    Mr. Allaun: Is there a commitment in these talks which would prevent any future British Government from cooperating with the growing neutralist forces in the world in a peace policy independent of America and Russia? Is it not the cold war influences, aimed at stopping this growth, which are trying to push us into the Common Market?
    Mr. Heath: There is no commitment in these talks and the policy which would be followed in the event of these talks proving successful would remain to be decided by the member Governments. Just now the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) asked whether it was not true that we had no authority to take part in discussions of this kind. Any Government, of course, is entitled to enter into discussions of this kind with other Governments towards formulating a treaty. The obligation is that a treaty must be presented to Parliament before it can be implemented.
    Mr. H. Wilson: As the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted me, is he aware that I did not say that the Government have no authority to enter into negotiations, but that what I said was in relation to his statement that the Government were operating purely
    418
    within the mandate given by the House on 3rd August, last year, and that I asked whether he agreed that that mandate gave him no authority to negotiate for political union, which is a very different thing?
    Mr. Heath: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made the position plain, but I was answering a Question dealing with the Brussels negotiations and, therefore, related only to the undertakings given to the House.
    Mr. Rankin: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly a year ago the Fouchet Commission made it clear that its aim was ultimately political union? Is it not now widely accepted that that is the purpose of the Common Market Six? If the right hon. Gentleman enters into an economic arrangement for integration, is he to remain half in and half out of the total arrangement which must incorporate political union?
    Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that that was the conclusion of the Fouchet Commission. What the Fouchet Commission—the Cattani Commission as it now is—has done is to produce texts which, as I have already explained, are not federal texts.
    Mr. Turton: Has my right hon. Friend received a reply to the representations which he mentioned?
    Mr. Heath: No, Sir, because there have been no further meetings of the Ministers since I made them.
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Lord Privy Seal what advice, apart from that contained in its memorandum, he has received from the Trades Union Congress in the course of the Common Market negotiations.
    Mr. Heath: I have had a number of informal talks with trade union leaders as well as with other sections of the community. These have been useful in clarifying the issues involved in the negotiations, but they must remain confidential.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: While welcoming the constructive attitude of the T.U.C. to these negotiations, may I ask the

    419
    Lord Privy Seal to undertake to continue these consultations with the T.U.C. throughout the negotiations?
    Mr. Heath: Yes, indeed, and I shall be seeing the T.U.C. again quite shortly.
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Lord Privy Seal what assurances he has received, during his most recent negotiations with European Economic Community countries, about the continuation of Commonwealth preferences to British traders; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heath: This is a matter for the Commonwealth Governments concerned.
    Sir L. Plummer: Does not the right horn. Gentleman agree that it is reasonable to suppose that if we out down the preferences on Commonwealth goods coming into this country, or even refuse entry to Commonwealth goods, Commonwealth countries will reciprocate? Does that prospect give him any pleasure, and has he put this point firmly to the people with whom he is negotiating?
    Mr. Heath: The Commonwealth countries themselves will wish to consider the outcome of the negotiations and the possibility of negotiations in these matters with third countries.

    SLAVERY (UNITED NATIONS SUPPLEMENTARY CONVENTION)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Lord Privy Seal how many members of the United Nations have signed the 1956 Supplementary Convention for the Abolition of Slavery; and how many of these are members of the Afro-Asian group.
    Mr. P. Thomas: Forty members of the United Nations have signed the 1956 Supplementary Convention for the Abolition of Slavery. Of these, 14 are African or Asian. I am glad to say that four countries, of which two are African and one is Asian, have signed the Convention since I answered a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 11th April.
    Mr. Ridley: Is not this a rather sorry state of affairs, and is it not an example
    420
    of the double standard in these matters referred to by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary? Will my hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that there is a unanimous signing of this Convention?
    Mr. Thomas: I agree that disappointingly few States have signed this Convention. I can certainly promise my hon. Friend that we will continue to take the initiative, as we have for many years, in urging countries to sign it.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Is it not incredible that in the year of grace 1962 slavery should be so prevalent in parts of the world? Cannot the Government take still stronger step to get this Convention signed and implemented? I find it difficult to believe that people accept this position calmly.
    Mr. Thomas: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is incredible that slavery should exist, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that it does. On the question of a British initiative, as my hon. Friend knows, the United Kingdom delegation to the Economic and Social Council has tabled a resolution urging countries to sign this Convention.

    EGYPT (BRITISH PROPERTY)
    Mr. Wallasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's recent discussions with the Egyptian Government about a final settlement over British property that has been Egyptianised, desequestrated and more recently resequestrated.
    Mr. Heath: There have been no recent discussions with the United Arab Republic Government on property Egyptianised in the period 1956–1958. The compensation of £27½ million for this property provided for in Article IV of the Financial Agreement of 1959 was paid in full by the U.A.R. Government in 1959.
    The present discussions in Cairo concern the release and transfer of British property and assets which were de-sequestrated as a result of the Financial Agreement. I cannot yet make any statement about them. As I told my hon. Friend on 4th July, the House will be informed as soon as a conclusion is reached.

    421
    As regards British property re-sequestrated at the end of 1961, I regret that I can as yet add nothing to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 1st May.
    Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the terms of the Egyptian Financial Agreement have not yet been implemented by the Egyptian Government, namely, the repatriation of £5,000 per head, and furniture, and so on? Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the new wave of sequestration at the end of last year is quite unjustifiable? When can we expect a settlement of this matter which has been dragging on for several years?
    Mr. Heath: I was anxious in my Answer to distinguish between three classes which have been dealt with under this agreement mentioned by my hon. Friend. On the question of the amount of compensation for Egyptianisation, it has been paid by the United Arab Republic, and as a result of Orders passed by the House percentages have been paid to the claimants. As far as the second group of desequestrated property is concerned, there have been, as the House will know, a number of difficulties about this, and we are in negotiation. I hope it will not now be long before I can make an announcement on further arrangements to the House. As far as the property reseques-trated is concerned, that, of course, is mainly property of Egyptians and of only a small number of British personnel. We have a great interest in them. Arrangements under the decree of sequestration are known, although they have not yet been completed.
    Mr. Hirst: Yes, but does not my hon. Friend really appreciate that the Government's record in this matter of Egyptian treatment of British nationals is utterly deplorable? When are we going to reach the stage at which this matter can be dealt with justly, fairly and firmly, and not in this piecemeal, cheeseparing way, going on year after year in this unsatisfactory way?
    Mr. Heath: I am as anxious as my hon. Friend is to see the final settlement of these claims, but he will appreciate that there are a number of claims which cannot yet be assessed because the amount of damage suffered under sequestration is not yet known. It is
    422
    essential for this process to be completed before the financial amounts can be calculated and the claims paid.

    GENOCIDE CONVENTION
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will now announce the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the question of the United Kingdom's accession to the Genocide Convention.
    Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government fully accept the spirit of the Convention and wholeheartedly support its objects. They have concluded, however, after long and earnest consideration, and with great regret, that the difficulties involved are such that the United Kingdom should not accede to it. The reason for this decision is explained in a fuller statement which, in view of its length, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir B. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that his reply will cause a considerable amount of unhappiness and dissatisfaction to a large number of people? Is he aware of the fact that only a few weeks ago there was a meeting held in Trafalgar Square where people declared themselves to be Nazis and eulogised what that arch-criminal Hitler had done, and that they advocated the barbaric cult of Nazism, and that genocide was thus being advocated, as was implicit because of their declaration that they were Nazis? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that paragaphs (b) and (c) of Article III of the United Nations Convention ought to be invoked by us? It says that among acts which shall be punishable are
    " Conspiracy to commit genocide"
    and
    "Direct and public incitement to commit genocide ".
    Will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter reconsideration in the circumstances?
    Mr. Heath: I readily acknowledge the immense interest which the hon. Gentleman has always taken in this Convention and the great concern which its implementation is to him. The Government have over a considerable period now given the very closest consideration to it, and I hope that the

    423
    hon. Member will appreciate the very full explanation which I am going to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to answer questions on the fuller statement at the end of Question Time next week, if we put a Question on the Paper?
    Mr. Heath: I will undertake to answer Questions, but I cannot be expected to undertake to do so after Question Time. I will certainly consider any Question which the right hon. Gentleman puts down.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If we put down a Question for Wednesday next, will the right hon. Gentleman ask Mr. Speaker's permission to answer it at the end of Questions?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot give an undertaking like that at this stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] In fairness to other hon. Members of the House, and not knowing the business of the House on that day.
    Following is the statement:
    Her Majesty's Government fully accept the spirit of the Genocide Convention and wholeheartedly support its objects but, after long and earnest consideration, and with great regret, they have reached the conclusion that the United Kingdom should not accede to it. The reason for their decision stems from the terms of Article VII of the Convention, which provides that offences of genocide as defined in the Convention shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition. The Government are advised that the effect of Article VII is that, if we acceded to the Convention, it would be necessary to amend the Extradition Acts so as to suspend the operation of the safeguard against extradition for a political offence in any case where the crime alleged was genocide itself as defined in Article II of the Convention, or any of the related offences described in Article III. This would involve, particularly in view of the breadth and imprecision of the terms used in Articles II and III, a derogation from this country's traditional right to grant political asylum which the Government do not think it right to accept.
    In making known their decision not to accede to the Convention the Government wish to reaffirm their utter abhorrence of the crime of genocide and their determination that those who commit it should be brought to justice, and to give an unqualified assurance that Her Majesty's Government would never them, selves violate the principles embodied in the
    424
    Convention. The Government are moreover satisfied that if, as is hardly conceivable, any such crime as is usually connoted by the term genocide were to be committed within the United Kingdom, the perpetrator could and would be punished under the ordinary criminal law. The Government are satisfied also that, should a person accused of such a crime committed elsewhere be found in this country, he could and would—subject to the observations which I made earlier about the possibility of its being a "political offence"—be dealt with in the same way as any other fugitive criminal.

    LAOS
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will propose to the Geneva Conference on Laos the withdrawal of all foreign troops from this theatre of operations.
    Mr. P. Thomas: No, Sir. The Geneva Agreement already provides for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Laos.
    Mr. Dempsey: Will the Minister state how soon it will be before he expects this agreement to be implemented? Does he not realise that the moment is more conducive now than at any other time since obtaining the cease-fire, and does not he also appreciate that the longer we delay implementing such an agreement the more we reap distrust and foster suspicion? Speed should be the watchword of our action in bringing about the withdrawal of all these foreign troops.
    Mr. Thomas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The conference in Geneva has made very steady progress and I hope that an agreement will be reached and signed before very long.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, following the establishment of a neutral coalition Government in Laos, he will now order the withdrawal of the British forces in Thailand.
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Lord Privy Seal if British troops will be withdrawn from Thailand in view of the formation of a neutralist Government in Laos.
    Mr. P. Thomas: I have nothing to add to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on this subject on 27th June.
    Mr. Warbey: As it is now clear that any threat to Thailand from Laos, if it ever existed, has completely disappeared, does not the continued retention of British forces in Thailand lend colour to the suspicions that they are really there in order to support American military intervention in other parts of South-East Asia?
    Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. The reason for our token forces being sent there was fully explained to the House in particular during the foreign affairs debate on 24th May. The coalition Government in Laos has been in existence only for a very short time, the agreement at Geneva has not yet been signed and we must wait a little and see how circumstances develop.
    Mr. Brockway: But was it not the explanation that there was a danger that Communist forces in Laos might menace the invasion of Thailand? Does the hon. Gentleman really say that that danger still exists, when a neutralist Government has been formed in Laos and any separate Communist military forces have been entirely obliterated?
    Mr. Thomas: No. I say that the Coalition Government has been in existence only a very short time and that we must wait and see what develops.

    SPAIN (GOVERNOR OF ALICANTE)
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Lord Privy Seal what discussions he has had with the Governor of Alicante, who is now on a visit to this country as the guest of Her Majesty's Government, regarding the suppression of religious liberty in Spain as affecting British Protestants in that country.
    Mr. P. Thomas: No approach was made to the Governor of Alicante while he was here.
    Mr. Fletcher: May I ask why not? Is not the Minister aware that the congregation of the Spanish Evangelical Church in Alicante has been seeking for 12 months to use its church, which was built with Government permission, and that the only consent now required is that of the Governor; and that it is conduct of this kind which makes it diffi-
    426
    cult to regard Spain as a civilised country?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. I think that the church mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is a Spanish institution and therefore Her Majesty's Government have no right to intervene. Where British interests and subjects are involved, we make representations to the appropriate Spanish authorities. There have been no cases recently.

    NUCLEAR TESTS
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether in view of Mr. Krushchev's recent policy statement on behalf of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on a nuclear test agreement, it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to conclude such an agreement without waiting for a general disarmament treaty.
    Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Henderson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the consensus of opinion among world scientists is that on-site inspections are relatively unimportant? Would not the Government give a lead to the Geneva Conference by proposing that the memorandum tabled by the neutrals on 17th April should be turned into a draft treaty and not used merely as a basis for discussion?
    Mr. Heath: It is too early to form a conclusion about the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question. We have accepted the memorandum of the neutrals as a basis for negotiation.
    Mr. Henderson: What I was suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman was not that it should be used as a basis for discussion, but that the proposals should be turned into a draft treaty and that Her Majesty's Government should make themselves responsible for making that proposal.
    Mr. Heath: I think that I have already pointed out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the weakness of the memorandum put forward by the neutrals—the method of on-site inspection—but we have accepted it as a basis for discussion in the conference.

    EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY
    Mr. Blytonasked the Lord Privy Seal what new proposals he has made to Euratom for handing over to them British nuclear information.
    Mr. Heath: The proposals which I have made to the European Atomic Energy Community are contained in my Opening Statement to the Member States in Brussels on 3rd July, which has been published as a White Paper (Cmnd. 1767).
    There is no question of our passing classified defence information to Euratom.
    In general the transfer of technical information of a commercial character will continue on much the same lines as at present, namely by the licensing of the use of patents on a commercial basis.
    The only information which would automatically be shared would be information about the Community's own research programme or about research projects in which the Community shares.
    I am arranging for the circulation of a more detailed statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Blyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Britain has spent millions of pounds on nuclear research and development which it will be giving away and getting nothing in return? Is he also aware that the new policy for European energy requirements, in the document on synthesis, is to cut coal production by half by 1970? Does he not think that his discredited Government should go to the country now and let the country decide this matter?
    Mr. Heath: I have given the House a very full Answer, showing that the first part of the hon. Gentleman's carefully prepared supplementary question was completely wrong. There is no question of giving away information in the manner he has suggested.
    Following is the statement:
    Disclosure of Information to Euratom
    The Euratom Treaty does not require Member States or their nationals to disclose to the Euratom Commission or other Mem-
    428
    ber States the results of their own atomic research and development programmes. There are provisions to encourage dissemination within the European Atomic Energy Community of information about the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Except for information owned or acquired by the Commission under its own research programme these provisions in general depend on voluntary cooperation. In certain limited circumstances the Euratom Commission can order a compulsory licence to be granted for the use of a patent. If this power is used, the person granted the licence must pay compensation to the patent holder. The amount is assessed, at the patent holder's choice, either by an Arbitration Committee set up under the Treaty or by the national authorities in the patent holder's country.
    Member States and their nationals are required to disclose to the Commission details of new investment projects in the civil nuclear field and of the operations of their civil nuclear establishments. Information about the investment projects can only be published with the consent of the person or enterprise communicating it.
    I made it clear in my opening statement in the Euratom negotiations on 3rd July that we are proceeding on the assumption that we shall not be required to disclose or permit the disclosure of classified defence information to the Euratom Commission or to other Member States.

    HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES AND REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Lord Privy Seal what conclusions have been reached in the discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of South Africa regarding the future relations between the High Commission Territories and the Republic, particularly as they affect the customs control of publications addressed to the protectorates.
    Mr. P. Thomas: The chief aspects of future relations between the High Commission Territories and the Republic of South Africa have already been settled. Arrangements in respect of nationality are set out in the South Africa Act, 1962. Temporary arrangements have been made to cover movement of persons between the Territories and the Republic up to 1st January, 1963. Discussions on other aspects of future relations are in progress. Under the customs union between the Territories and South Africa the South African Customs authorities examine all material on entry for the purpose of levying duty, part of which accrues to the Territories. If the

    429
    South African authorities were to impound as undesirable material consigned to the Territories we should certainly make representation for its release.
    Mr. Brockway: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. If I draw his attention to the fact that publications which are permitted in British Colonial and Protectorate Territories have been confiscated by the Customs of the Republic of South Africa when addressed to our Protectorates, will he take up the matter?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes. I know of only one case and that concerned a periodical, Africa South in Exile. I do not know whether that is the case to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, but the Basutoland authorities were asked to investigate the alleged incident and they reported that on 29th June the South African Commissioner of Customs and Excise admitted wrongful seizure of 400 copies of Africa South in Exile and informed the consignee that the package had been released to be sent to him.

    UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT DECADE
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the sessions of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in Geneva which discussed the arrangements for the United Nations Development Decade.
    Mr. P. Thomas: As this item is still under discussion at the Economic and Social Council, I am not in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Prentice: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the disappointing aspects is that the new targets for technical assistance and pre-investment work which were geared to the Development Decade are not getting the response which was expected? In view of that, would he consider the British contributions for 1962, which are still geared to the old and not the new target?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes. I went to the Economic and Social Council last week and my impression was that all the countries who were members of the
    430
    Council were enthusiastically behind the scheme, but it would not be right to go into details until the full meeting of the Council has been completed.
    Mr. Mayhew: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is considering an increase in the British contribution called for and that a decision will be made without delay?
    Mr. Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter is coming up for review in the autumn.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that none of this effort will divert resources from the development of the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, most of our resources go to the development of the Commonwealth.

DIVISIONS (ABSTENTIONS)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. EMRYS HUGHES: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will move to refer to the Select Committee on Procedure the question of whether hon. Members who wished to abstain on any motion should have the right to have their abstention recorded in HANSARD.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): As this Question has been on the Order Paper for a number of weeks, I should like, with permission, to answer it now.
The Answer is, "No, Sir."
Mr. Hughes: While realising that that Answer justifies the long delay, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he will pay some attention to this matter? There might be occasions in the future, as there have been recently, when right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to abstain from voting and have their abstentions recorded in HANSARD. Why should not that be done? Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government frequently abstain in the United Nations. Why should not hon. Members have the same privilege?
Mr. Macleod: We have a different system of recording votes. I do not think that there is any suggestion of a demand for this change—
Dame Irene Ward: Yes there is.
Mr. Macleod: —and it is not easy to see how it could be implemented, because it would, presumably, mean having something like a third Lobby.
Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is as great a demand as my hon. Friend suggests from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for abstentions to be recorded?
Mr. Macleod: I hope not.
Dame Irene Ward: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend why he does not refer this to the Select Committee on Procedure? I think that it would be a progressive move if, from time to time, we made slight alterations in our Parliamentary procedure. I cannot see any objection to considering this matter. In fact, I would be grateful if I could occasionally register my abstentions.
Mr. Macleod: It is true that we now have a Select Committee on Procedure. There are a number of matters which are being considered for reference to it. If there were a general demand for such a matter as is raised in this Question to be referred to the Select Committee, I think that that would be the place for it to be considered. But, as I said, as far as I am aware there is no such general desire in the House.
Mr. S. Silverman: While appreciating the difficulties to which the Leader of the House referred, is this really a good reason for not asking the Select Committee to look at the matter? If it found that it was unworkable, it would no doubt so report, but ought this to be
432
decided negatively in advance and without consideration?
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there really is all the difference in the world between Members of Parliament who do not vote in Divisions because they are not here, because they are away on other business, or because they desire to be somewhere else, and Members of Parliament refraining from taking part in a Division as a political act, as it very often is? Would not it be an improvement in our procedure if we had a method whereby hon. Members who, on a particular occasion, were not ready to make up their minds could have an opportunity of saying quite clearly, "For the moment we are neither in favour of nor against it, and our absence from the Division Lobby is not due to neglect of our Parliamentary duties "?
Mr. Macleod: I am aware that there is a serious point here, and I am prepared to answer it in that sense. I think that the right forum to discuss this point, if it should be discussed, is the Select Committee on Procedure, which has been set up by the House. I will make some general inquires into the matter, and if there is such a desire, of which, as I said, I am not at the moment aware, I will consider putting it on the list.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first two Resolutions proposed shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before half-past Nine o'clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [25TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1962–63; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1962–63; NAVY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63; ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63; AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63; NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1960– 61; ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1960–61; AIR EXPENDITURE, 1960–61
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £7,078,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for expenditure in respect of the services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.:—

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63

  £

  Class III, Vote 2B, Scottish Home and Health Department (Revised Estimate)

  1,193,100

  Class VI, Vote 13B, Scottish Development Department (Revised Estimate)

  1,579,100

  Class IV, Vote 1, Board of Trade

  4,306,000

  Total

  £7,078,200

  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £218,008,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for expenditure in respect of the services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.: —

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63

  £

  Class IV, Vote 7, Ministry of Aviation

  154,900,000

  Class IV, vote 8, Ministry of Aviation (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)

  19,000,000

  Class IV, Vote 9, Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services

  5,750,000

  Class IV, Vote 3, Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment)

  22,259,000

  Class IV, Vote 6, Ministry of Labour

  16,099,000

  Total

  £218,008,000

  AVIATION
  3.37 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: Now that the corpses have been dragged away from what has been described as the abattoir, it is possible for us to see the new team which has taken over at the Ministry of Aviation. Following what happened yesterday, I must be careful what I say about heads falling.
  Perhaps I might be allowed to congratulate the new Minister on the fact that as yet his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) is still the back bench member of the family. I should also like to congratulate the new Parliamentary Secretary. I know from his business background that he has considerable knowledge of the kind of technical equipment which is such an important feature of this industry, and I am sure that we all wish him well in his new appointment. I cannot guarantee how long it will last, but there it is.
  Today we are inviting the Committee to discuss the affairs of the aircraft and aviation industries. This is a wide subject and the Votes on the Order Paper will, I think, permit hon. Members to raise a wide variety of issues, perhaps of a constituency nature, which I cannot discuss. The charge which we make against the Government is that because of their determination to use aviation to provide an ever-widening field for profit-making they are jeopardising the efficiency and solvency of both the B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and that, as a consequence, they are adversely affecting considerable sections of the aircraft industry.
  I believe that, flowing from this, at a time when the industry is struggling to adapt itself to vast changes which are now inevitable in a dynamic period such as this, the production, and, indeed, the utilisation, of aircraft has been pitched into the centre of political controversy.
  On 22nd March we discussed the conditions in the aircraft industry, and it was then quite obvious from the speeches made by hon. Members on both sides that we were all anxious about the position as it then existed, and about the future of the industry. I do not think that there has been any improvement since then; indeed, my impression

  435
  is that there has been a fairly marked deterioration. Certainly, from my contacts both with employers and employed, in a wide section of the aviation and aircraft industries, I have never known a time when there has been greater apprehension and, in some cases, real bitterness, than there is at present. The Minister has undertaken a huge task, and for the sake of the industry and the nation we wish him every success in it.
  Perhaps one of the greatest success stories in world aviation, if not the greatest, is the story of Rolls-Royce. This is a British firm, whose engines are powering not only a great percentage of our own aircraft but large numbers of foreign aircraft. Yet we know that well over 3,000 of the Rolls-Royce workers— some of them very highly skilled—are being dismissed from their jobs. It is a sad reflection on the efficiency of Tory planning that some of these men have been driven to accept jobs with foreign airlines, such as Swissair, at the very time when the nation is suffering from an overall shortage of precisely this kind of labour.
  It is time for some of the things we have heard about the ability of Toryism to plan to manifest themselves, in the Government's ability to channel industry into areas in which highly skilled people and consequently, unskilled ones, are loosing their jobs. We would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman—who has not had a lot of time in has job— would tell us something about the position and the prospect of Rolls-Royce in the immediate future.
  I now turn to another firm—this time on the aviation side of the industry— which is in great trouble, namely, Messrs. Short Bros, and Harland. A few days ago Mr. Wrangham, the chairman of Short Bros and Harland, shocked us by his statement that unless the firm obtained more orders for the Belfast military transport aircraft, or substantial outside aid, the firm would not be able to continue any of its other activities. Some of us have visited this firm and have seen what I consider to be a first-rate factory, with a well-balanced labour force, doing a first-class job of work. I should be very sad to think that this firm was in danger of folding up. Such a decision would result in a great loss to the industry and the nation.
  436
  We are always very anxious when we hear statements from responsible persons like Mr. Wrangham, who, more than anyone else, is aware of the problem. At present, the firm employs 7,000 people —the lowest level since the war. At one time it employed 20,000; in 1950, the figure had fallen to 9,000, and it is now down to 7,000. The firm is operating in an area which has about 8 per cent. unemployment, and in which it is, therefore, extremely difficult to find alternative work.
  So far, the only order that it has for the huge Belfast freighter is from the Royal Air Force, which has ordered 10 machines. We understand that it is necessary for the firm to sell 30 of these aircraft before its costs are covered. It is fair to point out that whereas even now the level of employment throughout the aircraft industry is 2 per cent. higher than it was in 1958, Short Bros, is now employing about 15 per cent. less than at that time. It is not a run-down of any type which has caused the problem in this factory.
  I know that we have to base our calculations for the future on the ability of certain aircraft, and not merely upon sentiment. These aircraft must live or die by their performances. Nevertheless, it is germane to the argument to realise how much depends upon the success or failure of Short Brothers. The problem is that the public and private educational systems in Northern Ireland have developed on the basis of its aircraft industry. Courses at the local technical colleges are specifically directed to the industry's needs, and a Chair of Aeronautics has been established at Queen's University.
  The company has a spendid apprenticeship system. It has trained over 3,200 operatives, and technical apprentices since 1937, of whom about 50 have secured degrees. In addition, about 1,000 awards of different types have been gained. Many of these young men are now teaching at Queen's University and technical institutions throughout Northern Ireland. All this—the basis upon which Northern Ireland will expand or decay—as in great danger, and it is difficult to know how it is to survive if Short Brothers is not able to remain in existence.

  437
  We know that the Royal Air Force has opposed the placing of further orders for the Belfast freighter. I suppose that its argument is that the Belfast is slower than a jet would be. We realise that the Royal Air Force is naturally interested in prestige types of aircraft rather than in ordinary freighters. The glamour of a supersonic aircraft probably attracts it far more than does an ordinary freighter of the Belfast type. But I would remind the Government that we are by no means out of the wood in respect of the use of jet aircraft. The noise factor will probably play a much bigger part in the situation, especially when freight is landed at all hours of the night. There are restrictions already at London Airport and at Idlewild upon the use of jet aircraft at night.
  When we consider the objections of the Royal Air Force to further orders being placed for the Belfast it is relevant to remember that it had the same objections to the Beverley when that successful aircraft was first introduced. We were told that it would not meet Royal Air Force requirements. I understand that there were even murmurs against the Viscount, and suggestions from the Royal Air Force that it would not be a winner. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then, and it has been proved that the experts are not always right. Incidentally, I understand that the Army wants the Belfast, and has made representations to that effect.
  The only aircraft of this type now in the possession of the Royal Air Force is the Beverley. It is now obsolete. There is no civil air freighter of the strategic range and size that modern military equipment and technical support forces demand. Therefore, whereas the Belfast can fly in 1963, there can be nothing else of this type within five or seven years, unless we buy American aircraft.
  In the debate on 30th March this year the then Home Secretary—now the First Secretary of State—said:
  "As the House knows, the freighter can lift a tank, and can lift not only that but many of our most modern weapons. It is not only useful for that, but for the transport of men to a very much larger extent than any other aeroplane known in the world. The freighter has, I am sure, proved its worth, and I would agree immediately that the whole question of the future of Shorts—whether it is to remain
  438
  independent, or whether it is to be amalgamated—is a matter that must be decided."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1962; Vol. 656, c. 1739.1
  Words of encouragement of that kind should have led to something being done about further orders for the Belfast freighter.
  I do not want to go on quoting, although I could quote Lord Montgomery and Lord Chandos on the same subject. But it is surely important that the Government make up their minds about the future of Shorts. I have heard a proposal that Shorts should be used in a different way; that it should be consolidated with one or both of the aircraft groups and should undertake a programme of overall, sub-contracts and that kind of thing for the next few years with the Government leasing the assets at a nominal rental based on the value of the business or the prospects rather than on the valuation of the assets.
  That would be tantamount to saying that Shorts should be turned into an aircraft garage and the design staff, numbering about 900 people, paid off. This would mean that research into guided missiles, electronics and work of that kind would be ended. This would be a great tragedy and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he will not countenance such a suggestion. He must decide on the future of the Belfast and not allow the firm to be used in terms of a garage for other people.
  Mr. George Wigg: As my hon. Friend knows, I engaged in the controversy about the Belfast with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when he was Minister of Defence. Am I to understand that my hon. Friend is now proposing that this aircraft is of such merit that it should be ordered on that basis by the Service Departments? That was not the original argument advanced by the Government and supported by the Opposition Front Bench until now. The original argument was that this was an aircraft which would have a civilian market. Do I understand that my hon. Friend is abandoning that argument?
  Mr. Lee: I understand that there have been discussions between Short Bros, and B.O.A.C. for a new version which could

  439
  fly by 1965. This is conditional on further orders from the Royal Air Force into which new ideas would be injected.
  Mr. Wigg: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he has said. It reveals what is in his mind. But in my submission, this does not depend on new ideas, but on a new engine. My hon. Friend may be able to conjure ideas out of the air, but not engines. As I understand it, the position is that if there is to be an extended Belfast, what is required is a stage 5 Tyne engine. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is what is involved?
  Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend has the answer. A stage 5 Tyne engine which would assist in the problem at Rolls-Royces Which I have put to the Minister. It would mean a delay before the aircraft was flying. There is still the question of development costs and timing. But, as I have submitted, the Belfast is still the best proposition we now have, other than buying American.
  Yesterday, I received a deputation from people representing a wide measure of interests in Northern Ireland, including the religious denominations, chambers of commerce, all sections of political thought at Stormont, and the trade unions. They were unanimous in expressing anxiety, and in their feeling that Northern Ireland faced a great controversy unless something was done about this problem. The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, which represents 3 million people, sent representatives to see me and I was reminded that at the Confederation's annual conference a resolution was passed asking for assistance to Shorts. The resolution is on the lines I have described and I will not bother to read it.
  I turn from the question of Short Bros, to what is, perhaps, the main bone of contention, the B.O.A.C.-Cunard merger. On 7th June, which was the last day prior to the Whitsun Recess on which business other than the Adjournment debates took place, as hon. Members who found it impossible to tear themselves from this place until they had studied the OFFICIAL REPORT will know, there appeared among the Answers to Written Questions
  440
  a statement from the Minister of Aviation informing Parliament—I say "informing Parliament" in a purely technical sense—of the merger between B.O.A.C. and Cunard.
  Most hon. Members knew about this from the London evening papers on 6th June. But I object to Parliament being kept in ignorance on matters such as this until it is far too late to challenge them or, to receive detailed information about them in the House. I am glad to note that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) is in the Chamber. It would be interesting to know how the hon. Member knew about this and was able to put down a Question which received a Written Answer. How much notice did the hon. Gentleman give to the Minister of his intention to ask the Question?
  Mr. John Diamond: One guess!
  Mr. Lee: I do not guess about these things. I put it down to intelligent anticipation at its very, very best.
  On 26th June, when the House reassembled, the Minister was good enough to answer a Question from me on this matter and I invite the House to consider the relevant part of his Answer:
  "Airlines on the Atlantic have suffered severe losses because of the setback in the growth of traffic and excess of capacity. The United Kingdom is facing fierce competition on these routes and by concentrating their capacity, maintenance facilities, sales effort, managerial experience, B.O.A.C. and Cunard should strengthen the British aviation effort in this vital area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1962; Vol. 661, c. 960.]
  I invite the hon. Member for Belfast, North to keep that answer in mind.
  Will the Minister answer a few more questions? The Government White Paper on the nationalised industries, issued last year, indicated that these industries have social functions to carry out which may be inimical to profit making. I suppose that financing research would be relevant in this connection and the question of operating unprofitable routes. Does the new company carry these responsibilities? Does the 70 per cent. of B.O.A.C. repudiate them, or does the 30 per cent. Cunard accept them? We must know this because of its association with the House.

  441
  Can the new company compete for trooping contracts? We have a position in which the nationalised industries can-not compete for such contracts and private campaniles can. Which "hat" does this company wear. I should be grateful if the right horn. Gentleman would answer those questions. At Question Time the Minister told me that the financial result of the company's work will be placed before Parliament. May we be assured that hon. Members will be able to debate and criticise the performance of the company, as with the nationalised industries, and that the Ministry can direct the overall question of policy? This is something we must know. I shall be very annoyed if we are fobbed off on the ground that within this new company there is a private enterprise element whose affairs do not concern the Minister.
  I do not consider that B.O.A.C., or any other nationalised organisation, has a right to do this kind of thing without the consent of Parliament. The organisations were set up by Parliament to develop on certain lines. It may well be that as time goes on the set-up may need altering. But if and when that time comes, let the Minister come to the House to seek the permission of Parliament and to advance reasons to prove the need for any change which is proposed. At the moment, there is no reason why that should happen.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: About three years ago B.E.A. applied for a minority interest in Cambrian Airways. We did not hear any objection to that.
  Mr. Lee: That is a different matter. I will explain the difference from my point of view during the course of my speech.
  What would have been the position if B.O.A.C. had sold the majority holding? Suppose that instead of 70 per cent.—30 per cent. in favour of B.O.A.C. it had been in favour of Cunard? Suppose there had been a combination of Cunard and B.U.A.? What then would have been the position? If we have no right to be consulted before a merger of this kind takes place, I take it that, similarly, we should have no right to be consulted if a majority shareholding were taken from the national-
  442
  ised airlines, which would present the House with all sorts of difficulties.
  I wish to make my position clear. In these days, when take-over bids have become a widespread method of industrial reorganisation, I do not say that nationalised industries should not have access to the same techniques as private monopolies. If that were the straight issue I should take a different attitude. What we have to ask ourselves is why B.O.A.C, which was so adamant in opposition to Cunard having a single licence on the London—New York run, suddenly agreed to that firm having 30 par cent. of B.O.A.C.'s business.
  I think Chat the answer is to be found in the letter written by Sir Matthew Slattery, in the 6th June issue of B.O.A.C. News, in which he said:
  "The Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act of 1960 radically transformed B.O.A.C.'s position. It ended our right to be the sole British challenger to the host of foreign airlines flying the world's scheduled long-distance routes. The independent airlines successfully staked their claim to a share in the British effort. In particular, the emergence of Cunard as an Atlantic air carrier through their wholly-owned subsidiaries in Bermuda and the Bahamas produced a big new factor for us to reckon with.
  This was not just another competitor—we have always had plenty of foreign competition. This was British competition, splitting the British effort, dividing the British market and—because of the way international air agreements work—inevitably having to siphon off most of its traffic from the British share.
  These were the most immediate effects of the new situation. But the long-term effects we (and Cunard, too) had to face were even more difficult. We were threatened with continual uncertainty over the outcome of future route licensing applications. This was no basis for long-term planning or investment by either of us."
  That puts it in a nutshell. What I object to is the presence on the Statute Book of an Act which is nothing short of a continuous threat to the two public Corporations. As the expenditure of public money produces lucrative routes, licences will or may be granted to companies which will be given the right to exploit them while the Corporation, as in this case, is placed in a disgraceful position of having to share its best routes with a rival to whom the Minister himself refused a licence on the ground that B.O.A.C. was already suffering from surplus capacity.
  Look at what the two organisations will get out of the merger. In the case

  443
  of Cunard, it is clear that it will get a minimum of 30 per cent. of B.O.A.C.'s existing business on the North-Atlantic route and I think that I can show that it will get more than that. The company is rescued from its plight of having bought two Boeings and spares for £6 million and, having spent £800,000 preparing to run on the route, finding itself without a licence to use them. Between 1952 and 1961 the Cunard Steam-ship Company's operating profits fell from £10,790,000 to £1,122,000 and it paid no dividend this year. So this deal is in the nature of a life-belt for the company.
  What does B.O.A.C. get out of it? It may be, although I do not think so, that I am a biassed witness, but I will quote the Economist, which I do not think hon. Members will consider has a biased judgment. It said, on 23rd June:
  "Whatever one's views on nationalised versus private industry, the plain fact is that the arrangement between the two airlines comes close to making a gift of public assets to private investors, i.e. the shareholders of Cunard. It is important to demonstrate why this drastic step should be in the public interest. B.O.A.C. is hiving off the most glamorous third of its business to a £30 million subsidiary—a holding company rather than an operating company—in which B.O.A.C. will hold two-thirds and Cunard one-third of the capital. On the face of it Cunard could never hope to acquire this kind of stake in the North Atlantic air traffic on its own."
  So far as I see B.O.A.C. gets nothing out of it. It already has more aircraft than it needs, so it gets some more surplus capacity to add to its overall running costs, a superfluity of surplus capacity.
  We would all be grateful to the Minister if, as his first attempt to help the House in his new capacity, he would explain what the Government mean when they use the terms "free enterprise" and "competition". That explanation would have relevance to wide sections of industry and it would have special significance to this one. The argument advanced in March, 1960, was that with an expanding cake in air travel no one need suffer. The Corporations and the independents could fly happily along together in a growing market with the independents supplementing the Corporations' efforts.
  There was just one small, almost irrelevant, detail which the Government for-
  444
  got to consider, namely, what would happen if the confounded cake shrank instead of expanding. In fact, that is precisely what happened. Total traffic on the U.K.-U.S.A. East Coast route dropped by 11·8 per cent. between April-June, 1960, and April-June, 1961. With it the fight for traffic among the international airlines grew to intense proportions. At the very moment when our flag carrier was engaged in this, the Government insisted on handicapping it with the dangers of diversion of its share of traffic.
  It was interesting to read what the then Minister, who is now Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies, said on Second Reading. He said that the Bill
  "is not intended to undermine the position of B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. Those two corporations are our main flag carriers on the air routes of the world. Large sums of public money have been invested in them and they have to face fierce competition from foreign rivals. They therefore deserve, and will get, our full support and encouragement."
  The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Bill would "regularise" the existing position—allowing the independents some of the more profitable pickings— in two ways. He also said:
  "First, the monopoly of the Corporations will be brought to an end by the repeal of Section 24 of the Air Corporations Act, 1949. Secondly, a Board will be set up to whom all operators, both Corporations and independents, will be able to apply for licences on equal terms."
  The right hon. Gentleman was arguing that the Act was justified on a theory of limited competition. We would like to know what this means. Perhaps the new Minister can answer it. The former Minister argued:
  "The introduction of some element of competition between the Corporations and the independents and the continuing need for all operators to justify the retention of their existing services will, I am sure, provide an additional impetus for efficiency. I would, however, emphasise that neither the Corporations nor the independents, wish to see unrestricted cutthroat competition.
  The last thing any of them wants is a complete free-for-all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 6th March, 1960; c. 1231–3.]
  Can we be told what all that mumbo-jumbo means? Is it competition or not?
  I understand that under the terms of the agreement the new B.O.A.C.-Cunard company will be able to purchase flying

  445
  hours from B.O.A.C. for all types of aircraft. So the potential of the new company is far greater than the 10 aircraft mentioned in the agreement. Before very long B.O.A.C. will replace its existing fleet with VC10s. It is clear that not only will Cunard get the advantage of the modernised B.O.A.C. fleet, but it will be able to buy flying hours from B.O.A.C. to ensure far greater capacity than the 10 aircraft which have been mentioned.
  From the point of view of B.O.A.C. all that this will do will be to enable it to buy capacity from itself to increase the Cunard profit. This does not make sense to me, but for Cunard it solves one of the greatest problems which faces any private company, namely, when and where to develop. It can develop in a secure position established in the industry.
  The type of business—we discussed this in the debate on London's airports recently—which seems more than any other to be certain of expanding spectacularly during the next few years is the carriage of freight. B.O.A.C. was preparing for this and had for some time been in discussion with Shorts for orders to be placed for suitably adapted versions of the Belfast. I take it that the increased capacity for freight developed by B.O.A.C. will now be placed at the disposal of Cunard.
  To me, this suggests that B.O.A.C. has nothing like an acceptable agreement out of the arrangement which we axe discussing. During the last fifteen years the amount of capital involved in building up the services has cost B.O.A.C. well over £110 million—of public money. Not only does Cunard now horn in on a very substantial portion of that, but it is assured of a large portion of the returns on future freight and passenger services, and the fleet can be enlarged by the purchase of flying hours from B.O.A.C.
  I am told—and this makes the agreement even more remarkable—that none of the Cunard hangers at London Airport was big enough to house the 707s which they bought, that there were no other facilities available to them there, and that B.O.A.C. had an option on them which could have been taken up in 1963. If anybody can make sense out of this from the B.O.A.C. point of view,
  446
  I shall be pleased to hear it, because the net result of all this is that we have returned to the point at which we started, with an internal monopoly to control our share of the Atlantic routes. There is, of course, one slight difference in the monopoly. It is no longer a public monopoly. One of the flag carriers which, to quote the right hon. Gentleman, "must deserve and will get" our full support and encouragement has been forced to bow the knee to the threat of licensing contained in the 1960 Act.
  The Government's position in all this is quite remarkable. First, they set out in the 1960 Act to show us how well competition works. They told us of the impetus which it could give to industry. They set out to prove the beneficial effects which flow from the stimulus of competition, but the independents, who, in the aviation world, are the exponents of competitive private enterprise, have gobbled each other up in order to eliminate the realities of competition, while on the political side the Tories, who passed the 1960 Act to ensure that the stimulus of home competition would ensure our competitiveness in world markets, now encourage the creation of monopoly at home to save us from the wasteful nature of competition. In other words, while those who exist to practise competitive principles strive to eliminate them from their industry, the verbal advocates of competition, while still mouthing platitudes about its virtues, connive at the creation of monopoly.
  What is the Minister's argument about this? It is that monopoly is the price of efficiency. That is precisely what he said to me a few days ago. What a difference two years of freedom of the 1960 licensing Act has brought in the educational processes of Toryism.
  What happens now to the rump of the Cunard on domestic and European routes? We know that competition is out and that a tie-up with B.U.A. seems inevitable—and quite sensible, as I see it. What then? We see B.E.A. in exactly the position of B.O.A.C. on the Atlantic route. One fine day, perhaps just prior to or during a Recess, we may learn that B.E.A. has been forced into a merger with B.U.A.-Cunard, and they, too, will have scuttled away from the dangers of competition and under the

  447
  umbrella of a nationalised industry, and in the process will have eroded the public ownership of B.E.A.
  All the arguments of both B.U.A. and Cunard before the Licensing Board in efforts to grab B.E.A. routes base themselves on the virtues of competition. This is the only case which they can make, for on no single route is there a lack of capacity and, by coincidence, on each a profit is being made. This is a strange story of the erosion of great public assets.
  I started by saying that Government policy is jeopardising both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and, consequently, is adversely affecting considerable sections of the aircraft industry. How can it be otherwise when the two Corporations which, along with the Service Departments, are the principal customers of the industry, are living under the threat which I have described? B.O.A.C. has ordered £151 million worth of VC10s. B.E.A has ordered £30 million of Tridents. B.E.A. has the option of more Tridents if it wishes to take it up.
  He would be a brave man indeed, as chairman of either of these companies, to enlarge a huge capital investment of that type while such a threat was still hanging over their future. By 1965, if the Minister licenses these routes, it will cost B.E.A. £5·8 million per annum— and this is the very Government which tells us that the failure of nationalisation can be shown by the fact that it does not make profits. Hypocrisy cannot sink much lower than that.
  Some day the House will have to debate the facts of life in relation to competitive private enterprise in our great industries. I have suggested before that it is little more than Tory and Liberal mythology, which in our great industries does not exist. We are now rapidly reaching the stage at which the British people have to choose between private and public monopoly, because there are no other alternatives in most of these great industries.
  Even in the United States, the home of competitive private enterprise, Pan-American and World Air are coming to an agreement to amalgamate in order to eliminate wasteful competition on the North Atlantic run. At home, while
  448
  the Tories preach the irrelevance of public ownership, Cunard, for well over a century the emblem of competitive private enterprise, could not find sufficient enterprise to accept millions of public money to build a Q-ship because it had to find some of its own money. We now have the spectacle of Cunard scrambling away from the dangers of competition under the wing of a nationalised industry.
  This is the story of the B.O.A.C. and the Cunard merger. I hope that the people of the country will take particular notice of it, for these two great airlines, which have been publicly financed, have done an incalculable amount of good research and development to make our industry one of which we can be proud. Because of the sheer chaos created by the Government, both are jeopardised. I hope that the country will learn from this and will understand that Toryism means a bloodless society, that the anaemia of Liberalism is no alternative, and that we must get down to a properly planned economy under a Labour Government, so that we can make Britain great once again.
  4.20 p.m.
  The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Julian Amery): I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor at the Ministry of Aviation for his work for over two years in connection with aircraft for the Royal Air Force. The Air Force is indebted to him for what he has done over that period to speed up deliveries. I am not qualified to comment on his work on the civil side except to say that the initiative which he took in launching a European space launcher organisation marks the first constructive step taken to get Britain into space, and this is a contribution which I, for one, fully support.
  Last Friday morning I was in the lofty Air Council chamber that looks over the Embankment discussing with some of the air marshals the slippage in the deliveries of some aircraft. In a moment of impatience I allowed myself to say, "If I were Minister of Aviation what I would do is this…." Some of the air marshals present told me in spicy military terms what they would do if they were in that position themselves. Hardy were the words out of my mouth when the skies darkened and the ground

  449
  began to tremble, and we embarked upon the convulsions of the weekend which had some effect on the composition of the Treasury Bench. When the dust subsided I found that I was Minister of Aviation and that the usual channels, with their usual foresight, had so arranged matters that I had an opportunity to express my views on aviation policy within less than 24 hours of entering my new office.
  It is not a very easy thing to do.I have to admit, even after 24 hours in my new office, that things look rather different from another chair. It is perhaps just as well that my remarks in the Air Council were not recorded. All the same, I begin by saying that with my experience at the Air Ministry I am very concerned—I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are also very concerned—about continuous slippage in delivery times and about the steady rise in costs of many of the projects with which the Ministry of Aviation has to be associated.
  This is not a purely British experience. It happens in other countries, too. I would not for a moment pretend that the customer is always right. Quite often the Service Departments complicate the process by changing their minds half way through the development of a project and asking for new modifications. However, there is a serious problem here. It is one of the first questions to which I want to address myself. I admit freely that it is easier to identify than it is to solve.
  While I was at the Air Ministry I had many contacts with the Ministry of Aviation and more particularly with the R.A.E. at Farnborough. I was immensely impressed by the work which the Establishment does and, more particularly, by its recent development of the blind landing system. I do not know how many hon. Members have had experience of this system. It is a very strange sensation when, after circling an airfield, one begins to come down from 1,000 ft. to the airfield and the pilot takes his hands and feet off the controls and one sees the ground steadily getting nearer. There is an almost irresistible impulse to tap the pilot on the shoulder and say, "Look out, it is coming". But there is no need for that. On three suc-
  450
  cessive occasions I landed more smoothly than I have ever been landed by the best of pilots.
  Mr. John Rankin: I do not intend to deal exactly with blind landing in the setting in which the Minister described it. Is he aware that many hon. Members have failed to take part in blind landing and that I, on requesting that we should visit the station, was told that it was not opportune. Could the Minister make it opportune for hon. Members to visit the station?
  Mr. Amery: I will certainly consider the hon. Member's request. I do not know whether there was a security consideration. There may be, but, of course, I will consider his request. I am very glad that he has raised the point. I hope that any other hon. Member who wishes to approach me on any matter will always do so.
  We have decided to introduce the blind landing system for V-bombers and we are developing it to civil standards for the Belfast. An intensive evaluation is going on to see how far the system can be applied for commercial purposes. There is already a good deal of foreign interest in the system. For instance, the Americans have had one of their airfields fitted with the ground equipment and have sent over one of their aircraft to be fitted with the airborne equipment. That aircraft has now returned to America for trials. In all this the Committee will appreciate that it will be very important to establish accepted international standards so that the same blind landing systems can be operated in the different countries between which aircraft operate.
  The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) raised a number of important points. He was kind enough to give me notice of some of them. When answering some of his questions I shall be vary careful and guarded, for reasons which I am sure that he will appreciate. I am conscious that there is a serious situation in the aircraft industry. I am also conscious that my own experience of it is all too limited. I do not want to say anything which would make the task of the industry more difficult.
  I want to deal, first, with the question of B.A.O.C. and the Cunard Company.

  451
  I do not pretend to be a master of this subject, but from the little I have seen since I came to the office last night, and from the discussions I have had within the Department, I have personally come to the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman's misgivings are very largely unjustified. As he knows, my predecessor refused a licence to Cunard Eagle to operate an independent service. After that, B.A.O.C. and Cunard got down to talks together on their own initiative. I understand that there was no initiative from the Ministry of Aviation. It was the decision of B.O.A.C. and Cunard. It was taken after consultation with their professional advisers.
  The hon. Member for Newton asked what B.A.O.C. got out of it. I do not know, but we did not push the Corporation into it. It came to the conclusion that in the circumstances at that time it was the right thing to do. It is true that we were consulted. The Corporation was under no obligation statutorily to consult us, but it did consult us and my predecessor saw no reason to object. Given the circumstances at the time—I am not going back to the question of the 1960 Act; I am concerned merely with the circumstances of the time—I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman, if he had been in my predecessor's chair, would have taken a different view.
  My predecessor thought—for what it is worth, I have come to the same conclusion—that it was in the best interests of British aviation that the two groups should co-operate to secure for Britain, which is what really matters to everybody, the maximum share in an already highly competitive North Atlantic traffic.
  Mr. Lee: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about what would have happened if I had been in his predecessor's chair. I must remind him that, if I had been in that chair, there would have been no Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act. I would have seen to that.
  Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman would have had to face a completely different situation. There was an already established Cunard Company operating. We cannot go back every time to earlier Acts and say what should have been done then or later. My predecessor had to face this situation, and he thought in
  452
  the circumstances at the time that this was the best thing to do.
  The hon. Member for Newton asked me certain specific questions. He asked about trooping. I understand that it is not relevant in this case. These are scheduled flights, not charter flights. They are directed to the Eastern seaboard of the United States, the Caribbean and South America. The hon. Gentleman asked about special obligations.
  Mr. Lee: I must apologise to the Minister for interrupting again so soon. I am sure that he is trying to be helpful. I know that at the moment they are running on this route. I asked about the principle when there is an amalgamation between a nationalised corporation and a private firm. If such a development were to take place in Europe, would they be eligible to take part in trooping?
  Mr. Amery: Surely we must not be too doctrinaire about these things. The hon. Gentleman asks what the position is in principle. I am stating what the position is in practice on this issue. All these things must be judged on their merits. It is a great mistake to try to run every aspect of our economy on doctrinaire lines.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned social and other obligations. My understanding is that all previous obligations of B.O.A.C. are accepted by the merged company in the fields in which it is to operate. As for responsibility to Parliament, there will be accountability to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries; that Committee will no doubt be able to summon and question B.O.A.C. directors in respect of their stewardship of the B.O.A.C. investment. The Minister will be open to question in the House, subject to the accepted rule that he is not responsible for matters of day-to-day management.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the joint company pay B.O.A.C. salaries in all cases?
  Mr. Amery: I should want notice of that question. I do not know the answer. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
  As I have said, we want to avoid being doctrinaire on a matter of this kind. The

  453
  hon. Member for Newton asked what we mean by free enterprise and by competition. He asked what is the exact principle of philosophy behind all this. At the last General Election the Leader of the Opposition advocated public investment in private enterprise. This is private investment in public enterprise. It is not so very different. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
  There are other very successful examples of this kind of thing—British Petroleum and, in other countries, the K.L.M. and S.A.S. airlines. I know that this question of nationalisation is a very sensitive subject for the Labour Party, but what we are concerned with is not public enterprise or private enterprise, but British enterprise and getting as large a share as we can of the world air routes and the very valuable foreign exchange which they bring.
  Let me now turn to the more serious problem which, I think, faces us in this debate, which is the prospect of some redundancy in certain sections of the industry. This is a very large industry. It is larger by comparison than the whole of the rest of the Western European aircraft industries put together. It represents 10 per cent. of our engineering exports. It is vital to our defence, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is a very considerable advertisement for Britain. I was recently travelling in South-East Asia, in a Comet IV, and was able to judge for myself the big impression which this aircraft is making on public opinion in other countries.
  The total size of the industry has fluctuated a great deal but, broadly speaking, since 1957, it has been a little above or a little below the 300,000 level. It was 308,000 in 1957, which was the highest figure, and in 1959 it went down to 288,000, and now it is 298,000. There are two closely connected problems, but for the sake of the discussion one can separate them. There is, first, the problem of the design teams, and there is also the problem of the production teams.
  The hon. Member for Newton spoke of the problems of Rolls-Royce. I was not notified that the hon. Gentleman was likely to raise that question until just before the debate. Rolls-Royce has had difficulties on the production team side, but it is rather anxious about the design
  454
  team side. I have a delegation coming to see me, led, I think, by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) early next week, and I shall brief myself in readiness for it, though I cannot give any details about it now.
  The issue is really this. Everything depends on the existence of customers. Who are the customers? They are the civil airlines, both the Corporations, and the private operators, the military air forces and the other civil and military customers abroad. Let me take the civil side first. We are at the moment, as the Committee knows, supporting the Hawker Siddeley Trident project and the VC10. I saw the VC10 fly the other day, and it seems to me to be a very promising aircraft. I think that the firm is thinking of developing it. There is also the B.A.C. 111. We are supporting all these projects, which can give a certain amount of work to the design team, but I would be the first to admit that they have passed the peak of their design work.
  More important, looking ahead on the civil side, is the question whether this country should undertake the development of a supersonic airliner. We are carrying out a design study with the French Government and French interests, and Government money has been committed on both sides of the Channel. If the decision is taken to go ahead with this project, it will mean a great deal of design work in the early stages and a great deal of production work later. This is one project which hon. Members should keep in mind.
  On the military side, as the Committee is aware, in addition to the 10 Belfasts, five VC10s are on order for the R.A.F. as strategic troop transports. One of the possibilities we are now considering as part of the defence review would involve an increase in the long-range transport force, but I cannot at present say what form this will take or whether it will be undertaken.
  When I was at the Air Ministry, I took a great interest in the development of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft to operate in the ground attack role, as I told the House on more than one occasion. I am glad to be able to say something about this in connection with the P1154. This is a design submitted by Hawkers, based on the work

  455
  done and the good results obtained from the P1127. It is a single engine supersonic aircraft, using vectored thrust to give it vertical take-off capability, and also the ability to make full use of any take-off run that might be available.
  The vectored thrust engine, which is a British invention, has many advantages. It avoids problems of ground erosion, since the jets need only point downwards at the instant of take-off, and this, in the general concept of vertical take-off, may be useful. We are proceeding with the first stages of the development of this aircraft as a Hunter, and possibly a Sea Vixen, replacement. We are backing the aircraft in N.A.T.O. and hope that other countries will join with us in its full development.
  Mr. Rankin: While the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the V.T.O.L. aircraft, can he say something about its civil capabilities?
  Mr. Amery: I have long held the view that in defence the V.T.O.L. will come more and more into plans for aircraft building, but that is all I can say at the moment.
  In one particular field we have made a rather important step forward, and it is now apparent that it is possible, on the basis of the vectored thrust engine, to build a supersonic ground attack fighter aircraft. The P1127, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, was not a supersonic aircraft. It was a subsonic aircraft and it did not quite meet the full military requirement: the new one goes some way further, and is a very interesting development.
  Mr. Roy Mason: Has any estimate been made yet of the export potential?
  Mr. Amery: There is a N.A.T.O. competition for an aircraft of this kind, and it will have to compete with other contenders for this kind of aircraft. We are backing it in N.A.T.O., and hope that some other countries will join in its full development, but I cannot anticipate the results of the competition. There is also a problem of the tactical transport aircraft to replace the Hastings and the Beverley, but it is not yet decided what kind of aircraft it should be and when it shall be introduced.
  456
  Summing up what I have said in the field of requirements, we have a number of promising starters, though I must be cautious about them. None of them is a certainty and it is not in my hands to say whether they will be chosen or not. If some of them reach the post, there will clearly be a good deal of design and production work for the industry, and it is against this background that I want to say a word about the problem of Shorts. I myself and the Government as a whole are very well aware of the serious employment situation that prevails in Northern Ireland. Personally, I have long connections with Northern Ireland, and I am deeply conscious of what is happening there today.
  A number of hon. Members have been to Northern Ireland to see the Shorts' set-up for themselves, and they talked with our chairman, because we are 70 per cent. holders in this company, Mr. Wrangham.
  I had to postpone my visit at the request of the company because it was not convenient for the company at that particular time. I hope to go soon and see the situation for myself. I am advised that on the production side, the 7,000 employment level at present prevailing can be maintained until next summer. The firm is engaged at the moment on two major projects for the Government—the Belfast strategic freighter, of which 10 have been ordered for the R.A.F. and the Seacat Naval Surface/Air Guided Weapon, which is proving a good export, and orders have been secured from Sweden, Germany, Australia and New Zealand.
  The immediate problem concerns the future of the design team. Our hopes for exports of the Belfast freighter have so far been disappointed. It is very hard to assess what the prospects of a modified Belfast would be, and in trying to judge the prospects of the design team I cannot add very much to what I said earlier when speaking generally about the design picture. I cannot say now what the Government's decisions are likely to be on the military orders to be placed, and I am sure that no one would suggest that we should order the wrong aeroplane for social or economic reasons. The Committee would not want us to do that.

  457
  I cannot give a date when the decision will be taken. What I can say is that when I left the Air Ministry we were expecting to take decisions shortly. I am very well aware that the Northern Ireland people will want to have a decision and know as soon as possible what it is to be.
  Just before this debate I saw Lord Brookeborough, who is here on a visit with a number of his colleagues, and the predominant impression I brought away from that meeting was their need to know. I shall do all in my power to make sure that the decision is brought about as soon as possible—
  Mr. Stratton Mills: I realise that my right hon. Friend has difficulty in giving an exact date on which we can have a decision, but is it likely to be before the Summer Recess, or in the early autumn, or when? I should like him to elaborate on that, rather than leave it as it is.
  Mr. Amery: I fully understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. I wish that I could help him, but nothing is more difficult than to forecast dates when the decisions that have to be taken concern a number of other people. I am not in a position to forecast what it will be, but I would say that the important thing is to get a decision quickly, because what the Northern Ireland Government need to know is what the future will be, so I undertake that in so far as I am concerned with the matter I shall do all I can to get on with it, and arrive at a decision as soon as possible—
  Mr. Stratton Mills: Yes, but will it be a matter of months or will it be a matter of years?
  Mr. Amery: I am not thinking in terms of years at all, but it is difficult to say whether it will be now, or in the autumn, or at what precise time because, at the moment, I do not know, and I do not want to mislead the Committee—
  Mr. Wigg: As I understand it, Rolls-Royce offered to produce a stage 5 Tyne on payment of a sum of money which I shall not mention. Are the Government reopening negotiations with Rolls-Royce to find out what figure Rolls-Royce will want to produce the stage 5 Tyne? In any case, there is bound
  458
  to be a trough in which the Northern Ireland workers will be caught. The Minister also said that the Committee would not expect the Government to take a decision on social and political grounds, but this constitutes a major change of policy, for the original decision taken by the Government was for just that reason.
  Mr. Amery: As so often in other matters, the hon. Gentleman is very fully informed on an aspect on which, frankly, I am not informed at the moment, but I will look at that point, and try to unravel the complexities with the officials of my Department.
  As to the latter part of his intervention, what I say is that I am sure that the Committee would not want us to get the wrong aircraft simply because of a very serious situation of a non-military character. I am sure that would be contrary to opinion in the Committee—and also contrary to Northern Ireland public opinion, a part of the United Kingdom that has produced more field marshals than any other. To produce an aircraft that the Services do not want would, surely be illogical. Perhaps the Services will want it, but I cannot anticipate that—
  Mr. Mason: But the right hon. Gentleman, more than anybody else, should know about this. He has just left the Air Ministry, and should know whether the Royal Air Force, in its discussions with him over the last twelve months, has made it known to him that it is desirous of having more of these aircraft or not, and he should have indicated to Shorts long before now whether the Belfast is to be ordered in greater quantities than ten.
  Secondly, there is the question of coming to a decision. How long must these people wait? It is no use the right hon. Gentleman fobbing off his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) by saying that he cannot say until possibly the autumn or next year. This is not a new problem. The Ministry has had the matter before it for a long time. The right hon. Gentleman may be a new Minister, but the problem is not new, and we cannot afford to await a decision much longer.
  Mr. Amery: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that he wants

  459
  a decision now, but he knows quite enough about how the Government machine works to know that there are many considerations that have to be weighed one against the other.
  There is the problem of money, and of the different requirements of the Services over the whole field. The defence budget has to be drawn up with great care, and competing requirements carefully considered. Certain things go forward and others do not. The normal period for arriving at that particular decision is about this summer. I did not tell my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) that it would be in the autumn of next year. I said that I was not thinking in terms of years, but in terms of a relatively short period—
  Mr. Wigg: Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of this matter. On 11th February, 1959, the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations put before the House a picture of the Government, by gigantic intellectual effort, an achievement worthy of Christopher Columbus, having found a military use for the Britannic, as it was called. But in an Adjournment debate on 4th May, 1960. it was revealed that this was only political convenience in the Minister's mind.
  Since that time the people of Northern Ireland have become the victims of the Government's shilly-shallying. It is absolutely clear that if there is to be an extended version of this aircraft the firm must be able to spread its development costs, and an ex-Secretary of State for Air should know that. If he does not, I can only congratulate the Royal Air Force on his new appointment.
  Mr. Amery: I reject altogether the hon. Gentleman's insinuation that we did not want an aeroplane of this kind, and I am absolutely clear that the order for 10 Belfasts will be very valuable and useful to the Royal Air Force. It can carry things that no other aircraft available over the time scale can carry. The problem is to decide what is needed next. That is quite a different story, and the decision is one that we cannot anticipate now—
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: My right hon. Friend has summarised very well the various factors that the Government must weigh in coming to a decision on the aeroplane, but have they considered the factor of redundancy in the design team, and Shorts' difficulty in getting it together again? Has he considered as a solution at least an interim order to carry on further design and research to keep the team together pending a decision? This is a vital point, particularly in respect of morale.
  Mr. Amery: I am very conscious of that and, because of it, I have stressed that the most important thing is to get an early decision. I will certainly think over what my hon. Friend says about an interim design study, but as I understand that that takes some time to get launched I would think it more important to get a decision quickly, if we can.
  The Committee has been rightly concerned in the past with problems of air safety. This is a matter on which this country has a very good record, and one to which I personally gave a good deal of thought in my last office. Much depends here on the system of air traffic control. My predecessor and the former Secretary of State for Air, whose judgment I have always found to be extremely reliable, came to the conclusion that if the future requirements for air traffic control in the limited air space over this country were to be met, there would need to be a unified system of control for both civil and military air traffic.
  As a first step towards the establishment of such a system, he asked Sir Laurence Sinclair, who was Controller of Ground Services in the Ministry of Aviation, to consider how best to bring together in a single headquarters the existing staffs in separate Departments; the staffs, that is, concerned with policy, planning, and the formulation of operational requirements for air traffic control. Sir Laurence has now produced certain proposals which are being considered by the Departments concerned.
  I should have liked to have answered more fully some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Newton, and to have had an opportunity to answer some of the points that I am sure will be

  461
  raised later. The Parliamentary Secretary will seek to do that when he winds up the debate. He has great experience of the industry, and a deep knowledge of the technology connected with it. The Government, and the Committee, will benefit very much from his co-operation.
  My own approach to our problems is plain enough. I want to see a strong aircraft industry, strong enough to support efficient civil operators and powerful military air forces. We have to keep our production in the forefront, and I hope that, in due course, we shall be able to get into space.
  The news that the X15 spacecraft was space-borne yesterday is an extremely interesting and stimulating thought. It presents an immense challenge to our scientists and industry. There are enormous financial difficulties, but they must be overcome and it may be that co-operation with France and Europe on the lines of E.L.D.O. and the supersonic airliner offers the best opportunity.
  I will try on another occasion to get down to greater detail on how I think these things should be done. I do not wish to delay the Committee by reading undigested Departmental briefs, or by expressing views of my own without a fuller knowledge of the facts. "In God we trust, the rest we check" is a good motto for an incoming Minister. I welcome the debate, not as an opportunity to expound Government policy, but for my hon. Friend and myself to learn from the very beginning of our assumption of office something of the views and feelings of the House of Commons on a matter which we all recognise is of the first importance to our economic life and national security.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I am sure that hon. Members were rather surprised at the somewhat abrupt termination of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I was disappointed that he should have dismissed the problem of air safety, the subject with which I particularly wish to deal, in a single sentence by dealing only with Air Traffic Control.
  I would like, first, to offer my welcome to the right hon. Gentleman on assuming his new office. I would have thought that he might have come to
  462
  his new job substantially informed, because part of aviation came under his direct observation when he was Secretary of State for Air. He might, as a result, have spoken with a little more freedom on some aspects of the issues facing us. As he knows, changes are taking place in Scotland. His right hon. Friend, his predecessor, had agreed to come to Glasgow and Edinburgh on 24th July next, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the obligations which go with his new office and keep this appointment.
  The White Paper dealing with the future of Scotland's airports has become a burning topic. It has become tied up with the future of Abbotsinch, and there are rumours that Glasgow and Edinburgh, or a consortium of municipalities in the area, should take over the airport at Abbotsinch. It is being hinted quite freely that if they do not see their way to do so the Government will disinterest themselves in the future of Abbotsinch and more or less leave things at Renfrew as at present, although it is incapable of handling the increasing amount of traffic. The alternative would be for aircraft to go to Prestwick.
  The following figures show why that should not be done. In 1961 B.E.A. handled 751,000 passengers at Renfrew, an increase of 110,000 over 1960. Up to June this year 389,000 passengers were handled there as compared with 330,000 up to June, 1961, an increase of 59,000. That increase is, of course, welcome, but the increase for this year portends to be even greater than the whole of 1962 and more than the 110,000 in 1961, simply because the three busiest months of the summer—July, August and September—still lie ahead; which in 1960 alone saw 261,000 passengers handled at Renfrew out of a total of 641,000.
  These figures reveal that by the end of 1962 there will have been an even greater increase than that which occurred in 1961. It would be unfortunate if anything were done by the Minister to disturb the business which is now being done at Glasgow's airport. It would be completely wrong even to suggest that there should be a transfer of this business to Prestwick. I realise that Prestwick is also doing well and

  463
  we in Scotland welcome this. Total terminal passengers there last year numbered 198,795 while those in transit numbered about 167,000. This total of more than 366,000 passengers represents good and increasing business.
  Although that business exists it would be wrong to do anything to disturb what is going on at Renfrew—other than the transfer to Abbotsinch, which is the proper location. Abbotsinch has an acreage of 773 and is the largest airport in Scotland—double the size of Presitwick. I hope that in coming to his decision the Minister will ensure that nothing is done to harm the future prospects of Abbotsinch and the business which could be done there.
  Many people say that it is just as easy to get to Prestwick as to Renfrew. Last weekend I took the trouble to check the scheduled times. The scheduled time to Renfrew is twenty-five minutes from Glasgow. It is five minutes longer to Abbotsinch. The scheduled time to Prestwick is sixty minutes, and since most of the business done at Renfrew belongs to Glasgow and the immediately surrounding area it would be fatal to displace this traffic and transfer it far away from the city, which would be the result if it were sent to Prestwick.
  Tribute should also be paid to the business which has been built up by the off-peak services. These show after a full year's operation an average passenger load of 87 per cent. This is better than is provided by the ordinary passenger services; because the fare is only three guineas. Later I shall urge the importance of cheap fares in the expansion of air traffic but I want to speak chiefly about air safety.
  As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman merely brushed aside air safety by saying that we wanted to do more about air traffic control. I agree that we want controls but that is not the only problem. I was attracted back to this topic which I dealt with first on 14th February, 1947. Fifteen months later I returned to it in another debate in the House, and from time to time it has been frequently discussed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee; because it is the important thing in air travel. We must
  464
  carry passengers safely. We must get more and more people into the air.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: And get them down again.
  Mr. Rankin: Yes, we must get them down safely, and the House of Commons has pledged itself that its policy in air travel is safety first, safety second and safety all the time.
  The Economist, in an interesting article last weekend, said:
  "The number of people at risk in any single accident is rising rapidly."
  Tightening airworthiness regulations will not remove one risk peculiar to charter flying—the risk that pilots may be strange to the routes on which they are flying. I raised this issue a week ago last Monday in a Question in which I asked the Minister if he would do some research on the relative safety of jet aircraft and piston-engined aircraft. [Interruption.] I do not want to disturb the consultations between the newly elected, but I should hope that the emotions which accompany promotions have now subsided and perhaps I can now have the attention of the two Ministers concerned.
  The Minister, in his reply on that occasion—and I assume that the Parliamentary Secretary will have studied it —said that these large jet aircraft had been in service for only a short time whereas piston-engined aircraft, even the largest, had been in service for a very long time. That was a badly informed answer, for the simple reason that the piston-engined Vanguard came into service only in April, 1960.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Vanguard is not piston-engined.
  Mr. Rankin: I am sorry if I was not making the point quite clearly, but I included the turbo-props. As I have said, the Vanguard has been in service only since April, 1960, which is not as long a period of service as that of the Boeing. The Minister went on to say that in the attempt to make flying safer he proposed to apply progressively some of the modern standards of air safety to the older aircraft where they are relevant to the type of construction. This was a rather guarded statement, but anything that increases the safety factor in the air must be welcomed.

  465
  In 1960 there were 103 accidents to powered aircraft not engaged on public transport, and 10 of these were fatal. This compares with 91 for the previous year, 11 of which were fatal. I agree that the increase is very small but the fact remains that it is there.
  In public transport twelve accidents happened to aircraft on scheduled passenger services, six to aircraft on non-scheduled passenger services, and one to aircraft on a scheduled freight service. This compares with a total of 19 for 1959. So far we have no returns for 1961 but recent happenings must be fresh in everyone's mind. The figures I have quoted are taken from an official publication on air accidents which is available in the Library.
  On 14th February, 1947, in reply to a debate on air safety, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, as it then was, said:
  "We shall not be satisfied until we reach that high standard of efficiency in which accidents will be things of the past …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 749.]
  The simple question I put to the Minister is: are they? Of course they are not. Since those words were spoken, aircraft constructed to fly the Atlantic on three engines have crashed on four. Air accidents from time to time over the years have seen the entire complement of an aircraft killed on the ground; drowned in the sea; or burned to death. For these reasons we simply cannot dismiss this problem as being in any way solved by better forms of air control however desirable those may be.
  I agree that many of these accidents were no concern of the Minister's, but the type of machine flown was the type in use in this country and that fact must concern him. The Alitalia airliner which crashed in India a fortnight ago was the fifth big jet accident this year. The death roll to date is 872. We have many villages with populations of that sort, consisting of 800 or 900 persons, and if such a village were suddenly wiped out as these people have been it would have a tremendous impact on people's minds. We cannot merely say that it is a pity and pass by. In the first part of this year 872 persons have been killed in aircraft accidents, despite the fact that fifteen years ago we wore looking forward to the time when we would no longer be troubled by them.
  466
  It is obvious that we have got to think in different terms about accidents. We still use the formula that they are related to the number of millons of passenger miles flown. But nowadays we have got to regard accidents in terms of human life because of their obliterative effect and because of their finality. As aircraft get larger the risk increases. If a DH Rapide with five or seven persons crashed, it was a pity. But when a jet aircraft crashes with 150 persons on board it becomes a tragedy, and this is the fact that we must face.
  It has been estimated in one of our periodicals that if the number of crashes that have occurred so far this year are to be taken as a guide for the future, we can look forward to one major crash per month. We recognise that an aeroplane is liable to accident like every other type of machine, but a fault in the engines of the "Queen Mary" will still leave her afloat. If something goes wrong with the power unit of a jet aircraft she streaks to oblivion like a rocket. She has no crash-worthiness, as the Economist called it last week, or, as I christened it fifteen years ago, "crash survivability". It is the business of our experts aided by our Ministers to find an aerodynamic formula which will supply what I call this missing link in air travel.
  I know that many suggestions have been made. We must try to devise some sort of apparatus which will automatically come into effect when an accident takes place. Before the war, when we spoke of the ejector seat the idea was regarded as farcical and we were told that it was impossible. But when war came and it was discovered that while aircraft were expendable highly-trained pilots were not expendable, the ejector seat became a possibility and is now a fact. Perhaps it would be possible to utilise something on the lines of the ejector seat, based on a much larger idea involving a retarding force such as we have in the helicopter, so that at the pressing of a button a windmill device will immediately come into operation, thus using the air as a retarding force to diminish the speed of the aircraft as it heads for the earth. We have got to think in terms of finding something that

  467
  will slow down this rocket descent of the aeroplane when anything untoward happens in mid-flight.
  I should like to know whether the characteristics of the V.T.O.L. aircraft, developed for civilian use, could be introduced into other types of aircraft so that their descent would be sufficiently slowed to enable passengers to land without injury. I trust that experiment will continue so that we can attain this objective of safety for passengers in flight.
  In view of what has been happening we are driven back to a comparison of relative safety between scheduled and charter aircraft. That is a point which I raised just over a week ago. It would seem that the proportion of accidents occurring on non-scheduled flights is much greater than that on scheduled flights. The Economist, quoting from "Flight", observed that 40 per cent. of passengers killed in the previous twelve months were flying in charter aircraft, and this is out of all proportion to the scale of the operations which represent about 5 per cent. of world traffic.
  This raises another point. Familiarity with the routes which are being flown is essential and, while the pilot of aircraft on scheduled flights gets an intensive route training, this is impossible for the charter pilot. He must, of course, make sure that he has taken all necessary steps to study his route, but who ensures that the airline does its job and sees that in fact he does so? We have no guarantee that, whatever may be the responsibility of the pilot, the airline ensures that the rules are duly observed. This is driving many observers back to a view, which I do not take and which I have rejected for a long time, that the pilot should necessarily be blamed for most of the accidents. Many people believed that the pilot was chiefly to blame until it was shown that the structural weakness in a machine could also be a factor, and this was proved in the case of the Comet and the Electra.
  The human factor has been revived by the death last Saturday through thrombosis of the co-pilot of a machine when about to land at Prestwick. One wonders if the medical examination that is supposed to be carried out periodically was, in fact, carried out as
  468
  thoroughly as it should have been when a person who was about to ground his machine died from thrombosis.
  What has been happening in the last few months raises a great many points from which we cannot pass lightly. It is difficult to find any common reason for them; there seems to be no common factor. One point which emerges, however, is that while there have been no accidents to Boeings which are being flown by B.O.A.C.—[Interruption.] I am talking about the last six months; that is my point. It leads us to wonder to what extent supervision and care of the machines plays its part in these accidents.
  We need all the airport aids that we possess; and we want to increase them wherever possible. Instability at the landing point, when the pilot is probably most tired after a long flight, say, across the Atlantic, brings us back to the view that automatic aids must be developed to aid the pilot at that stage. As we have seen, fire is always a possibility. We should be told what is being done to render its outbreak less likely than has sometimes been the case.
  There are three matters which demand the attention of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. The first is that mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman himself concerning the need for a supersonic aircraft. That embodies research. The second is the need to get more people into the air, which necessitates more aircraft and must mean cheaper fares and more work, not only at Short's, in Northern Ireland, but, I hope, at Prestwick, in Scotland. We, too, are calling for aids to ease the problem of unemployment in our midst.
  The third point which demands the attention of the Minister is the continuing search for more and more safety in the air. This means greater research on the lines I have indicated, because if we urge more people to travel, we must guarantee that having taken them into the air, we will land them safely at their destination.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I trust that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) will forgive me if in my contribution to the debate I do not follow him except for his final remarks. I should like, first, to

  469
  say a sincere word of congratulation to my right hon. Friend the Minister on his appointment and a particular word of welcome and congratulation to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I am very glad to see a young man with such interest in, and experience of, industry in this key position in the Government. I particularly welcome him today.
  Quite a lot has been said in the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) in opening, about the future of a firm in my constituency, namely, Short Brothers and Harland. It is in particular in respect of this firm that I should like to address the Committee this afternoon.
  If I may be permitted to give a brief resume of its history, this is one of our oldest aircraft-producing firms. It started its life producing balloons at the end of the last century, and 50 years ago it started producing aircraft. In 1910, it produced the Tractor biplane, and as early as 1914 a seaplane, the Canton Unne, which was used, together with other seaplanes produced by Short Brothers, in one of the first bombing raids of the First World War in 1914.
  The company went on to produce, in 1920, the Silver Streak, the first aircraft with a stressed skin, which at the time was thought impossible but is now the standard method of constructing aircraft. It produced the first little stressed skin seaplane, the Cockle, in 1923, and it went on to produce other aircraft, including the large four-engined Empire line of flying-boats which were used extensively throughout the Empire and by the R.A.F. all over the world and which, in 1937 and 1938, operating the first regular trans-Atlantic passenger service, carried the colours of this country and raised us to a first-class aviation nation.
  Short Brothers and Harland also produced experimental aircraft such the Mayo Composite, with two aircraft one on top of the other, rather like the X15, to which my right hon. Friend has today referred. It was the first example of a mother aircraft launching another in flight. The company produced the Stirling bombers during the war and the Short Sunderland flying boat, which many hon. Members will remember. It also produced the first four-engine jet bomber, the Sperin, after the war in
  470
  1951, and as well as the Britannia and the SB5, about which a great deal has been written and said in technical journals in recent years. This is a variable geometry aircraft with swept-back wings. In addition Shorts developed the first vertical take-off multiple jet plane the S.C.I, which is still being evaluated and embodies a principle rather different from that to which my right hon. Friend referred when he spoke about the Hawker P1127, a principle which is, perhaps, better adapted to a civil vertical take-off plane requiring more than one engine with a deflected jet and which would carry heavier loads than this support attack aircraft referred to by my right hon. Friend. The work on all the problems of stabilisation and the difficult problems of control connected with this pioneering venture was carried out in Belfast by Short Brothers and Harland.
  Hon. Members, on both sides, will appreciate, therefore, that this firm, one of our first aircraft manufacturers, which is so threatened today, has a tremendous history. I stress as my first point that it would be a tragedy to our aircraft manufacturers to allow this firm to go down the drain.
  The factory in which the company is situated lies in an area of, unfortunately, high unemployment. In Northern Ireland, we have 7½ per cent. unemployment. It lies beside the great shipbuilding yards of Harland and Wolff and the raw materials can be brought in by boat and landed at the doors of the factory. There is an aerodrome beside the factory from which the aircraft can take off. This is an enormous advantage to Northern Ireland. It is the most suitable type of industry that we could possibly have to help us in our problems of unemployment, because one of our difficulties in attracting industry to Northern Ireland is transport costs.
  Here is an ideal industry, producing aircraft, with a long history of production and a fine record. Its work accounts for many man-hours and requires comparatively little material. It is an industry which is essential for Northern Ireland. This has been recognised by the Government. Various Ministers have stressed the importance of Short Brothers to Northern Ireland and have accepted the idea that the aircraft industry is ideal for Northern Ireland.

  471
  My right hon. Friend for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), when Minister of Supply, said in the House on 2nd December, 1957:
  "It is the Government's wish that Short and Harland's shall continue as a fully balanced aircraft production unit and everything practicable is being done both by the firm and the Government to this end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 3.]
  His hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said later, on 22nd May, 1958:
  "I assure the hon. Members concerned that all practical steps will be taken to maintain the firm as a fully balanced aircraft design and production unit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1958; Vol. 588, c. 1619.]
  Much more recently, my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Aviation, now the Minister of Defence, visited the factory in Belfast, his visit being reported in the local Press as follows:
  "Earlier, the Minister had told leaders of the Federation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions that it was the policy of the U.K. Government to retain Short Brothers and Harland as a balanced and self-contained development, research and productive unit in the aircraft industry …. He said that it was important to the Government and himself to retain a balanced labour force in the aircraft industry here. He felt that it would be a great pity if such a skilled labour force and technical research group as they had in Northern Ireland should be dissipated. Their technical research team in his opinion compared with the best in the world … Mr. Thorneycroft referred to the policy of the British Government in the giving of orders outside the two big mergers in Britain."
  Shorts is not within the merger.
  "He said the position of Northern Ireland must not and would not be forgotten. His predecessor said there would be two aircraft groups, but that also, on the grounds of public policy, it would be right to step outside these groups in the placing of contracts. Everyone agreed Northern Ireland industry was a ground of public policy to justify stepping outside the mergers."
  I think it has been accepted, and Ministers have affirmed this continuously since 1948, that it is the Government's intention to retain Short Bros, and Harland. Therefore, it was not without concern that I listened to my right hon. Friend in his opening speech today stating that he could not decide, and that there would be delay in deciding, What kind of transport aircraft was to be ordered. The Government could not make up their mind now. They would have to consider and weigh the possibilities. This is a problem which has been placed before the Ministry many
  472
  times by the firm, by myself and by my fellow Unionist Members. This is not a new problem.
  The position has become so serious that on 15th June, only a month ago, the chairman of the company said that unless further orders were forthcoming the firm would have to close down. My right hon. Friend said that there was enough work for another two years and that there would be no redundancy until next summer. I am informed by the company itself that redundancy in the design staff will start within a month unless further orders are placed. Therefore, I would stress the very great urgency of coming to a quick decision on this vital point. If a decision cannot be taken within a month some type of development work should be placed with the firm, as I suggested in my intervention, so as to justify the firm in retaining its development staff, work such as the ordering of the Tyne 5 would create, a matter which was referred to in my earlier intervention, thus enabling the company to carry on work Which would keep the design team together. Once the design team broke up it would be impossible to get the men back again. Not only would the men go to other firms in England and America but the executives would leave, and when they leave they cannot be replaced.
  I wish to stress some other points which have a bearing on the matter. Not only has the work done at Shorts of particular value to the economy of Northern Ireland, but the company has also taken a leading part in apprentice training. If Northern Ireland is to attract new industry it is vital that such training should go on. The company has started a school at the Technical College and at Queen's University, and has initiated a chair of aeronautical engineering. Both the company and individual directors have been very active in advanced education. They have the most up-to-date ideas. Some of their team have gone to America in order to develop techniques and to bring them back to this country to be used in the research and development connected with the study and testing of new aircraft. By so doing the firm has built up the most advanced team in Britain.
  This is one of the things that Northern Ireland will stand to lose if the firm is

  473
  not retained as a balanced unit. It has been suggested that perhaps it would be possible to diversify its activities. The firm has already gone in for diversification. It has produced a very successful missile, the Sea Cat, which sells not only in this country but in many N.A.T.O. countries. The company has produced analog computers, fork-lift trucks and even small carpet sweepers. However, there is a limit to this diversification.
  Of eight thousand employees, 6,000 are employed on aircraft production. As the chairman said, the future of these enterprises depends on the success of the aircraft factory. If it were to close down, then the other factories would go and the loss to Belfast would be tremendous. In the past year I have seen 12,000 men laid off from Harland and Wolff in my constituency due to the recession in shipbuilding. A further 7,000 to 8,000 men are threatened at Short Brothers, making a total of some 20,000 men. This is something which could not be faced in Northern Ireland —20,000 men being declared redundant in the course of a year or two.
  The history in connection with the Belfast is that the order was not placed until 1960. Negotiations went on through 1959 and finally a fixed price contract was offered to Shorts, the first of its kind to be placed in this country for an aircraft of this size. The Services were getting a very cheap aircraft, one based on the Brittania and on the engines which were in the Vanguard. By doing this the company cut to a minimum the development costs. The aircraft has cost about one-third what it would have cost to develop a completely new transporter, either turboprop or jet. In spite of this, the company has developed an aircraft which meets entirely Army requirements.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the delays in production of aircraft and mounting costs. There have been some delays in connection with the Belfast because the Army continually changed its mind regarding what it wanted the plane to carry. The Army has now a plane with a fuselage measuring 12 ft. by 12 ft. There is no other plane big enough to take a Chieftan tank. It is 64 ft. long. Only ten of these aircraft have been ordered, but the Minister consented
  474
  to the development costs being spread over thirty aircraft. I should like to be told why there is this hesitation in placing further orders.
  Of the ten aircraft ordered, how many will be available to meet the strategic needs of the Air Force? I suggest that by the time one or two of the aircraft have been evaluated and used for development and if perhaps another, unfortunately, meeting with an accident, as happens all too frequently these days, we shall be lucky if five or six of the ten are left. Do the Government really suggest that these ten are sufficient to meet the strategic requirements of the British Army towards the end of the 1960s?
  The aircraft as it stands is capable of carrying an enormous load. It can carry 45 tons—and I stress 45 tons—for a distance of 1,000 miles, or, if required for a longer hop, it can carry 15 tons for 4,000 miles. The lower freight is the result, of course, of the need to take more fuel.
  The plane can carry every piece of the Army's modern mobile equipment. A typical payload would be three Saladin armoured cars with their crews. As a troop carrier, with two decks and dense seating, it will carry 240 men and their equipment for its maximum range across the Atlantic.
  The Army has seen the plane. Many staff officers have been to the factory in Northern Ireland where the first two planes are reaching the final stage of construction and they have been very impressed with its capacity and potential. They are, I believe, well satisfied and enthusiastic about the future of this future of this colossal plane.
  Mr. John Cronin: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the Army is particularly satisfied because there is at present no efficient long-range strategic freighter of any kind in the Royal Air Force. The Army would be very happy to accept anything, quite apart from the good qualities of the Belfast.
  Mr. McMaster: I am obliged for that intervention. It emphasises the point. The officers who saw the "mock-up" of the plane at the last demonstration of weapons were extremely satisfied with it.

  475
  Also the plane is capable of being stretched. Unfortunately, it was suggested in a Press report that the plane could not be developed further. I wish to correct any erroneous impression which might have been given to hon. Members. The engines are set wide enough apart to take much larger propellers than they carry at the moment, on the Vanguard engines. The plane is equipped now with 16 ft. propellers, but it could take 18 ft. or even 20 ft. propellers. It is three years since the plane was developed and it is quite possible, using new techniques and ideas, to develop the plane with the Tyne 5 which, along with the larger propellers, would give it a very much longer range and greater lift capacity. In fact, the estimate—I suggest that it is a reliable estimate—of the capabilities of stretch is that the payload to which I have referred could be increased by 25 per cent. The payload range could be increased by the dramatic figure of 100 per cent., and, of course, the payload range is the vital factor. The take-off length can, with modern devices of laminar air flow, be reduced by 72 per cent. If one reduces the take-off length by 72 per cent., the aircraft is then able to take off from a very short runway indeed.
  A civil version of the plane could carry 100,000 1b. across the Atlantic. Alternatively, if it is needed for fuelling purposes for the Army, it could carry 10,000 gallons of fuel. It could take a Chieftain tank in its stretched version for 2,500 miles or, alternatively, as an ultra long-range transport over the longest hop one could possibly have, which would be not more than 8,000 miles, this plane could carry 25 tons in its stretched form.
  I suggest, therefore, that there should be no delay in taking a decision. These figures are enough to show that this plane can be developed and stretched so that it will meet the requirements of the Army in the late 1960s and in the 1970s.
  Mr. Wigg: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that Rolls Royce made an offer to produce the stage 5 Tyne, an offer which lapsed some months ago, and now there is this compelling reason of urgency because, of course, it would still
  476
  take some time to produce the stage 5 plane, in which case, of course, the difficulty of the company would be increased in selling the extended version because it would come up against competition from aircraft which, perhaps, it would have been a stage ahead of otherwise. The hon. Gentleman obviously has very detailed knowledge. Will he agree that the whole failure here stems from the refusal of the Government to make up their mind on the stage 5 Tyne?
  Mr. McMaster: Yes, I accept the point which the hon. Gentleman makes. It applies to Rolls Royce and the development of the Tyne 5, which could well have been under way, but it applies also to the Belfast itself. A modern aircraft takes anything from five to seven years in development. I am informed by the factory that, if an order could be placed straight away for a developed version of the Belfast, the development design team could got on with it. It would be a version of the plane which they are building already. Immediately the present ten have rolled off, the company could start at once rolling off the new developed version and in that way several years could be saved. If only a few months could be saved at this vital time in stating the requirement exactly and placing a contract so that the money will be found, the company could get on with the work. I agree that time is absolutely of the essence.
  The aircraft has enormous potentialities. I have stressed the Army potentiality. I need say little about the civil potentiality. World trade is expanding rapidly. B.O.A.C. is building up a fleet of transport aircraft. It is impressed with the CL.44, a version of the Britannia which has a much smaller capacity than the Belfast. With the Belfast, B.O.A.C. could build up a fleet of planes operating throughout the world. There is the prospect that the large corporations, B.O.A.C., Pan-American Airways and other airlines in America and even the independent airlines here, such as Gurnard and B.U.A., will require aircraft by the late 1960s or the 1970s to carry freight cheaply. An aircraft like the Belfast is ideal because its capital cost is about half the cost of an equivalent jet. The cost of operation is very much less than the cost for jet aircraft. If one includes as a factor in the cost

  477
  writing off the initial expense, for the development cost, as I said, is only one-third that for a jet.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend or the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the question about an early order and will deal with the other consideration I have mentioned, having a tactical version of the Belfast as a replacement for the Beverley or the Hastings. As I have explained, by developing laminar flow techniques over the wings, it is possible to reduce the take-off length dramatically. This plane would carry modern radar equipment and all the mobile equipment of the Army. It is surely an ideal plane for this requirement of a tactical freighter.
  In fact, the Belfast could be a dual-purpose aircraft. It could operate carrying less fuel as a tactical support aircraft, even bringing tanks up behind the troops, or, alternatively, with larger petrol tanks it could be used as a strategic freighter to fly across the Atlantic. There is here the possibility of enormous saving of cost to the Government by using one plane fulfilling two vital functions required if the mobility of our forces is to be assured in the coming years.
  It has been suggested by some people that a jet aircraft would meet the requirements better than the turbo-prop Belfast, but not only would the cost of the jet and its development be two or three times that of the Belfast but the speed would not be very much greater. The United States Air Force has a jet, the C.141, which is 150 m.p.h. faster than the Belfast. A plane could easily be developed even by Short Brothers if an order were placed, a swept wing four-engine aircraft, which would cost about £20 million to develop and which would fly 5,000 miles in 10 hours as compared with the 14 hours taken by the Belfast, but it would be ridiculous to spend an extra £20 million developing a jet freighter in order to save four hours which could easily be lost in loading and unloading on either side of the Atlantic. I cannot understand the delay. It is not clear that we have £20 million with which to order a jet freighter if we wanted it, but even if we had it would be a doubtful economy to design and develop a new aircraft to meet this purpose.
  478
  I refer the Committee briefly to a speech made by the Commander-in-Chief, General Staff, Lord Mountbatten, to the Air League of the British Empire in December, 1961. He stated, in referring to freighting:
  "The longest stage on an entirely Commonwealth route is that from Vancouver to Christmas Island—3,600 miles. When will we have an aircraft which can take such a distance in its stride at a worth while speed? The experts must answer the questions of load and speed, but with regard to the latter I sometimes think there is a danger of getting the speed parameter out of perspective. The old saying 'more haste, less speed' could well apply if we go for too much speed at the price of space and payload. Thus the subsonic laminar flow solution might well be preferable to a supersonic military transport. It would presumably be less expensive and more likely to have the flexibility of range and pay-load required. In short, a few hours longer in transit might be well worth it if troops arrive properly equipped and in large numbers in the first wave."
  It is for this purpose that I suggest that the Belfast is best suited. Troops can arrive in sufficient numbers in the first wave equipped with all the proper equipment if there are sufficient Belfasts in the Services to carry them.
  Much has been made of the rundown in the aircraft industry. My right hon. Friend referred to it. If he implied that Shorts should look for a rundown similar to that in England, I wish to refer him to these figures. Since May, 1958, when the two large groups were formed, there had been a rundown of the labour force in Belfast of 15 per cent., whereas the labour force in the two groups has increased slightly. There had been a dramatic rise in the labour force to the present figure during the preceding ten years. Between 1949 and 1958, during which we had the Korean war, there was an increase of 65 per cent. in the number employed. But since the regrouping, Belfast has been losing workers and therefore is out of line with the rest of the aircraft industry.
  The company has now reached the stage when the chairman and directors are faced with a decision. As I see it, there are two possibilities before them. Either the company can be closed down completely, or it can be effective in doing sub-contracting work, such as the overhaul of other aircraft, as the hon. Member for Newton said. If this

  479
  happened, I suggest that it would be a tremendous loss of a very famous and great firm which has produced and is still producing some of the best aircraft ever produced in this country—for example, the vertical take-off plane and the Belfast. It is operating in an area of very high unemployment where its loss would be nothing short of a tragedy.
  The amount of money involved in its retention is comparatively small. Another ten Belfasts would cost about £25 million spread over three years. There would be a cost to the Treasury of £8 million to £9 million per annum out of a total budget of £300 million in the Air Estimates. All that the Company requires to provide these tremendous freighters—and no one denies that they are required by the Army—is about £8½ million per annum. If the design team is disbanded, it will never be replaced.
  I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to consider this matter with the utmost urgency and to place this order within the next three to four weeks.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. John Diamond: There is no hon. Member on either side of the Committee, I dare say, from whom the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) could have evoked a more sympathetic response, because he came here to praise the aircraft industry in his constituency. Alas, I come not to praise the aircraft industry in my constituency but to bury it. That is why I am more than sympathetic with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said.
  I should like to delay the Committee for a minute or two in order to explain what is going on in my constituency so that the hon. Gentleman will know the next stage which faces him unless between us, and with the help of hon. Members on both sides, particularly of those representing Northern Ireland constituencies, we can stir up the present Ministers into a state of excitement which the previous Ministers certainly did not evince and which, so far, the right hon. Gentleman has been far from evincing.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that I, for one, am
  480
  extremely bitter and disappointed. I regard the speech of the Minister as a disaster. For a new Minister to say, "I am not going to say anything to the Committee because I do not propose to read the undigested speech of my Department; I know nothing about this matter because I have been in the Department for such a short time" is a tragedy at this stage. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman digest the speech of the Department? What is he there for except to learn from his Departmental advisers what is going on?
  How is it that a man who two days ago came fresh from his responsibilities as Air Minister cannot give the slightest indication of what is to happen to a problem on which the decision of the Royal Air Force is the crucial factor delaying everything? Does not the Minister realise that it is almost certain that we shall not have another debate on the aircraft industry this Session? There are many other things which we have to debate, including Motions of censure. That means that we are likely to have a debate on the aircraft industry at the earliest in November or December, in nearly six months' time. Yet, when we have an aviation debate at a time when it is difficult to provide time for it, when there is considerable anxiety about very many aspects of the aircraft industry and when 7,000 people in Northern Ireland are threatened with redundancy, the right hon. Gentleman says, "I have got nothing to tell you". I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman left before I said what I had to say. I cannot help that, and I am sure that he will not accuse me of discourtesy. However, I have said it in the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary in the hope that we shall have some assistance before the end of the debate.
  Before coming to the problem of Short Bros, and Harland, perhaps I can deal with some of the problems in my constituency. I know that hon. Members do not like listening to constituency points, but, as it is a good example of the sort of problem affecting the aircraft industry as a whole, perhaps I can ask for the indulgence of the Committee for a minute or two while I explain some of the problems.
  There is no possible hope of rescuing the aircraft firm in my constituency. We

  481
  are in the sad position of having had one large aircraft factory close within the last four years and a second is in the process of closing. The first, which employed 6,000 people, closed down some years ago. The second employed 4,000 people. In the first case, a Government factory was taken over. In the second case, the factory is privately owned and there is no evidence of anyone taking it over. Of the 4,000 people employed in the second factory last October, 1,500 are left. The majority of those 1,500 will have gone by the end of December. There is no sign of anyone taking over the factory in order to provide further employment.
  Compared with Northern Ireland, unemployment in my constituency is not enormous. But I do not represent a Northern Ireland constituency, and what they stand for in Northern Ireland they do not stand for in England or, I gather from tomorrow's debate, in Scotland. There is a figure of 2 per cent. unemployment in my constituency. Unemployment is three times greater than it was a year ago.
  Gloucester is conveniently situated at the crossroads of England and Wales and, naturally, should attract a great deal of industry. It is a considerable achievement on the Government's part that there is as much as 2 per cent. unemployment in Gloucester—achievement in the way I am going to describe in terms of lack of consideration and lack of foresight and lack of interest. Of the 1,500 people who are left, as I say, some 1,200 more will be going by the end of the year. Although we have got so far only 2 per cent. that is because those who have left have been able to find work because of their skills, and because they have been prepared to travel enormous distances and have been prepared to take up any jobs—taking any and however distant jobs they can.
  What is to happen to the remainder? They will find themselves in the same sort of position as the workers at Shorts if they get the sack: they will find no other job to go to. This particularly affects the older workers and the unskilled workers. Of those unemployed in Gloucester at the moment 50 per cent. are over 50. Most of those unemployed are unskilled, and yet of every 40 vacancies there is one vacancy only for an unskilled man.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: Just for information, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he would kindly give me the name of the aircraft factory to which he is referring?
  Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking. I should have done that. I have spoken about it so many times in this Chamber that I assumed that the firm I am referring to must be well known to hon. Members. It is best known as the G.A.C.—the Gloster Aircraft Company—and it has the same record of achievement as the aircraft company the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and has had since before the First World War. It made the first jet; it has any number of distinctions, any number of achievements, any number of honours; it made the Meteor and all sort of planes which are world-famous. But, alas, that has gone beyond ability of retrievement.
  Skilled aircraft fitters, skilled and able shop stewards, able men and responsible men have gone and have found quite other jobs. The latest example I had a week ago when I got some petrol for my oar in Gloucester. I found that one of those skilled men was holding one end of the pump. I asked him why he was doing that, and he said he was very glad to have got a job after being out of employment for some time. I asked him how long it would take him to train another man in his skill and to the same degree of skill, and he said that it would take 10 years.
  I want the Committee to realise that that is the sort of thing which is happening. It is not only a question of unemployment and of what is happening as I have described it, of people taking any sort of a job, and having to travel long distances. This is an enormous wastage of skill, and the country cannot get on and make progress if, having trained men over the years to be skilled, we lose them when they have reached the height of their productive powers and the height of their skills and make no provision for what is to happen to them—and no provision for what is to happen afterwards to replace them.
  I understand that there are colleagues of the Parliamentary Secretary whom this may more directly concern, colleagues of his at the Ministry of Labour,

  483
  but I would nevertheless say to him—I hope it is not a discourteous remark— that I would not have been surprised to have seen at least one of those Ministers from the Ministry of Labour sitting on the Government Front Bench in a debate in which we are considering unemployment and the likelihood of considerable unemployment in the aircraft industry. I should not have thought it beyond the capacity of anybody to have foreseen that the debate would have been concerned with unemployment in the aircraft industry, or beyond the capacity of Ministers to have foreseen it. But they are not here and it is typical of the lack of foresight and the lack of forethought for which I am condemning the Government utterly.
  It is no use the Government saying to me that in the interests of efficiency it was right and inevitable that there should be contraction in the aircraft industry. I know that such an argument can be made out. I appreciate these things, as an accountant, and I recognise the force of these figures. I appreciate the argument, but the hon. Member has got experience, and he will agree with me that the matter does not end there and that those responsible should appreciate that. If it is right to say that, in order to make our aircraft industry efficient, companies have to merge, that we have to amalgamate, and that that may mean contraction in certain respects; if it is right to say that, as it may be; if it is right for a group of manufacturers to say that rather than have five factories running at 80 per cent. capacity they will have four running at full capacity and that it is right to have the fifth one closed down—and even though that were to happen in my constituency, I can recognise the force of the argument—it is right to go on to say, what is to be done with the men displaced, what is to be done about their skills?
  In a situation in which we require mobility of labour, and we inevitably face that in this modern age, why have not the Government a real policy on mobility of labour and about severance pay for those declared redundant, apart from barking "Object" at hon. Members who bring forward a Bill on a Friday afternoon, as I did? Some hon. Members turn up here in a Friday after
  484
  noon to bark "Object" at the appropriate time, and that seems to be the Government's policy for tackling such questions.
  What is to be done about retraining the skilled men who are declared redundant in the aircraft industry, and about men travelling long distances to other work? What is to be done about providing houses for them and their wives and families to live in, so that they can live where they work instead of having, as they have at the moment to do, to travel miles for hours, using up the whole of their energy? It could be devoted to their work by their having somewhere to live local to the job.
  I repeat that none of these remarks can be made about my particular problem because we should have work brought to the workers, which is a much more sensible first thought, if only there were some steps taken to see a new business come along to this factory to employ men and make use of the equipment there and make use of the facilities.
  There are other costs beyond these in the profit and loss account. There is the cost of the local services; the cost to the local community; the local welfare costs; the community spirit. All these things should be taken into account, all these social costs, as well as the pure accountancy costs, and they justify the argument that we should bring work to the workers. We have not only one empty factory in Gloucester, but two—though the other is not an aircraft factory—as a result of the Government's lack of foresight and energy.
  I do not want to see the same thing that is happening in Gloucester happening in Northern Ireland on a much more devastating scale, and so, if the hon. Member for Belfast, East will permit me I will add my support to what he has said, but I am going to say things which I can say from this side of the Chamber that he could not say from his side.
  I say, first of all, that there is no argument that this plane, the Belfast, is not a good plane, and appropriately being produced at a time when it is needed. I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that of the total cargo which is carried from place to place only 1 per cent. goes by air, and the potential is the remaining 99 per cent., and for that

  485
  remaining 99 per cent. potential the need, the demand on aircraft freight carriers, is going up. The demand for carrying persons is perhaps going down; the demand for carrying cargo is going up.
  Here we have a suitable and the largest cargo carrier. It can carry at a competitive cost. I am told that it can carry at a cost which is approximately one-half of the current European freight charge—one-half. One reckons to be fully competitive if one can do it at 95 per cent. of one's competitors' charges, but to do it at 50 per cent. is such a colossal advantage that one has to have the best possible reasons for not going on with it. I am told—and this is confirmed by the hon. Gentleman— that if we want to carry passengers instead of freight we can carry 250 — 249, to be precise, so let us call it 250 —across the Atlantic at a fare of £30. That is an attractive fare. That is the cost, not the sales price. If the aircraft were fully loaded this is what it would cost per person to transport him across the Atlantic.
  This plane, as already demonstrated, could, with its variations, carry the heaviest loads in terms of freight and be capable of landing in circumstances known as short-take-off and landing—S.T.O.L. Notwithstanding its huge size, its huge fuselage and the huge weight it can carry, it is capable of landing in a small field. With all these advantages this plane is a winner.
  I turn to the social problem. It is accepted on both sides of the Committee that, having regard to the slackness in the shipping industry, which is the other important industry in Northern Ireland, this firm now represents the king-pin of the economy of Northern Ireland. It employs 7,000 at the moment. As has been well pointed out this represents a portion of some 9,000. So let no one say that the aircraft industry has fallen comparatively with Shorts. On the contrary, the numbers employed in the aircraft industry have gone up somewhat, not in my constituency, but in the industry as a whole in Great Britain, whereas in Northern Ireland they have gone down some 2,000. Therefore, Northern Ireland cannot be asked to make any further contribution what-
  486
  soever in terms of reduction in the labour force of those employed in the aircraft industry.
  This is the particular industry which is demanded by economic conditions in Northern Ireland because of the high labour content in manufacture. Approximately 50 per cent. of the selling price of an aircraft represents labour content as compared with one-third of the selling price of an ordinary article in its labour content. Northern Ireland by virtue of its geographical situation demands the kind of industry where there is a high labour content. The Parliamentary Secretary is looking at me with a fixed look. Obviously I have not made the position clear. If he will look at the trading accounts of his company he will see that the labour content is on the average one-third of the selling price. If he will look at aircraft manufacture, he will see that it is 50 per cent.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Basil de Ferranti): I have fully understood the point. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the figures he has quoted of my own company are quite wrong.
  Mr. Diamond: I should not have attempted to quote the figures because I have no knowledge of them. I should not have done so except to explain my point.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I should be fascinated to know what aircraft is built without employing any raw materials, since the hon. Gentleman has said that it is 50 per cent. development and 50 per cent. labour.
  Mr. Diamond: I said 50 per cent. labour. Development is not a classification between labour and materials. I do not understand the hon. Member's remark. He is always ready to interrupt. Perhaps he will be a little more hesitant in the future. The point I am making, quite simply, is that 50 per cent. is labour. It is a much higher labour content than in the average article that is produced. That is the answer in the case of Northern Ireland which suffers from inability to compete through its transport charges and so on. I am glad that the point has got over to the hon. Member and I hope that it will be got over to the Government Front Bench, too.

  487
  My next point will not perhaps be so readily accepted. The number of unemployed during the last 10 years has varied between 6½ per cent. and 10½ per cent. and has averaged practically 8 per cent. I am bound to make the comment that it is a curious political situation which goes on repeating itself and accepting a level of unemployment of 8 per cent. Before I am interrupted again, I must say that one of the ways in which I shall ascertain the extent of the feeling of hon. Members for Northern Ireland, whose sincerity I do not doubt, is the direction in which they march when a Division is called this evening.
  Mr. McMaster: I do not want to minimise the seriousness of the very high unemployment in Northern Ireland, but it should be pointed out that the population has been increasing in Northern Ireland. The Government have found jobs over the past 10 years for 40,000 people but, because of the increase in population, the level of unemployment remains the same. I appreciate that the situation is tragic but there has been this factor working against us.
  Mr. Diamond: I accept the fact that, as a result of immigration plus the natural increase, there has been a net increase. This one generally regards as an economic asset and not an economic liability. Germany had an increase in population of 10 million in 10 years, and the greatest increase in production of any Western European country as a result of it.
  I come to the Government's attitude. I wanted to put the facts first as to the plane itself, and, secondly, the social background. The Government's attitude I find utterly deplorable, and I say this in case hon. Members opposite are unable, because of their situation, to express their views as clearly as I do. One cannot give an order for 10 plans like this and then sit still. That is an untenable attitude. Either we do not start it, or if we do we go on. If we are not going on, we should make up our minds and say so well in time. The complaint is made by the Government's own employee. He must have found a very sad state of affairs before he was
  488
  willing to open his mouth. We get the complaint from the Government's own managing director. In an ordinary job a managing director may get sacked by the shareholders if he says things which he ought not to say. He is not a free man. A managing director is subject to the control of his shareholders and in this case the shareholders sit on the Government Front Bench. So when Mr. Wrangham made this complaint, we can take it for certain that he was under considerable compulsion before he made it openly, just as the Prime Minister for Northern Ireland was under considerable compulsion when he came with the delegation to Lobby the Government today.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I understand that Mr. Wrangham, is chairman of the company and that there are joint managing directors.
  Mr. Diamond: The chairman is one of the directors and they are subject to the approval of the shareholders, and the shareholders in this case are the Government. The chairman would not make a remark like that unless he felt that there was no alternative. There was no alternative for him but to tell the whole world what the situation was, because, presumably, private negotiations were achieving no response.
  When they heard from the chairman how dire the situation was the Government ought to have made up their mind a long time ago. When one is in a situation in which there is employment only for 12 months, one ought to make up one's mind. Unless a decision is taken it is quite impossible for a board of directors to run an aircraft firm satisfactorily. In the aircraft industry, 6, 7 or 8 years are involved in the full development of a plane, and one has to plan ahead much further than in ordinary industry. It is quite impossible for the board of directors to run an aircraft industry satisfactorily if they do not know the position more than 12 months ahead. Although there is 12 months' work according to the Government, that means 12 months' work for the last man and not the first man.
  The first man concerned is the designer. He will be put out of his job in three months' time unless further

  489
  work comes in now. The time for making decisions is past, and every single day that the right hon. Gentleman takes in coming to a decision is a day too much. The decision should be taken if not today, then tomorow in the interest both of the efficient production of this firm and the supply of freighters to the Services and of making some contribution towards solving the social problems of Northern Ireland. It is not appropriate for the Minister to say that he is new to the job, knows nothing about it, and had better sit down.
  In what I am about to say now, perhaps I shall be addressing my own Front Bench as much as the Government. It is on the question of the amalgamation between Cunard-Eagle and B.O.A.C. I agree with every word my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) said and with the complaints he made. It was a surprise to me to hear the Government say that they did not have to be consulted in an issue like this. This was a major departure from principle. I have not checked up on the Act itself— I freely admit my ignorance—but I heard with surprise that they considered they were not compelled to be consulted by B.O.A.C. before this action was taken.
  Mr. Cronin: Under the Air Corporations Act, 1949, the Ministry of Aviation has absolute control of both air Corporations and, therefore, full responsibility. If B.O.A.C. failed to consult the then Minister on this amalgamation, it was through negligence on his part.
  Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will develop that point if he has the good fortune to catch the eye of the Chair. I dare say he has as good a chance as any of us to do so. I draw attention to the words used by the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was "no statutory responsibility", and I was astonished to hear Mm say so. Be that as it may, there is no question that the Minister had the responsibility to advise the House of Commons. He had the responsibility but did not exercise it.
  I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Newton that the terms, as far as B.O.A.C. is concerned, do not stand looking at. B.O.A.C. is a business built up to its present level of activity
  490
  as a result of the expenditure of about £120 million—the cost of its good will, as we accountants put it. Yet newcomers are given a 30 per cent. share of that activity. What did they pay for it? Nothing. Not one farthing have they paid for B.O.A.C.'s good will.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Member is prone to a little exaggeration sometimes. He has not quite looked into the facts of this matter. Cunard-Eagle has very considerable operations in the Western Hemisphere—it runs daily flights from New York to Bermuda—and these will go to the Corporation together with the Atlantic service which has been developing at tremendous speed and with great effect. There is a very great deal of extreme good will for Cunard-Eagle on the other side of the Atlantic—as much as for B.O.A.C, and more in many areas. Cumaid-Eagle has also put in two Boeing 707s.
  Mr. Diamond: Cunard-Eagle was given credit for the price of the Boeings. It brought them in to the new set-up instead of cash and was given share capital, which makes up the 30 per cent. But it brought in nothing for good will.
  The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is in a position to be particularly well informed on this topic. He says that what was brought in was Cunard-Eagle's own good will. That may or may not be so. I do not know. I do know that the House of Commons has had no opportunity of considering the matter. This merger may be right or wrong, but until it has been valued no one has knowledge as to whether B.O.A.C. has been given adequate compensation for its share of good will. The hon. Member say that Cunard-Eagle put in more good will than it got credit for.
  Mr. Burden: Good will, which is so often talked about in business, is a very intangible quality and one which is often exaggerated on one side or the other. The hon. Member is an accountant and I am also in business. I am very sceptical as to what good will really means. It might be interesting to find out exactly what is the position of B.O.A.C. in the world as a great airline in comparison with many other airlines. Then it would be easy to equate the good will in this merger.
  Mr. Diamond: The hon. Member says that good will is intangible. If he wants further advice as to the value and tangibility of good will, he should consult the Prime Minister, who could tell him a great deal about it.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: There is no good will there.
  Mr. Diamond: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Newton in criticising the details of this transaction. But as far as the principle is concerned, I am delighted to see a nationalised industry being allowed to expand in an appropriate way by taking a controlling interest in a firm partly privately owned. It is clear that the reason for the merger was that the private enterprise was in difficulties and that the only way out for it was to be taken under the wing of a nationalised industry. Thus I say "welcome" to this device and I want to see more of it.
  Nevertheless, although this was perhaps the right thing to do, it should have been done under the right circumstances and with appropriate consultation. These two companies were faced with an impossible situation by the Government, who caused it by opening up unnecessary, additional and destructive internal competition
  We are trying to do something about this situation. We shall not get another debate on aviation for a long time, and we do not know if the right hon. Gentleman will be in his post when that debate comes. We want as much out of this debate as we can get. I welcome the development of a nationalised industry taking a controlling interest in a partly privately owned company, but the solution was made necessary by the impossible situation which the Government thrust upon them both.
  The impossible circumstances were that the two of them were being compelled to compete against one another internally when competition was unnecessary because there was already foreign competition. As a result, neither was able to plan ahead sufficiently, never knowing what the Licensing Board would do and never knowing whether it was to have three or four or more competitors in the forthcoming years, and therefore never knowing what planes to order or what expenditure to
  492
  invest in the future, because the future was so unclear. They were therefore compelled to make the future clear by creating this hybrid monopoly.
  Let the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the argument has now gone full circle and that by his approval of this merger he has shown that everything said by the Government about the need for competition was the most arrant nonsense. I have been a little critical of the Government in what I have had to say, but I propose to continue to be critical in the hope that they will do something about Northern Ireland, something about Gloucester and something about the aircraft industry.
  6.31 p.m.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: At the outset of my speech I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new appointment and to wish him well. In the year or so that he has been Secretary of State for Air he has left a mark at the Air Ministry where he has been more than appreciated by senior officers. The experience he gained there should be invaluable to him in his present post. I should also like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his appointment. He has wide experience in industry, particularly of electronics, and the team should be very efficient.
  I usually listen to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) with great interest, for as a rule he presents a balanced and fair case, but much of his speech today, especially the latter part, was somewhat biassed against the Cunard-Eagle set-up, with which I should like to deal later. We are all sorry to hear about the contraction of the aircraft industry in the hon. Member's constituency, but I do not think that any hon. Member would allow the ordering of military aircraft just for the sake of ordering them. We all want disarmament, if we can achieve it, to avoid war and to save the taxpayers' money, and therefore there has had to be a contraction. I would go so far as to say that even now the industry is too large. Somebody has to suffer, but I am sorry if Gloucester has suffered.
  My own constituency of Macclesfield has attracted three very great industries to an industrial site. One of them is I.C.I., which is to spend £5 million on its

  493
  plant. As a matter of fact, there are only just over 100 unemployed in the borough, but these projects are planned to take overspill from the Manchester area. I suggest to the hon. Member for Gloucester that the local authorities and he have to get busy to try to attract industry and to get after the Board of Trade to get development certificates if the situation deteriorates. In these matters it is a question of helping oneself.
  There has been some concern in the industry in the last 24 hours over the fact that my right hon. Friend is not in the Cabinet. I fully appreciate that the Minister of Defence will be responsible, but it was suggested in the Press that my right hon. Friend had access to the Cabinet. I should like to be assured about that and to know that he will make full use of that access. I have great confidence in him as Minister, but there is a tremendous amount of work to be done in this aviation business.
  I am told that the industry's main complaint is about the series of delays. I appreciate that vast sums of money had to be budgeted for and spent, but the delays seem to go on and on, often in cases where they could be avoided. One example is that of the automatic blind landing equipment with which Britain now leads the world and which the VC10 and the Trident are to have. I am told on the highest authority in the industry that for several months work on this equipment has practically ceased for the sake of £800,000 or £900,000 of the Government's share of development costs. If that is so, it is scandalous, because if we delay the Americans will catch us up, as they so often do with their extra facilities, and we may lose a very profitable market. I hope that this situation will be investigated and pressure applied in the right direction.
  This delay affects the de Havilland project, the three jet Trident, in which some of us were fortunate enough to fly last week. I understand that hon. Members opposite are to receive a similar invitation. This aeroplane is quite remarkable. In a comparatively short time the first prototype has already done 150 hours' flying and the second some 50 or 60. However, it has been tailored and designed largely to meet the requirements of British European Air-
  494
  ways with a range of up to 1,000 miles. That does not meet the requirements of many overseas operators and the Ministry must make a decision about whether the Government, in conjunction with the airframe makers, de Havilland and Rolls-Royce, are prepared to spend the extra money on developing the Trident, a total cost of about £4 million —I understand that the mark number is 1D-25. To stop at this stage would be quite wrong if the expenditure of another £4 million could produce large export orders. The Farnborough air display will be with us in six or seven weeks and a decision should be made before then. This is a pressing matter and I hope that it will receive my right hon. Friend's early attention.
  I was very pleased to learn from him this afternoon about the definite development of the vertical take-off—1154. Having seen the 1127 operate, I can say that this is a quite remarkable aeroplane. We again lead the world already, and we must now take the next step. I should like to be assured that what my right hon. Friend has told us does not mean merely the expenditure of a small sum of money on a design team getting out an initial design, for speed is the essence if we are to capture orders from N.A.T.O. and elsewhere.
  A matter which has been discussed at great length this afternoon is that of Short Brothers and Harland's, Belfast. With some of my colleagues I was privileged to see some of the facilities at Belfast and I was favourably impressed, especially by the spirit of the design team and the workers as a whole. As has already been said, the apprentice scheme is exceptionally good, probably the best in the United Kingdom.
  I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster)—I sometimes call him the hon. Member for Shorts—was very gloomy in what he had to say about the number of Belfasts which might be left out of the ten involved—he spoke about one being written off and so on. I hope that we shall finish up with ten aircraft operating in the right rôle.
  This project began three or four years ago. We were told by the then Minister of Supply, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green

  495
  (Mr. Aubrey Jones), that this aircraft had good commercial prospects. I interrupted his statement to ask him who had told him that. I did not then get a direct reply, but I imagine that it was the then chairman of Short Brothers and Harland, Sir Matthew Slattery. There are very few indications today of good commercial prospects, but it is in the hands of Sir Matthew Slattery as chairman of B.O.A.C. to place an immediate order if he has any confidence in his own forecast, for he is now chairman of a great corporation and if he will look into the prospects, then perhaps other operators will follow suit.
  The Government own 70 per cent. of the equity of this company and the Bristol Aircraft Company owns 15 per cent. This is an untidy arrangement. I understand that the wings of the Belfast are made in Bristol. If Belfast is short of work, it seems crazy for a chunk of the aircraft to be made in Bristol and then freighted to Belfast. It would be better if Shorts took over all the equity and looked after their own affairs completely instead of having a director from another company which is virtually a competitor.
  I should have preferred a pure jet freighter to the turbo-prop, because I think that it would have stood a better chance of being sold to the airlines. Pan-American is already operating pure jet freighters. It does this because it simplifies training, the holding of spares, and so on. But, having gone as far as we have, I am satisfied that the Belfast is a first-class aeroplane. With the Commonwealth losing some of its outposts, we shall have to fly supplies and equipment over greater distances, and I think that this aircraft will be desperately needed before long. It is said that we need ten, but I think that we need another ten to do the job effectively.
  To place an order for ten aircraft only is not economic, but I imagine that the Government at the time thought that the aircraft would be Mold to airlines to make up to thirty, the break-even point. But that has not happened, and this problem must be faced, because to tackle it piecemeal is not the right answer. We want to see in Northern
  496
  Ireland industries which will provide permanent employment for the people there, not just temporary employment for two or three years. I hope that something will be done not only to help Shorts but to help the mobility of our forces, which is vital.
  I want now to refer to that great national concern, Rolls Royce. Last year Rolls Royce exported £55 million worth of equipment—an increase of £1½ million over the previous year. This was a third of the total aircraft exports— airframes, engines and equipment. It was a remarkable achievement, and considerably better than the exports of several other great industries outside the aircraft industry. In fact its exports amounted to one-fifth of the total exports of the motor car industry, and yet I hear nothing but depressing and gloomy reports about this great company and its poor prospects. It must be remembered that when an aeroplane with a British engine is sold abroad it buys British spares and airframes for about fifteen years. In fact, with an average life an engine consumes about one-third of its original value in spares.
  Rolls Royce employs 42,000 people, and has millions of pounds locked up in development work with very few orders coming along. In fact, it is in a precarious position. I said this some time ago with the full permission of the executives of the company, and I say it again. This matter cannot be left to drag on.
  We are concerned about the arrangements with the French for the construction of a supersonic aircraft. Good luck to the Bristol Siddeley Company. It has developed well and is to supply with the Super Olympus, but where do Rolls Royce come in? Surely there is a case for Rolls Royce and the Bristol Siddeley Company to collaborate and put their experience into this enormous venture which will probably take ten to twelve years. I am alarmed at the prospects of this great company, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give this matter his early attention.
  Mr. Diamond: I support the hon. Gentleman in what he says about the alarming position of this company, but if Shorts do not get an order for a further ten aircraft, Rolls Royce will not get an order for a further ten

  497
  engines. This was mentioned to us by two Rolls Royce members of a delegation which lobbied us in connection with Shorts.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I was aware of that, and it ties up with the difficulties of the engine and airframe manufacturers.
  Many people talk about supersonic aircraft being the aircraft of the future, and I think that Britain is right to participate in the necessary research, but I think a period of digestion is required in the design and development of commercial aircraft. These aircraft now fly at about 620 miles per hour, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) referred to safety. I think that this factor must be considered in the immediate future. There have been about five unfortunate accidents in recent months with the Boeing 707. When we had troubles and disasters with the Comet, the American aircraft industry attacked the British aircraft industry, and I think that we ought to view the Boeing crashes realistically. I do not suggest that there will be more, but although one hears that it is a comfortable aircraft in which to travel at 40,000 ft., there are many things wrong with it. To have four engines hanging like pods on the wings is not a clever design. It is extremely difficult to position the aircraft over a marker beacon at night to ensure a safe approach on landing. I mention this because we ought to look at these things realistically.
  That brings me to the Boeing's British counterpart, the VC10. This is a remarkable aeroplane, with four jet engines in the tail. We saw pictures on television of this great aircraft taking off from Brooklands track with a run of 720 yards for the first time. This is a remarkable advertisement for Britain, and one of the best that we have had in recent years. Are we making the most of it? Are we making the most of this aircraft which gets off the ground and lands with such a short run? No comparable aircraft is being built anywhere in the world.
  I hope that when the B.O.A.C. get the VC10 into operation it will capture a considerable amount of traffic, and that other airlines will start queueing up to buy it. I suggest that everything should be done to push ahead with its develop-
  498
  ment. I understand that Transport Command have five on order, and that there is a possibility of another batch being ordered. If this is so, I hope that a decision will be made soon to enable the factory to put its planning into effect.
  What is the position with regard to the Avro 748? There have been many discussions in the House in recent months about this order, and one hears many things said about a new engine having to be developed, or the old engine stretched at great cost, and the order is held up. I should like an assurance from the Minister that we are not going to rely entirely on American design and research for helicopters, which is what we do now. The Westland Aircraft Company has rights to make the Sikorsky in this country, but I should like to see more British effort put into design of helicopters. The French are doing it. They have good helicopters, and I think that we ought not to rely too much on American design.
  The export of instruments from this country in 1961 was £37½ million—58 per cent. more than in 1958. This was a remarkable achievement. The aircraft industry is a great one, but it needs tidying up. It must contract where necessary, and get the best possible design teams working on the various projects. We cannot do everything, but let us get our priorities right and decide what ought to be done both for the home market and for exports. I am sure that with British "know-how" and (technology we can more than hold our own with both the Rrench and the Americans.
  I want to make a brief reference about the discussions which are taking place in connection with B.O.A.C. and Cunard. I am not happy about this arrangement, but for quite different reasons than were mentioned by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). I want to refer to some figures taken from an American publication known as Air Lift. In its issue for 1962 it says that during 1961 the load factor on the North Atlantic for traffic both ways—that is, first-class and economy class—was 47·7 per cent. for B.O.A.C. There are 15 carriers operating on the North Atlantic route, and out of that 15 B.O.A.C. comes twelfth. That is not too good. I thought that the hon. Member, who usually presents a

  499
  fair case, skated over this aspect of the matter and did not point out that B.O.A.C. presented a somewhat depressing picture.
  After all, we know that it lost £14 million last year. If I were fortunate enough to be a shareholder in the Cunard Company I should be very alarmed at this venture. The only airlines with worse records than B.O.A.C.'s on the North Atlantic run were Sabena, which came thirteenth, Air India, which came fourteenth, and Iberia, which was bottom of the list. Something will have to be done, because I am told that in order to break even B.O.A.C. requires a load factor of 55 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Newton, like the previous Minister, took a period in the autumn of last year when traffic was down on the North Atlantic route for a few months, owing to a slight recession in America, as a result of which President Kennedy requested Americans to stay at home for the summer, and also owing to the plastic bomb outrages in Paris. But this summer traffic is right up again after that purely temporary phase. The fall in traffic at this time suited B.O.A.C's book, and it appealed against the decision of the Transport Board. But it was not fair to take those few months.
  I am not happy about the arrangement, and I do not think that it is in the best interests of British aviation. Cunard's share of responsibility will tend to reduce B.O.A.C's loss. Furthermore, nothing has been said about the Cunard sales organisation in North America. Any hon. Member who has travelled there knows that it has one of the most effective British sales organisations in North America. It could materially help to sell tickets in what is a very fierce competition. But I am told that all the operations and management of this new joint company are run by B.O.A.C.
  The other day I was given figures showing that the cost of a flying hour by B.O.A.C. on the North Atlantic run is about £930, whereas the cost of a flying hour by the old Cunard-Eagle, on the Atlantic run to Bermuda, was about £750. I can see why. We have been told repeatedly that there are 3,000 too many engineers on the engineering staff of B.O.A.C. I agree that it has been
  500
  reduced slightly, but the staff of Cunard-Eagle is only about 1,200 or 1,500. We have seen this sort of thing happen time and again. Jersey Airlines made a profit when it was run by a private company, but when B.E.A. took it over it made a loss because of the growth of its staff. It is very refreshing for a nationalised industry to have a company like Cunard coming in. It should be a breath of fresh air. But I am sorry for the Cunard people. I think that they have made a disastrous mistake.
  Mr. Diamond: The hon. Member has referred to the cost per flying hour. Since this is not a very valid comparison, can he tell us the comparative loss or profit per flying hour? If the cost rises it does not matter so long as the income rises.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I am told that prior to the merger Gurnard-Eagle was operating on this route and just about breaking even, which is probably more than the Corporation can say.
  The purpose of the Civil Aviation (Licenising) Act was to bring more initiative and freedom into British aviation, but this object has been completely frustrated by the merger. The Corporation is operating at a loss, but Pan-American made a profit last year.
  Mr. Lee: It is merging now.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: It still made a profit. I imagine that many people would like to merge with a company that is making a profit, but it is a different matter to merge with a company which is making a loss of £14 million a year. Swissair made a profit, as did several other companies which run their businesses sensibly.
  It is up to my right hon. Friend to make a quick decision on the licence applications now on his desk, so that the companies concerned will know where they stand. I do not take the gloomy view that the Corporation will be put out of business if a few licences are granted. The growth of air traffic over the last fifteen years has been 14 per cent. or 15 per cent. per annum, and it has been even higher in respect of freight. If we can bring down fares the possibilities axe enormous. I am concerned that Britain should get its share, whether by way of a public corporation or by free enterprise.

  501
  If one or two independents are licensed to operate over shorter routes and B.E.A. find a few surplus Tridents, arrangements could be made for the independents to take them over. About three years ago B.E.A. took a financial interest in Cambrian Airways of Wales. This is taxpayers' money and nothing was said.
  Mr. Lee: That was an arrangement freely entered into. My case is that this merger has been forced upon B.O.A.C. by the requirements of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: We all expected that the Act would bring about something quite different. I am sorry that it has not, and Chat the Cunard Company has got into this situation. I hope that it will work. I am sure that B.O.A.C. have a great deal to get out of it.
  Why was B.O.A.C.'s appeal granted at the time? I have mentioned the fact that the falling off in traffic last autumn was only temporary. We are told that the appeal was granted because of the bilateral implications, and that Britain might have difficulty in negotiating a bilateral agreement with America. But I have been told that the Permanent Under-Secretary informed a Cunard official that the bilateral implications were not part of the request for the revocation of the licence. In that case, I should like to know the reason. When the Air Transport Licensing Board was set up some very eminent gentlemen from all walks of life served on it. They devoted a great deal of time and diligence to the hearing of the case, and yet their decision was reversed. That must be very discouraging.
  The new Minister has a great opportunity in dealing with this tremendous industry, but he has a still greater responsibility. We want to create a new climate of opportunity for British aviation. We must live by our exports— exports that in this case do not use a great deal of materials but which use the brains and the "know-how" of our designers and workers. I believe that under my right hon. Friend's direction and that of his colleagues there is a good chance of pulling it off.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), who
  502
  has frequently had sensible things to say on this subject. I particularly appreciated what he had to say about Rolls Royce, since I was at one time employed by that firm, for five years. I agree with his view of the possibility of collaboration between Rolls Royce and Bristol Siddeley. When I worked for Rolls Royce I was concerned with the development of cooled nozzle guide vanes. We knew that the Bristol Company was doing the same work, but it was not possible for us to come to any arrangement with that firm whereby a quicker development of the project could be achieved.
  It is impossible for us to decide about the B.O.A.C.-Cunard merger, because, as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has said, we do not have all the facts and figures to enable us to make a firm judgment. Some hon. Members have said that the arrangements will operate to the advantage of the Cunard Company and others have said that they will be of advantage to B.O.A.C. No one has mentioned that B.O.A.C. has partnership arrangements already with a great many other airlines; for example, with Ghana Airways and with Nigeria Airways. Indeed, it has a quadripartite arrangement with the Central African, South African and East African Airways, so that this is not necessarily a wholly new departure for B.O.A.C. to team up with somebody other than the British nationalised organisation.
  So far as the profitability of the North Atlantic route goes, I think there are some doubts about this, because at the same time as the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) said that the airlines on the North Atlantic had suffered severe losses, he also said that the commercial advantages were on the side of Cunard. I do not see how we can have it both ways.
  Mr. Lee: I gave the period over which the losses were incurred, and I gave the percentage of loss. I am not denying that over the years this has been the most lucrative route that B.O.A.C. has run, and that is the reason why Cunard wanted to come in.
  Mr. Lubbock: That may be, but we have not enough figures to form a firm judgment, and that is the reason why different views have been expressed on both sides of the Committee.

  503
  This, however, is a question of secondary importance to that of the future of the aircraft industry, and, indeed, of particular sectors of it, on which so much concern has been expressed today. I think that all hon. Members will have very great sympathy with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), who made such an eloquent plea on behalf of Short Brothers and Hadamd, a plea which was so extremely well backed up by facts and figures, such as I have very seldom heard.
  When we last debated this subject on 22nd March this year, the then Minister said:
  "What concerns the aircraft industry is not the present—not the level of employment now, nor the shortage of workers, nor the load in the factories at the moment…. The problem which confronts this industry is in the design staffs—the brains who are the future of the industry."
  He went on to say, and this is particularly important in the context of today's debate:
  "Of course, it is true that we cannot take premature decisions simply for the purpose of occupying design staffs. No one would suggest that we should. But, at the same time, we recognise the need for a healthy, long-term future for these priceless design teams, and for design teams of an appropriate size. I do not say that we can keep them at exactly the same size and that we may not need to scale them down, for we must have an appropriate size, but we will do our best to hasten necessary decisions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd March, 1962; vol. 656, c. 597.]
  I should have thought that one of the objects of the recent crop of redundancies on the Front Bench opposite was to arrive at some sensible policy about the aircraft industry. I had hoped that this afternoon we were to listen to something completely new which we had not had before, particularly as it seems to me that there was an undertaking in the statement by the previous Minister which I have just quoted that decisions about the future of the aircraft industry would be taken as soon as possible.
  We have heard from more than one hon. Member today how vital these decisions are to the future employment of thousands of people in Northern Ireland. I think that this statement of the previous Minister betrays a lack of understanding of the aircraft industry, and, indeed, of industry in general, which is to me quite astonishing, because we
  504
  must realise that design is not the only component of a successful business. We have to have the process planning staff, the jig and tool draughtsmen, the tool-room workers and finally the production departments themselves. In the very nature of the aircraft industry, it is very difficult to keep these separate departments correctly balanced, because of the long-term nature of the product itself and because of the progress from design to finished production in which it is necessary to secure coincidence between the various types of aircraft being produced in any one factory.
  I think that the Government have not been honest in this matter of the size of the aircraft industry. They will not admit to us that the industry has become bloated with what I would call the fat of wasteful Government expenditure on defence, and that employment in the industry, through that waste, has risen steadily, and it was more than 300,000 or so at the end of 1961. It is not a question of whether or not we need to scale it down, but of something we shall have to do for the health of the industry, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield informed us.
  Even if the Government continue to insist on maintaining an independent British nuclear deterrent, which, as has been said, is neither independent nor British, nor is it a deterrent, there will not be nearly as much military work for the aircraft industry. The Defence White Paper tells us that the existing V-bomber force will, in any case, remain in service until the end of the decade—the end of the sixties—with Skybolt, which is an American missile. I know that there will be orders for the T.S.R.2 and token quantities of the Argosy, the Belfast, the V.C.10 and the Avro 748, but I do not think that these orders, together with the civil ones which we may possibly secure in the latter part of the sixties, can possibly be sufficient to keep the aircraft industry in the style to which it has become accustomed. The Minister talks about the vertical take-off fighter, and speaks as if it were a project on which we almost had the N.A.T.O. orders in our pocket. I am given to understand from my reading on this subject, that the Mirage 3B is the most likely contender to be accepted.

  505
  I do not believe that there will be opportunities in this country, as there were in the United States, to replace aircraft with missiles. We decided, very wisely in my view, some years ago that we were not going to proceed with rocket vehicles for delivering our strategic nuclear deterrent, and I think we decided that because it was beyond our resources to do this work, so that we are adopting at the moment various foreign forms of air to ground missiles, such as Skybolt and the Martin Bull-pup, which is being adopted by the Royal Navy for delivery by Scimitars, and the French A.S.30 to be used with our tactical force of Canberras.
  One of the main objects of technical collaboration with the European aircraft industry, to which several hon. Members have referred, is to achieve economy in design and development, and in production costs as well. All of this will be reflected in a reduction of the numbers employed in the British aircraft industry, and, if this wore not so, there would be no point in the exercise at all; that is, that the only other result we might achieve would be an expansion of production from the same resources which already exist in the civil fields, at any rate. I do not believe that is what we need, because it may not be sufficiently appreciated that with each succeeding generation of aircraft there is a very great improvement in productive capacity, so that an airline can offer a continual increase in seat-mileage without any growth of the number of aircraft in the fleet. As one example the B.A.C. 111 can produce 67 per cent. more seat-miles than the Viscount 810 over a 500-miles stage, mainly because of its higher block speed, so that there will not be a very large market for the replacement of the existing civil fleet.
  To return to the subject of European collaboration for a moment, we have already this agreement with the French on the development of a supersonic airliner, and Anglo-Dutch collaboration on the F.28. This kind of measure, together with the rationalisation of the British aircraft industry which has already taken place, will mean better and more economical use of European resources as a whole, and that in turn means a contraction in the numbers employed in order to produce the same end result. I hope that there will not be any further
  506
  cases of duplication of effort, such as there was with the Avro 748 and the Dart Herald, which were designed for substantially the same market—and, in fact, for substantially the same market as the F.27, a plane that was already on the market several years before. We are now told that on technical merit there is practically nothing to choose between them, although some people believed that there was and that the decision in favour of the 748 was partly political.
  I believe that the Government have been mealy-mouthed. I can well appreciate that it must have been difficult for them to admit that they had allowed the industry to grow to an unworkable level, and that some measure of cutting back was inevitable. On 22nd March, the hon. Member for Macclesfield said that the industry would have to be rather smaller and more compact; probably 25 per cent. less than it is today. I noticed that he did not give that figure this afternoon, but I think that it is incumbent on the Government to state by how much the aircraft industry is too large at present, and what plans they have for securing a smooth reduction in the resources we are at present devoting to aircraft production.
  That should not be a very difficult problem. After all, what would happen if, by a wonderful chance, we got an agreement on general and complete disarmament tomorrow? Would not the scale of the contraction be very much larger than the 25 per cent. envisaged by the hon. Member for Macclesfield? Yet the recent report on the social and economic consequences of disarmament, produced by the United Nations, stated that all the countries which contributed to the report gave it as their opinion that it could be secured without any great disruption of their economies. I do not want to anticipate what will be said on the subject next Monday, but I hope that it will then be dealt with quite fully.
  Today, I have two questions that ought to be answered. First, what efforts are being made by the aircraft firms to diversify into other work so that redundancy may be minimised? That is particularly important for Short Bros. We have already heard something about that firm's efforts, and the hon. Member for Belfast, East has told us that the number employed on work other than aircraft

  507
  work amounted to only 1,000 out of a total of 7,000 employees.
  Diversification is important because, quite clearly from this afternoon's discussion, the firm is desperate because of lack of aircraft orders, and the social consequences of increased unemployment in Northern Ireland are very serious to contemplate. I do not believe that there is a very hopeful prospect of further orders for the Belfast freighter; if there had been, we should have been given some assurance by the Minister today. I believe that he is trying to make up his mind how that news can be broken so as to create the least political fuss.
  In those circumstances, the company faces a very bleak future as long as it is confined to aircraft. I do not believe that it could exist on the Sea Cat, or that even if it managed to make a success of the Skyvan that work would be enough to keep 6,000 people employed. What active steps have been taken to encourage Short Brothers to diversify into other products so as to enable those people to stay in employment? I do not care what the product is —it can be agricultural machinery for all I care—as long as those people do not lose their jobs.
  My second question, which may be relevant to the first is: will Transport Command be large enough with the aircraft on order, bearing in mind that more and more of our commitments will have to be covered by forces stationed in this country? As time goes on, political considerations will make it increasingly difficult to station forces in such places as Kenya and Singapore, which means that our treaty obligations in the Middle East and the Far East will have to be met by having a substantial airlift capability, so that we can take troops from this country to theatres of operations.
  I know that Transport Command have five V.C.l0s on order for the troop-carrying part of its rôle, and that it has ten Belfasts for conveying the large stores, but I doubt whether that is enough. The Americans, whose commitments are not so extended in proportion to ours, have a much larger force of transport aircraft. While I am on that subject. I would say that if the V.C.10
  508
  could be extended, as we all hope, to meet the London-Los Angeles stage requirements, it would have a very much greater military value in the days when some of the places to which I have referred are closed to us for political reasons.
  That brings me to the civil airlines. It is unfortunate that this debate should take place before the appearance of the report and accounts of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., but I dare say that, in common with the experience of many other operators in the last year, the Corporations have had rather a thin time. We have had too great capacity chasing the volume of traffic available. Nevertheless, one thing that we can be quite certain of is that the traffic will go on growing year by year. That is by no means the same thing as saying that it will become more profitable, because that is a matter largely influenced by the fare structure which, in most cases, is beyond our control.
  Does the Minister consider that, in what is probably this temporary era in which demand is not rising as fast as the additional capacity conning into service, it was really wise for B.O.A.C. to acquire the additional Boeings? I believe that it still has two Boeings on order now. Does he not think that it would be a good idea to cancel those two—and save foreign exchange in the process—and replace them later by V.C.l0s? I know that B.O.A.C. still says that it intends to open up the Far East route with Boeings, but is that wise when it cannot even fill its aircraft on the North Atlantic?
  I have spoken of fares, and I should like to mention two recent news items of some significance. The first was the rejection of the appeal by British Railways against B.E.A.'s three guinea night flights to Belfast, Glasgow and Edinburgh. The second was the announcement that on those fleets last year B.E.A. achieved an 87 per cent. load factor and carried a total of 27,113 passengers. Next winter, it intends to expand those services—or I have seen unofficial reports to that effect; I do not know whether they are true.
  On the other hand, in last week's debate we were told that long-distance passenger traffic was one of the more profitable of British Railways activities.

  509
  and it therefore looks as though British Railways will have to resign themselves to losing a sector of the traffic that is helping to subsidise the losses ocourring in other aspects of its work.
  I do not say Chat it is a good thing or a bad thing that B.E.A. should extend those services, but it certainty proves the necessity of planning transport services as a whole, and not looking at each little sector in total isolation. Was there any consultation between the Minister of Transport and 'the Minister of Aviation before that recent decision? If there was, it certainly did not appear to be so.
  I believe that in a few years time both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. will have extremely competitive fleets of modern aircraft, including the Trident and the VC10. At the same time, the existing fare structure will have the effect of making it difficult for some airlines to continue to operate over the routes where modem jets have been introduced. These airlines may, therefore, have to sell their piston and turbo-prop aircraft —and even the first generation jets— before they have become fully amortised.
  A differential fares structure may have to be introduced so that lower fares can be charged where piston or tubo-prop equipment is used. This might enable these machines to be kept in service for a greater length of time. One of the most successful airlines on the North Atlantic route is Icelandic, a non-I.A.T.A. carrier, using, I think, DC 6.Bs. We should, therefore, press within I.A.T.A. for a differential fares structure in favour of the older types of aircraft.
  I hope that we shall not be pushed into producing a supersonic airliner too quickly. There are great difficulties to overcome in this new development, many of which are not yet appreciated. For example, it is said that when a B58 bomber flew across America the other day at about 60,000 ft. greenhouse glass panes over a wide area were broken. Surely a similar state of affairs would exist if a number of supersonic airliners were flying over Britain.,
  Supersonic flight also presents the possibility of radiation damage to passengers because the higher one goes the stronger is the rate of cosmic radiation. This radiation becomes no longer
  510
  shielded by the ozone layer, and this could be dangerous to people travelling long distances at great heights. This might be particularly dangerous to pilots, stewardesses and those who must travel in this way regularly.
  The economics of airline operation is a mysterious subject, especially to the layman, because even now we are seeing B.O.A.C. adding to its fleet at a time when the load factors are lower than ever before—as low as 45 per cent., one hon. Member has said. It is important that we should examine the future of B.O.A.C.'s operations to see if the aircraft in the organisation's present structure are right for the task to be performed. I particularly ask the Minister in this connection to bear in mind what I have said about the additional Boeings he has on order and to consider in future having a more careful relationship between the Corporations regarding their buying policy and the expected rate of traffic growth.
  I am sure that some people might try to distort what I have said about the British aircraft industry. The ex-Minister is very good at that sort of thing. I must, therefore, re-affirm my belief that it has a great future. All that is required is for it to be properly reorganised to a size large enough to meet its commitments and to provide stable and continuing employment for the people in it so that the anxieties which they have undergone these last few years will not always be with them.
  The VC10, the Trident, the Argosy and the BAC111 are world leaders in their respective classes, and the same is true of the engines—the Conway, the Spey and the Tyne—all products of what I believe to be the greatest engineering firm in the world. We can take legitimate pride in the products of British engineering and we can feel certain that the industry as a whole will continue to play a vital rôle in sustaining the economy of the nation.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: With my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary both at the same time taking over control of what is an extremely important Department I should like to offer some comments on a number of different items of

  511
  policy. The first is the internal policy of that Department because the days are really past when good advice can be given on a technical subject which emanates from a mind unclouded by knowledge.
  Such a mind can anise in one or two or both circumstances; first, because the person concerned has never been trained to appreciate the basic language of the scientific subjects, and secondly because, with the best will in the world, if people have been out of contact with modern manufacturing and development processes in an industry in which the rate of technical development is very high indeed, it will be only good fortune if their technical judgment and advice is, in general terms, good and sound advice.
  If my right hon. Friend is to ensure that the advice he receives from his Department is technically sound and not obsolescent he will have to turn his mind seriously to the problem of obtaining the services, on short-term contracts, of people in the manufacturing industry. I stress "short-term contracts" because if he took them in as part of his permanent establishment, in 10 years' time he would be back in the same position as he is today; namely, that probably no-one in any senior position in his Ministry has recent knowledge of the industry, the destinies of which are largely controlled by the Ministry.
  I should like to draw attention to some of the major controlling factors in the aircraft and aero engine industries both in this country and internationally. If we take the beginning of the significant period—probably about 1955—we find some interesting developments in the aero engine world. Two large corporations in America, Westinghouse and Curtiss-Wright, were driven right out of the aero-engine business by the force of competition. The Allison Division of General Motors, which has absorbed hundreds of millions of dollars in investment from its parent company, was in a precarious competitive position and Orenda, in Canada, was driven out of business.
  Nevertheless, the proposition appears to be current in Britain that although America can afford only two-and-a-half engine companies—Pratt and Whitney,
  512
  General Electric and the Allison Division of General Motors—we in this country, for some reason not apparent to me, can support two. The logic of this I do not appreciate.
  In aircraft construction one finds in America last year that the Convair Division of General Dynamics made the largest loss of any American corporation in history—400 million dollars. Canada has had the collapse of the major portion of its aircraft industry as well in the collapse of Avro-Canada. This is the position in the world, not created by the Minister, but the position in which he finds himself.
  I turn to the aero-engine industry because, like the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) I also had the privilege to work for Rolls-Royce, though I can claim six years' rather than five years' service—perhaps a rather irrelevant claim. There are some outstanding facts when considering this matter, which should be borne in mind if the decision is arrived at that Britain cannot support two large engine firms when the American economy can scarcely support two-and-a-half of them.
  It is interesting to note that in the six years, 1955 to 1961, the value of aero-engine exports from Rolls-Royce has increased by no less than 252 per cent., from £15·7 million to 55 — 2 million. I here want to draw the Committee's attention to a very dangerous generalisation. It may be said with some justification that there are too many people in the British aero industry, but this is not to say that there are too many people in each of the units in that industry. An alternative form of asserting the original proposition is to say that there are too many units rather than too many people in those units.
  During the time when Rolls Royce increased exports from £15.7 million to £55 — 2 million its labour force increased only from 30,100 to 41,300. The interesting fact to be drawn from that is that in 1955 it took 1 — 99 employees to generate £1,000 of export trade whereas in 1961 it took only 0 — 75, which one could say is a 62 per cent. increase in productivity in that time, associated with a 252 per cent. expansion in its export trade. I know of no other company in any other industry with a record to match that.

  513
  If it is considered that British aeroengine exports are valuable to this country—and for the contrary proposition I can see no evidence whatsoever— one of two things has to happen. Either the support of the taxpayer has to be concentrated on the firm which has demonstrated beyond shadow of doubt its competitive efficiency and its productive efficiency—its competitive efficiency by taking away 54 per cent. of the market entirely dominated by major American manufacturers and its productive efficiency in the manner I have mentioned—or public money of a given quantity has to be split between a company which is already, despite this record, desperately short of development capital, and, a company which, with the best will in the world, one can truthfully say has never in its history sold one civil jet engine abroad. To be fair to the Bristol-Siddeley Company and its predecessors, it has sold some military jet engines abroad and a few handfuls of turbo-props but never to my knowledge one civil jet engine.
  If it were by any chance the intention of Her Majesty's Government to endeavour to launch Bristol-Siddeley into the civil jet business, which has already claimed Curtiss-Wright and Westing-house as its victims, this can be done only at a degree of public expenditure which can be measured in tens of millions of £s and not in millions of £s. It is very necessary that the Committee, and in particular my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary, should never let these basic facts of the situation slip from their memory whenever they may be tempted to make decisions on political grounds which completely ignore the basic economic and competitive realities which I have endeavoured to describe.
  I should like to add a further word on the subject of numbers of people employed in an industry. It is self-evident that if one is employing too few people for the volume of business one has at a given moment, the ratio of overtime will increase and costs will increase, but competitive efficiency will decrease. Therefore, although it is manifestly true that the volume of aviation business going in the world, civil and military, is extremely unlikely fully to occupy or even economically to
  514
  occupy the existing resources for manufacturing, designing and developing aircraft and aero-engines in this country, the decisions arising from appreciation of those facts must necessarily lead to a reduction in the number of units, rather than a reduction of the efficiency of each unit by reducing the number of people it employs and endeavouring to spread the work round everybody. This is not the way to retain 54 per cent. of world markets. This is the way to lose 80 per cent. of what one has won in a period as short as four years.
  Penultimately, I should like to make some observations on the subject of rather misleading claims sometimes made in the realm of the alleged conflict between noise regulations and safety. I have noticed a degree of confusion on this. I assure the Committee that the real contradiction is not between noise regulations and safety. It is between noise regulations and profitable operation, which is something of a completely different calibre.
  If one knows what the noise regulations are at a given airfield and then one proceeds to order equipment which cannot economically comply with those regulations one has only oneself to blame. If a person buys a very heavy under-powered aircraft it will have a poor rate of climb, and if he does not wish to break the noise regulations he will have to travel at less than the full pay load. Alternatively, if the fines imposed by the airport authority are less than the value of the fares lost by breaking the regulations, unscrupulous airlines will continue to break them, that being the lesser evil.
  Mr. A. E. Hunter (Feltham): Is the hon. Member aware that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. lose hundreds of thousands of £s a year in keeping within the Minister's noise regulations by carrying fewer passengers?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to the hon. Member. That is precisely the point I was making—that the conflict is between profit and noise regulations. Unfortunately, those who wish to have the noise regulations altered for reasons of profitability cloak their appeal in reasons of safety. They present the case in the manner that the

  515
  aircraft is being flown less safely at a given weight because of the flight path it has to follow as a result of the noise regulations. This is a completely hypocritical manner of presenting the case. It is time that attention was drawn to it. There are ways of mitigating the noise. A by-pass will generally give less noise with a given thrust. There are also attenuators—which could not be truly described as silencers. These however have a performance penalty and again this is a matter of profitability and not of safety. Lastly, a great deal has been said already about the question of orders for the Belfast.
  Mr. Richard Collard: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of noise and safety, may I assure him that there is indeed a connection and a conflict between noise regulations and safety and that this conflict may be greater in future? If I am fortunate enough to be called in the debate, I will develop that point for my hon. Friend. If not, I will explain it to him later.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is so learned from his personal experience, but I doubt very much that that is the case. I will say why, because the degree of noise depends upon the energy of the noise at its point of generation and the distance and angle between the point of generation and the hearer. This depends on the rate of climb of the aircraft and the thrust selected by the pilot. As long as the noise regulations are known, and are known to be enforced, there is no reason why the operator should not procure equipment which most nearly meets these requirements and is still profitable. If he buys aircraft which cannot meet these requirements he has no one but himself to blame. That I assert very rigidly.
  Lastly, on the subject of the Belfast I would merely say that once upon a time the Belfast, I believed, was a purely political aircraft. That is to say, the order placed for it was placed on grounds of the very high unemployment in Northern Ireland and, to a lesser extent, because of the Government's investment in Short Bros, and Harland. Without going into the technical merits
  516
  of the aeroplane, I would confine myself to saying that I was very impressed indeed both with the manufacturing facilities which I saw at Short Bros, and Harland and also with the calibre of the management there. When dealing with people in the aircraft industry it is very refreshing to encounter people who answer one's questions frankly and who do not deafen one with cries in which truth does not constitute 100 per cent. of the content. This I found very refreshing indeed.
  I hope that by the time this debate comes to its conclusion my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friend will have gathered that there is on both sides of the Committee considerable concern not only about the direction of Government policy but about the basis of that direction. In other words, there is no overwhelming evidence that all decisions which are taken, are taken with an adequate degree of technical appreciation. Nor is there adequate evidence that the urgency of taking many decisions, because of consequential events hanging on those decisions, is fully appreciated. If ever there was an industry in which time was valuable to a huge extent in terms of money, it is the aircraft industry. Once an opportunity has been missed, even by a matter of three months, the cost both to the taxpayer and to the foreign exchange situation of this country can be very disastrous indeed.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. A. E. Hunter: I want briefly to support the appeals which have been made from both sides of the Committee on behalf of Short Bros, and Harland. I had the pleasure of visiting that factory with my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). I have seen the great capacity and scope of that concern for building aircraft. I have seen its trained teams, technicians and craftsmen. I hope very much that our appeal for Short Bros, and Harland will have some impact on the Government and their factories kept in production.
  My main point in speaking tonight— is to voice protests made to me by a number of my constituents about the B.O.A.C.—Cunard-Eagle merger. A large number of people in my constituency

  517
  work for the Corporations, and I have had a number of letters from B.O.A.C. employees protesting against the merger with Cunard-Eagle. Parliament was never consulted or advised. It was done overnight. Employees, whether they work for nationalised or private industry, are annoyed when these deals take place above their heads, and I am sure that one of the reasons for the Government's increasing unpopularity is this sort of take-over bid or type of negotiations. People are working for one firm one day and then, without any consultation, they suddenly find that they are working for a new set-up, after they have spent their years working for a company.
  I know of the great interest taken by the employees of B.O.A.C. in the expansion of the Corporation. I have been in this House for over seven years, and time and again hon. Members opposite have referred to the desirability of competition between the Corporations and private independent operators. We on these benches are not against the independent operators. At the same time, we feel that as this country has put so much capital, research and skill into building up the Corporations, they should be given every chance to compete against the severe foreign competition. On the North Atlantic route B.O.A.C. as keen American competition, and B.E.A. is holding its own against all European airlines, but it is keen international competition all the time. We have always maintained that there is very little profit for the airline operators in view of the intense competition. I have heard the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) say that the margin of profit earned by airline operators is very small indeed. Therefore, we have always maintained that our Corporations should have every possible support from us in their competition against American and other international airlines.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is quite right so far as he goes, but does he not recognise that B.O.A.C. has had its chance? There are two American operators, Pan-American Airways and T.W.A., both operating to Britain. Why should we have fewer operators going to America? Surely we should have equal rights?
  Mr. Hunter: That is our point. We want to give all our support to our Corporations so that they can hold their own in this international competition. We have always been told by hon. Members opposite that there should be competition from the independent airlines, whether on the North Atlantic route, the European routes or in this country. This merger denies it. Our argument is that the Corporations have this intense competition from the American and other airline corporations.
  B.O.A.C. employs large numbers of engineers, electricians, craftsmen, pilots and supervisors, but they were never consulted about the merger. There is elaborate machinery at London Airport for consultation. There are panels and trade union organisations. There is all the machinery by which they could have been consulted and informed of this merger with Cunard-Eagle. It seems to me that the attitude of the Government, as in some private enterprises, is that the employees do not count. It is the people at the top who decide policy only, and that is an attitude which we on these benches do not support.
  In all concerns, whether under private enterprise or nationalisation, we want the good will, co-operation and support of the employees. This merger took place without any consultation with Parliament, also no information or statement was made by the Minister until a Question was put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). This is not the way to win the good will and co-operation of the employees in our great Corporations.
  As has been said, Cunard-Eagle wild take a 30 per cent. share and the Corporation will take the two Boeing aircraft which Cuward-Eagle has ordered. Cunard-Eagle applied for permission to operate the North Atlantic route, but B.O.A.C. opposed this and the Corporation's appeal was upheld. When all that was over, however, we now have the merger between B.O.A.C. and the company. The feeling of employees as shown by the letters which I receive is that this is a backdoor attempt at de-nationalisiation so that Cunard-Eagle can get control of B.O.A.C. in the years ahead. That is the opinion of a number of B.O.A.C. employees. This has been denied, but the feeling still exists.

  519
  I hope that when he replies to the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to deny what I am saying. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Collard) may laugh, but if he had read the letters which I receive from people who work for B.O.A.C. he would know that that was in their minds. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make the position clear. As I have said on earlier occasions, I am not against the independent operators. In many cases they do a good job. B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., however, carry the Union Jack for this country, and the House of Commons should give them every possible support. I feel that I am doing my duty in expressing the views of my constituents who have written to me, protesting against the B.O.A.C.-Cunard merger which was done overnight without Parliament being informed.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Collard: The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) will, I hope, forgive me if I do not follow his remarks in detail. As, however, the hon. Member commented that I was smiling at one of his remarks, let me assure him that I found his theory that Cunard would take over B.O.A.C. a little bizarre. I certainly did not intend any discourtesy to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Hunter Mr. Hunter rose—
  Mr. Collard: The hon. Member has made his speech; I am now making mine. I assure him, however, that I did not intend any discourtesy. I merely found his theory just a little comic.
  I add my good wishes to my right hon. Friend the Minister in his new and important post and also to my hon. Friend on becoming Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation. My right hon. Friend discharged his last post with great distinction. It is, in a way, almost the nicest post in the Government. Many hon. Members would regard as a pleasant dream the idea that they might become Secretary of State for Air. On the other hand, they might regard the possibility of become Minister of Aviation as something of a nightmare.
  Among his other difficulties, a Minister of Aviation will be assailed at almost all
  520
  times by some of the most brilliant but, at the same time, some of the most tiresome men in the country. He will have to conduct himself according to several different roles. He has a Department which is partly administrative, partly operational and partly technical, a Department which is a purchasing agency—although some might say that it was more of a rejecting agency; a Department which has among its duties the operation of important establishments and, moreover, a Department which is responsible for the safety of flying within the confines of this country. That is toy no means the least of his heavy responsibilities. I am certain that my right hon. Friend's abilities are well equal to this, but I do not greatly envy him.
  I wish to make two points, one about hardware and one about humans. By "hardware" I mean the aircraft, with a reference to the aircraft indusitry. When listening to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) on the subject of the aircraft industry, I could not help remembering that he belongs to a political party which has announced that it would, if it could, immediately abolish the British independent strategic deterrent. It is one of the few subjects on which the hon. Member's party has made positive pronouncements. I do not know what effect that might have on the future of the British aircraft industry, but that is a largely academic point since it would be fatal to the nation.
  The manufacture, the development and, certainly, the sale of aircraft is a complex and baffling business. I should here declare an interest which I have declared on former occasions, namely, that I am a director of a company which manufactures aircraft. Apart from that, however, as some hon. Members know, I have bean actively associated with aviation ever since I reached the age of 20.
  What I want to say about the aircraft industry and about the hardware, which is part of the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, is that in Great Britain we make the best aircraft in the world. That statement might be disputed, as sometimes it has been, but those who have disputed it have been proved wrong time and again. In 1938 and 1939 it would have been easy to find people, and

  521
  knowledgeable people, who would say that the Germans were far ahead of us in the design and manufacture of aircraft. How wrong in the event they proved to be!
  It is true that the Americans have a large and efficient aircraft industry and that in one way and another they are coming along quite well, but with the devotion of considerably more resources, effort and wealth it is still beyond their power to build aircraft of the quality which we are able to do in this country. Those of us who had the good fortune and duty to fly the products of the British aircraft industry during the war can bear testimony to their toughness and competence. Indeed, if that were not so we should hardly be here.
  The products of the British aircraft industry fly all over the world. They enjoy a reputation second to none and they confirm the claim which I have already made that in this country we make the best aircraft in the world. The aircraft industry has had some hard things said about it from time to time, but in the last resort it is by its products that it must be judged.
  The aircraft industry has a new look, something which is called "rationalisation". That is a word which I never quite understand, but it is made the excuse for a great many activities. The aircraft industry has a new look which was very largely ascribed to it by the Government. The arguments in favour of this new organisation of the aircraft industry I shall not attempt to state largely because I have never been able to understand them. I shall not weary the House with the arguments against that organisation because it might be thought that I was prejudiced.
  There is, however, one point which I must emphasise to my right hon. Friend. In this business of the development and manufacture of aircraft, the men on the shop floor are important, the men who will fly the aircraft and maintain them are important, and even the management and the board of directors are not unimportant, but the essential people in successfully manufacturing an aircraft are the technical staffs and design teams. When an industry is contracting, as the aircraft industry undoubtedly is, it is vital to remember that once the design teams have been allowed
  522
  to disperse, or even to run down to any great extent, the situation becomes irretrievable. I urge my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that whenever a design team or a technical staff in the aircraft industry is lost or run down, the country loses an irreplaceable asset.
  This brings me to Short Bros, and Harland of Belfast, a great aircraft company to which several references have already been made. It may be, as my right hon. Friend said, that the company has work to take it into next year. It has been said elsewhere that it has work to last even longer. I am very sceptical about that because, with such a small production line of aircraft, I think that the company may very soon find itself having actually to dismiss men on the shop floor. However that may be, I am quite sure that without a further order for the Belfast aircraft it will not be possible for this great company to keep its technical staff together and to maintain its very fine design team for more than a few months to come.
  Apart from the important and cogent arguments which have been put by hon. Members on both sides about the serious social and economic consequences of such an event for Northern Ireland, I put it to my right hon. Friend that one of the issues at stake in this question of whether or not a further order for the Belfast is placed is whether or not he wishes to maintain in being a great asset, namely, the technical staff and design team of a great aircraft company.
  I turn now to the subject of noise in relation to aircraft safety. I warned my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that I should deal with this matter if I were fortunate in catching the eye of the Chair, and I am glad that he is here to hear what I have to say. I hope to show that there is a conflict between noise regulations and safety. No one hates noise more than I do. On the very rare occasions when I feel vindictive it is usually towards someone who is making a noise unnecessarily.
  The subject of aircraft noise and its relation to safety was ventilated in Question and Answer in the House a week or so ago and subsequently my hon. Friend the former Parliamentary Secretary, who has now been translated, was good enough to write to me on the

  523
  subject. There are rules in this country and at most of the major international airports abroad governing aircraft noise, and there are certain restrictions placed on captains of aircraft in this respect. The rules at London Airport are not particularly stringent—there are more stringent rules at some international airports overseas—but I question whether rules of this nature should be made at all.
  There are rules for the conduct of safe flying which have been in force for many years. They are understandable and proper and, in fact, they make for greater safety. I refer to regulations against low flying, against aerobatics at a low height, against disregarding air traffic control rules, and so forth, all of which are essential and which no one would question. But here we come to something new. Even if there is nothing in any of the regulations about noise, which, taken by themselves, could be regarded as specifically dangerous, I submit that the existence of restrictions on the captains of modern aircraft, particularly at the time of take-off, the most critical part of any flight in a modern aircraft, can and in some cases, perhaps, even do today have an adverse effect, if only a slightly adverse effect, on safety.
  The rules at London Airport, taken by themselves, are not, I believe, specifically dangerous or in any way such as to reduce flight safety, but if an aircraft is required, in order to avoid a built-up area, to start making a turn, however slight, shortly after take-off, I maintain that the safety of the operation of the aircraft is liable to be impaired. I believe that even at London Airport for some directions of take-off a turn is obligatory on the captain of the aircraft. I am not quite clear at what height he is expected to turn. However, what I maintain with conviction is that it is dangerous to require the captain of a fully laden modern aircraft to make any turn below 1,000 ft. above the ground.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Surely, the answer is not to order equipment which will not do precisely that, make the turn on reaching an altitude of 1,000 ft.
  Mr. Collard: I take my hon. Friend's point. Of course, we are dealing with equipment which is already in airline
  524
  service, and the remarks I have made apply to several modern airliners, particularly the jets. Perhaps I may go on to my more general point which may answer my hon. Friend's objection more precisely.
  Because the captain's only consideration when taking his aircraft into the air should be for the safe and efficient take-off of his aircraft, I believe that it can be in some degree hostile to the safe operation of the aircraft if he has to consider restrictions placed upon him not connected with the safe or efficient take-off but connected with the amount of noise which he may make and so disturb people on the ground.
  I am expressing a personal conviction, although I have had the opportunity of consulting some experienced and prominent pilots on this matter during the past week. I say again that I have a great hate of noise, but I believe that there is no room for compromise here. If we cannot stand the noise which modern aircraft make in carrying out a safe and efficient take-off, then we shall have to do without the aircraft. But if we want the aircraft we shall—and I say this regretfully—have to put up with the noise and not attempt to (reduce it by putting any restriction on the captain of the aircraft who carries such a heavy responsibility, particularly at the time of take-off.
  Those are the two points that I wish to make—firstly, the danger of the disappearance of these priceleses assets in the shape of design teams and technical staffs, with special reference to Short Brothers and Harland, and, secondly, the point, which I know may not be readily accepted but which I believe requires very careful attention, that the captain of an aircraft should have not placed on him restrictions with regard to noise which could in any way affect his capacity, ability and duty to fly his aircraft in the safest and most efficient manner.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I rise with some hesitation because most of the contributions to the debate have been made by experts on this subject. I do not pretend to be an expert. I have listened with fascination and awe to some of the speeches.

  525
  It has almost been like the occasions when lawyers debate some detailed legalistic Measure.
  I speak only because recently I gave notice, after an unsatisfactory reply to a Question, that I would take the first opportunity to raise the matter, and this is the occasion. I appreciate that the Minister was not responsible for the Answer given, but I hope that he will be able to deal with the matter which I propose to raise.
  The Question concerned the exorbitant increase in the cost of air pilots' licences. The former Minister of Aviation announced on 16th April, as part of his overall policy for improving pilot recruitment and training, increases in the charges for flying tests and examinations. In the White Paper published on that occasion, it was explained that one of the purposes of increasing the charges was to discourage the high failure rate among those who wished to become pilots and who took these tests and their inadequate preparation for examination.
  I say at once the Minister was justified in trying to secure those ends, but he was not satisfied merely in making extra charges for the examinations when pilots sought to enter the service. He also applied the increased charges to practising air pilots. They have to undergo medical examinations and to take new tests every six months. He increased the charge to existing pilots undergoing medical tests and renewal tests each six months by 333 per cent.
  The old rate for the medical examination was £1 and for the licence renewal 12s. 6d. From 28th May this year, the cost of the medical examination was increased to £2 and the licence renewal to £3 10s. The cost for a year now is £11 as against £3 5s. before May this year. That is an outrageous increase.
  The second point I wish to make is that the increased charges were made without any consultation with the air pilots' trade union. No approach was made to the British Air Line Pilots' Association, and, when the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was questioned in the House about this he said that it was outside the scope of negotiation with that Association.
  I ask the Minister to reply to this point tonight, and to remember that when
  526
  I raised it questions were put not only from this side but by hon. Members on the back benches opposite. He has a charge to answer which is causing great annoyance among large numbers of air pilots in this country. I hope that one of the effects of new representation in the Ministry will be a reconsideration of this matter.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: I hope that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) will excuse me if I do not follow the trend of his speech because it is very late and I have a few important points that I wish to put before the Committee. The general tenor of the debate has indicated that there is a strong opinion on both sides of the Committee that there is a need for decision and for a determined and firm policy on aviation and that the aircraft development of this country needs firm decisions and a firm guiding hand to indicate the direction in which it should go in future.
  I will not at this late hour endeavour to go into the details about Messrs. Short Brothers and Harland which were so ably put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). He gave a very satisfactory and clear picture of the history of this firm and the strategic freighter in which this company is so interested. I wish to add and underline a few important points which are affecting this company at the moment.
  This must be considered in the context of the way in which requirements for military aircraft are assessed, the time which it takes to assess them and, finally, to get a decision when a decision is needed in a hurry. I was impressed— and I hope that my impression was correct—with the new Minister's feeling of urgency. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary, or whoever is to reply, winds up, I shall have the same impression and an answer to one or two points which I wish to raise.
  The first point is this. Will it be possible, on these requirements for a new aircraft or a further aircraft required for military uses, to get a decision in a matter of weeks and not months? We have been waiting a long time for a decision. Although the Minister was unable in his speech today to give that definite

  527
  assurance about an early decision, I hope that by now, perhaps, he will have had time further to consider it, and that we shall get a definite date at which—or at any rate a definite statement on the number of weeks in which—this matter will be finalised. For it is not possible for Short Brothers and Harland to continue indefinitely with promises. The time has come when we have got to have it definitely stated, and that decision must be produced, I again impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary, in a matter of week, and no longer than that.
  We have a feeling that there is not at present that sense of urgency and drive which there would be if this country were under threat of wax. If this country were in urgent need, as in wartime, we Should have had this matter definitely decided. We should have decided what to do and how to do it. In a time of as near peace as possible, we seem to have drifted, and decisions are put off day after day and week after week. I make a last appeal for a decision on this.
  We have very much in mind the fact that the present Belfast could be developed in so many ways. There are up to 50 variations available at present. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East has given so many of the facts and figures about it, the Committee must be very well aware of the very great variety of uses which this aeroplane has and the great possibilities it has in the commercial field in its developed form. I do not want to weary the Committee by repeating all those details.
  I must reaffirm here that we believe that the Government have a great responsibility for Short Bros. After all, there is a large investment of Government—of taxpayers'—money in this company, and we cannot have obligations working one way only; they work both ways. I believe the Government have an obligation to maintain Shorts as a fully balanced unit and an obligation to ensure the future of a firm which was planted into Northern Ireland and has thriven there. Despite the many difficulties which have beset it and the aircraft industry, it has proved itself. It has at all levels people young in mind as well as in age, and young in ideas, people who are the most valuable people in our
  528
  community and who are in great measure responsible for the ideas which are so helpful today to make our aircraft industry worth while.
  We must remember this not only in the context of Northern Ireland but in the context of the whole aircraft industry. There are a number of rumours going about that the two great combines may find it possible to develop something different from the Belfast and perhaps to get together with Shorts and have some form of merger or take-over, and that then Shorts would be in the position of a subsidiary, receiving sub-contracts and side bits, and eventually be reduced to a high quality aircraft garage. This is not what Short Bros, was designed for; it is not what Northern Ireland expected; nor can the company exist like that. It must be clearly stated that against the background of aviation and of the aircraft industry today, Short Bros, has an original and special contribution to make, which is highly valuable.
  Unless something is done quickly the design team will be run down and there will be a lessening of the thrust and capabilities of the company, and that would affect not only the future work of the people employed there at workshop level but would affect also the future capabilities of the firm. The Minister has taken over only in the last few days, and this debate, which has been thrust upon him, is a very big one for him to start with. But my right hon. Friend proved himself at the beginning, and I am sure that we shall get a satisfactory answer at the end of the debate. One thing I ask for is a definite assurance about this matter. It has been going on for years. In all the seven years I can remember in which we have been discussing this problem, whether from the employment point of view or the aviation point of view, we have hade very time to ask for a reassurance about this company, and we have received it, but this is a time when we can no longer go on leap-frogging like that but must get over the final hummock, and back to level ground. This company must know where it is going.
  I welcome the fact that the Minister has said that he will be going to Northern Ireland to see this firm. I am very pleased about this and no doubt

  529
  the company will be pleased. I hope that he will not, as other Ministers have done, go there, look round, be very impressed, make suitable, happy and helpful comments and then go back and that will be the last that we hear about it. We must look forward to something more than helpful comments. The Government must give a definite guarantee tonight to maintain Shorts as a balanced unit. That would be an enormous encouragement to the company and make it possible for the company to wait the necessary few weeks until the finalisation of the Belfast is brought about.
  On the question of research, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East spoke about many of the different items which Shorts had available. He went into them in greater detail than I can now do All I ask is that the Committee and the Parliamentary Secretary will note again all the different aspects of development of which Shorts is capable and the number of items on which the company is held up through lack of development finance and will be unable to carry on much longer unless there are orders in the future, so that its design team can go on with further research work.
  It should not be beyond the bounds of Ministerial capacity to find the means to inject into this company an order or the finance necessary to give it an opportunity to go on developing in the satisfactory way in which it is running, so far as it is capable of doing, in great difficulties. If, through no fault of its own, Shorts cannot continue as a balanced unit it will be a disaster for the whole of the aircraft industry and will be remembered as the "Titanic" was remembered as being symbolic for the whole shipping industry, but it will have far greater repercussions. The "Titanic" went down because it was overcome by natural hazards, but in this case they are man-made hazards. The decision that has to be made is of vital importance.
  In every debate in the last seven years requests have been made on behalf of this company and it has had only one firm order for ten Belfasts. It now urgently needs another firm order, but I cannot expect tonight that either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position to say anything
  530
  definite. We need an assurance first about the company being continued as a balanced unit and, secondly, that there should be a decision as quickly as possible. I assure my hon. Friend that this is a time when there can be no looking back. This is the time when we have to have a decision because the policy for aviation is not a policy of dithering. We in Northern Ireland recognise that the Government have a very heavy responsibility, and we challenge them to accept that responsibility for the company in which they arc the major shareholders and in which so much of Northern Ireland's future is invested.
  8.30 p.m.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin), who made the point over and over again that the troubles in the aircraft industry are recurrent. This is not something that is just a current crisis in Belfast. It is not only a temporary trouble in Derby or in Gloucester. Before the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary lose sight of the wood because of the trees, I should like to ask some general questions about the aircraft industry and urge the Government to consider them. Have they in fact got the machinery to tackle these problems as they arise? There is a great danger that pleas such as those which we have had from Belfast might also come from Gloucester or Derby. They might be the subject of special pleading, too. Is the Minister able to distinguish special pleading or not? He should think about a comparison with the United States. Have we in this country any organisation comparable with the Rand Corporation, which looks at the general problems of strategy not simply in relation to defence but in relation to research, design and production? These general problems are of vital importance to the aircraft industry.
  Investment in an aircraft is necessarily a very lumpy matter. There is not a great deal of research that can be done out of the context of a specific project. One has to treat the project on the basis of a certain type of air-frame and a certain conception of engine. It is immensely expensive, and it is only When some one is willing to back the whole project that a firm can really

  531
  spend the money needed for research and new ideas.
  This sets the aircraft industry rather apart from other science based industries, which are able to maintain a much steadier rate of work by their technical staffs. Once an industrial product has been brought out, it can be mucked about with. It can be added to or modified throughout its useful life. This is not something that one can do in the production of modern airframes or aircraft engines, however. Once an air-frame or engine is built, the technical effort is mainly completed.
  We should have better machinery for considering the problems of the aircraft industry. The question is the way it should be done and how it should be regarded. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made the point that it is necessary to attract people directly from the industry itself and that their useful life is only a short term of years because they lose touch. Perhaps we felt something of that in the speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Collard), who seemed a great deal less in touch with the aircraft industry than those who have arrived in the House borne on their slide rules, including perhaps the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and the hon. Member for Tiverton.
  We need this kind of effort not only on the technical level of design of air-frames and engines, but also on the strategic planning level—strategic in relation to production and patterns of travel for civil airlines as well as in relation to future demands of defence.
  This is a single whole. It is a problem which can only be tackled by the Minister. I urge him to examine the experience of the United States in relation to the planning of its space programme and its defence programme, and also to look at the enormous institutions it has built to carry out strategic studies. We should see whether our ratio of strategic study effort to technical design effort is not much too small and whether urgent steps should not be taken to remedy it.
  If the management of Short Brothers is as good as it is cracked up to be— and I have no reason to doubt it—this would be a very good job for its design
  532
  team, which could pose some of these big strategic questions about the future of the aircraft industry and its relationship to civil and defence needs and try to answer them.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. John Cronin: I must first congratulate the Minister of Aviation on achieveing his new appointment and also on his survival. Some of us feel that the Prime Minister treated some of his friends rather unfairly after they had done him good service, but it is in some way in the Prime Minister's favour that, however he treats his friends, he obviously treats his relations well. I should like also to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary. He was a director of a firm which has a special claim to distinction, because it is a firm which developed one of the few missiles produced by the Ministry of Aviation which was really successful, and that is probably a good omen for the future.
  I should say a few words about Short Brothers and Harland, although I had intended to devote most of my remarks to the affairs of the British Overseas Airways Corporation. But Short Brothers has played a prominent part in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) has spoken about it, as has the hon. Lady for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), who always takes a very careful interest in the affairs of Short Brothers. In fact, he defends the interests of that firm with a stubbornness and vehemence which must incur our admiration.
  We all know that Short Brothers produces a first-class strategic freighter aircraft. We have had a very full description of it during the debate and we know that it should be available in 1963. We also know that it has a very good potential as a commercial freighter aircraft to operate. It is what we need as a strategic freighter for the Royal Air Force and with small modifications it is what we need as a tactical freighter for the R.A.F., because it has a very short take-off and landing capability.
  The extraordinary thing is that at present the R.A.F. has no efficient strategic freighter. The Minister, who

  533
  was Secretary of State for Air so recently, will probably agree with me that the R.A.F. has only one tactical freighter, the Beverley, which is obsolete and difficult and awkward to fly. So there is a great need for the Belfast and it would be available but for the fatal link in the chain, the Government. The hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West referred to the Government as being like the iceberg which sank the Titanic. That was an apposite simile for the Short Brothers situation.
  All of us are familiar with the recent statement of the chairman of Short Brothers, Mr. Wrangham, who said that unless there was a further order, Short Brothers would go out of business. Obviously, if Short Brothers goes out of business, it will not be able to produce even the 10 Belfasts which have been ordered for the R.A.F., and that poses many questions. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make a note of these questions, because we should like to know something about this matter.
  For instance, I should like to know why the Ministry of Aviation made Short Brothers accept this order on a condition that it would sell twice as many again. That was a condition which would not be satisfied. Why was this order made on conditions which precluded its completion? If Short Brothers go out of business, the order will not be completed and what will then happen about modifications and spares for the aircraft which have been ordered, and how will the R.A.F. cope with that? Why was such an order made if the firm is to be driven out of business? If the R.A.F. does not like the Belfast as a transport plane, why was it ordered? Perhaps the Minister can whisper the answer to the Parliamentary Secretary, for it is a question to which we should all like to know the answer. What are the R.A.F. to do for a strategic freighter transport, and how will it get along when it does not now have a strategic freighter?
  Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when a decision will be made? The Minister said earlier that it was not a matter of years or even of months, but I remember that during the debate on the Air Estimates in 1961 we raised the question of a strategic freighter for the R.A.F., and the Government have still not made up their minds about it. There was an
  534
  operational requirement for a strategic firelighter. It was operational requirement 351, and the Ministry has been waiting 18 months to make a decision on this. Why cannot we have quicker action by the Ministry?
  We had the same trouble over the V1000, that excellent Vickers aircraft. The Ministry ordered a prototype and four production models in 1955, but this order was later cancelled and the whole project fell through.
  Mr. Lubbock: Just before the first one was due to fly.
  Mr. Cronin: All this resulted from hesitation by the Ministry of Aviation.
  If Shorts close down, about 7,000 people will be unemployed at the factory and probably another 5,000 at the factories of the sub-contractors. This will be a disaster because it must be remembered that in the last 10 years unemployment in Northern Ireland has fluctuated between 10 per cent. and 6½ per cent.
  Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), other hon. Members who are interested in aviation affairs, and I saw a deputation from the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The delegates felt strongly about this problem, but I think that the time has come for Northern Ireland to help itself. If Northern Ireland is suffering from this high level of unemployment, there is one simple remedy. I mean no offence to the hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, but all that the people there have to do is to return Labour Members to this House. It is as simple as that. It is time that Northern Ireland learned to help itself.
  I turn now to the affairs of the B.O.A.C. The first thing that I ought to do is to help the Minister with his homework. He gave the impression this afternoon that the affairs of the B.O.A.C. were not really his concern. He said that it had got together with Cunard and made an arrangement, and that the Ministry had subsequently been consulted and had approved the arrangement. Similar remarks were made by the Minister of Defence when he was Minister of Aviation.
  The Minister of Aviation is wholly and completely responsible for the Air

  535
  Corporations. There is no question about this, because Section 5 of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, says:
  "The Minister may, after consultation with any of the corporations, give to that corporation directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by that corporation of their functions in relation to matters appearing to the Minister to affect the national interest; and the corporation shall give effect to any such directions."
  It is time that the Government stopped trying to abdicate their responsibility for the affairs of the corporations, because they are wholly responsible for them.
  Mr. Amery: It says "may".
  Mr. Cronin: It is quite clear what is meant. The Minister has full powers to issue directions to the Air Corporations. One tenet of Government policy is to abdicate their responsibility and place it in the hands of businessmen, but the Government have full legal powers to control the Corporations.
  I now want to refer to an aircraft which other horn. Members have mentioned earlier—the VC10. This is an excellent aircraft, which has powerful rear jet engines, and will take the place of the Boeing 707. It will make a tremendous difference to our North Atlantic trade. I want to tell hon. Members something of the history behind the ordering of this aircraft. We know that B.O.A.C. has ordered 30 super VC10s and 12 VC10s, but news recently broke in the Press that the Corporation might have to cancel orders for this aircraft because it did not have an aircraft which could make the London-Los Angeles flight without stopping—an aircraft with a range of 6,000 miles.
  We were told that the Corporation had asked Vickers to design a special VC10 which could operate over this range, and 'that Vickers had been given until the autumn to produce it, failing which the Corporation would order aircraft from the United States. The importance of this 6,000-mile range aircraft is that it brings in trade from the west coast of the United States.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I am sure that the hon. Member does not want deliberately to mislead the Committee. He is not rendering a useful service to British
  536
  aviation in what he is saying. It is a question not of designing a new aircraft but of stretching the range of an existing one to meet a requirement which has arisen since the original order was placed.
  Mr. Cronin: I fully accept that. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. It is a question of adapting the VC10 so that it will have a range of 6,000 males, and I am confident that it will be done. The hon. Member can rest assured about that. But I am concerned with what happened in collection with the ordering of a 6,000-mile range aircraft.
  Pan-American Airways has ordered five of these aircraft from the United States, and they will go into service in the spring of 1963. T.W.A. —the principal rivals of Pan-American Airways— has also ordered five, and Air France and Lufthansa have ordered four and two respectively, which will go into service in the spring of 1964. B.O.A.C. has reached the stage merely of asking Vickers to produce a modification of the VC10 by the autumn. That means that we shall be about two years behind our rivals in putting into service an aircraft with a range which will enable it to carry trade from the west coast of the United States, which is about one-eighth of the total of the Transatlantic trade.
  There is one particularly unfortunate circumstance about this situation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Maccles-field (Sir A. V. Harvey), who is familiar with technician aviation questions, will agree with me on this. Two years ago it was well known, and was reported in the aviation Press, that the Americans had developed an aircraft with a range of 6,000 miles. But the Ministry of Aviation did nothing about it until this year.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Surely that is not the job of the Ministry. It is the job of the Corporation to forecast the type of aircraft that it requires for the future. If the business is to succeed its day-today running must be left to the executives of the Corporation and not to the Minister.
  Mr. Cronin: The ordering of aircraft is a major matter of policy for which the Minister is directly responsible.

  537
  There is no escaping from that. I will carry the matter a little further. The Corporation has to go to the Minister direct for dollars and for any capital it wants to borrow. In fact, in May last year it went to the Minister in order to obtain capital to buy two Boeings, which did not have a range of 6,000 miles. The Minister must have been fully aware of the situation then. It was mentioned in the aviation Press two years ago. Here we have a clear example where we are behind all our rivals on the North Atlantic trade. We are liable to lose, at least temporaily, one-eighth of that trade. If there is an increased deficit in B.O.A.C., the fault will lie very much at the door of the Government.
  Now, we come to the B.O.A.C.-Cunard merger, on which so many hon. Gentlemen have expressed their views. I can only join with my hon. Friend the Member for Newton in condemning the way in which is was announced to the House about three weeks after it took place. This is not the first time that this has happened. On remembers that a few months ago the Fairey Rotodyne was cancelled, and millions of pounds of public money were thrown away, and this information was given in a casual Answer to a back bench Member's Question. There must often be occasions when Ministers have to give disagreeable news to the House, but the honourable and proper thing is for them to come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement. It is time that the Government learned to do this.
  One can look at the reasons for the B.O.A.C.-Cunard merger. There is one very obvious reason, to which every hon. Gentleman has referred directly or indirectly, and that is fear of what the Government were going to do. We know that the whole fear of B.O.A.C. was that a licence would be given to Cunard-Eagle to operate on its North Atlantic route. Each daily service given to Cunard-Eagle would cost the Corporation £5 million, and, obviously, no business firm run on commercial lines could possibly stand up to a situation in which millions of pounds of its revenue were being drained away. This would have been the direct result of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, if the Minister of Defence had not intervened and revoked the licence. But, after he
  538
  had revoked the licence, Cunard-Eagle decided that they would apply again, as they knew that there would be another Minister and other circumstances, in which there was a very good chance that they would get the licence. Therefore, B.O.A.C. has been driven into this merger simply by the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, of the baneful consequences of which we warned the Government at the time.
  British Overseas Airways is run by a first-class Corporation. It is run very well indeed by men of very high quality, but they have the Government sitting on their shoulders like the Old Man of the Sea, and that is their difficulty. That is the explanation of it. The time has come when we have to ask the Government to consider amending the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960. I will not develop this theme, because it would be out of order in Committee of Supply, but I hope that the Minister will make sure that he never again allows to pass a situation in which independent airlines are able to take away some of the routes of the Air Corporations and increase the deficits with which we are to be faced, because it is public money which has to be found to meet these unfortunate acts of policy on the part of the Government.
  B.O.A.C. has to face very severe competition on the North Atlantic. It has to face Pan-American, which has very large contracts from the United States Government for running the Cape Canaveral base, for freighting and carrying troops, and also T.W.A., which also has large contracts with the United States Army for freighting and carrying troops. These are massive subsidies which are given to Pan-American and T.W.A. and which certainly have no counterpart on our side of the Atlantic. It is very unfair that B.O.A.C should have to face not only this subsidised competition, but also this heavy burden —this menace—placed on its shoulders by the Government.
  No other country countenances that. The whole tendency in other countries is to have one airline, and no rivals of any kind except at the fringe. Air France, Lufthansa, S.A.S. are all complete airlines on their own account, and the only two American airlines running in competition are heavily subsidised—
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman should remember the very considerable volume of trade carried from America by Seaboard and Western, and Flying Tigers, in particular. They carry a very large proportion of the air freight trade which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is very remunerative.
  Mr. Cronin: I know that some of the American freight trade is carried by other companies, but most of it is carried by companies supported by disguised but heavy subsidies from the United States.
  I must make it clear that we on this side have nothing against the independent air companies. They have done excellent work up to now, particularly in car ferrying, in trooping and in freight work, and they have not been badly treated. They have reached the stage where B.U.A. has capital assets of £17 million. It has certainly improved its position very considerably since it started, in spite of its apparent handicaps.
  What we want to know is what the future is for B.O.A.C. In the Financial Times of 7th June, 1962, one reads:
  "Sir Mathew Slattery remarked at the conference that in principle he would not be unwilling to consider suggestions for similar integration with other shipping companies with air interests."
  Does that mean that B.O.A.C. is to form similar mergers? It is most important to have an answer to that question. Are we to see B.O.A.C. gradually become a partly privately-owned company? There is no escaping the fact that already one-ninth of it is now in private shareholders' hands.
  What will be the future of B.E.A.? We know that there are pending some appeals in relation to licences on B.E.A. routes, and we also know that B.E.A. is likely to have a substantial deficit this year. If those licences are granted, or if there is the threat of their being granted, there is quite a case for B.E.A. to join up with some private company. Is B.E.A. also to be in some merger? We want to be quite certain that there will be no attempt to denationalise the Air Corporations by the back door—and that is something that cannot be dismissed. The Parliamentary Secretary may laugh, but already one-ninth of B.O.A.C. has been denationalised, and that process could
  540
  continue unless we in the House make sure that it does not continue.
  Finally, I address myself to the effects of the B.O.A.C.-Cunard merger in relation to the public interest. As I have already mentioned, there were certain advantages in the merger. It removed a danger from Cunard-Eagle. It also provided B.O.A.C. with two Boeings and the spares, but as B.O.A.C. cannot use its own Boeings sufficiently on the Atlantic, that seems to be rather a doubtful gift. It has secured for B.O.A.C. the Cunard-Eagle routes, but as Cunard-Eagle lost £1¾ million on them last year that, again, is perhaps a dubious bargain. There is, of course, some prospect of freight from Cunard sources but that, again, must be largely —almost entirely—steamship freight. It seems that there are substantial disadvantages to the public interest from the merger. We all know that B.O.A.C. has handed away 30 per cent. of its revenue from the North Atlantic route.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Losses.
  Mr. Cronin: Last year was the first time a loss occurred on the North Atlantic route. It was the most profitable route until then, and it increased in profitability each year for B.O.A.C. by about 20 per cent. If the hon. Member for Macclesfield reads the decision of the Air Transport Licensing Board, he will find that that Board estimated that the revenue from the North Atlantic route for B.O.A.C. would increase by 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. each year until 1968.
  As I say, B.O.A.C. has handed away 30 per cent. of a substantial revenue for what is a poor bargain. We know, too, that B.O.A.C. is obtaining no share of the Cunard revenue. That all goes to Cunard shareholders. B.O.A.C. receives no share of the Cunard-Eagle revenue resulting from chartering, freighting or trooping. Cunard-Eagle is now indirectly subsidised in competition with B.E.A. by the sister-corporation, B.O.A.C, as a result of the merger.
  We know that the Board of the new company now consists of only five B.O.A.C. directors and four Cunard directors—and two of those are concerned with steamships. We also know that B.O.A.C.-Cunard is now committed to selling both sea and air travel and

  541
  that this rather specious story which has been put around that B.O.A.C. will gain from this association is quite unfounded because Cunard will do the gaining since B.O.A.C. must also sell shipping space.
  The important thing to remember is that in the last fifteen years many millions of pounds of public money has been spent on developing the North Atlantic route. The Cunard shareholders will get a substantial share of the results of that investment. B.O.A.C. is public property and everyone in Britain is proud of it. It belongs to all of us as a national corporation and the Government have handed out a large section of it to the shareholders of the Cunard Company.
  It seems to me that the Government has failed in a trust. It was his job to look after this nationalised corporation, a large section of which he has handed away. This sort of thing, in principle, has happened time and again. When they have had to make a choice between the public benefit and powerful commercial interests, the Government have always been on the side of big business. We have seen this happen in the arrangements for Independent Television, by the Rent Act and by the unrestricted speculative boom in the property market. Commercial interests are now influencing the Minister of Aviation in a powerful and prejudicial way affecting the whole aircraft industry.
  I see no future prospect of the Air Corporations and the aircraft industry competing effectively until we have a change of Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Wholesale political assassination is not the remedy. That is not a change of Government. We want a new Prime Minister, a new Government and an early General Election.
  9.5 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Basil de Ferranti): I had the good fortune only last week to be called in a debate and I honestly thought on that occasion that I should then be able to knock off until the Recess. However, I now find myself back in the fortunate position of having caught your eye, Sir William, and I should like to thank the hon. Members for Newton (Mr. Lee) and Lough-
  542
  borough (Mr. Cronin) and many of my hon. Friends who have welcomed the arrival of my right hon. Friend and myself in our present positions.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) rather spoiled this happy atmosphere in that he did not give my right hon. Friend a very good welcome. He said that my right hon. Friend should have taken the trouble to digest his brief, even though he had not had long in which to do it. During the 12 hours only in which I have been able to see my right hon. Friend at work I can assure the Committee that his digestion has been remarkably good. He has been able to absorb a great deal of information. I think that he was being modest in his speech when foe said he had not been able to digest it all.
  The hon. Member for Newton was kind enough to mention that I had some small advantage in having some familiarity with the complicated technical language of the Ministry of Aviation. It is true that if I saw an article headed "Semi-active Guidance" I would not necessarily assume it to be an article criticising the Government, or if I saw one headed "Boot-strap Gyro" I would not think that it necessarily had anything to do with the Liberal Party.
  However, I face one problem which I feel it is right to mention to the Committee. Although I expect that hon. Members opposite will be anxious to assure me that it will not be long before I return, I must separate the relationship I have with my family business. With due confidence in the future, I am taking steps to ensure that no possible conflict of interest could arise. As for the relationship between my former business and my present Ministry, I wish the business well but would point out that I will put as much effort into the rôle of gamekeeper as up to now I have put into the rôle of poacher.
  We have listened to many interesting and valuable speeches which have given my right hon. Friend and I many ideas about the views of hon. Members on the Department and its functioning. I hope that hon. Members whose speeches I do not cover during the short time I have available to answer the debate will excuse me. One speech which we have missed is the speech which no doubt

  543
  the Committee was looking forward to hearing from the hon. Member for More-cambe and Lonsdale, but having read with great interest a preview of what he would have said I am glad to have this early opportunity of replying to it. I would only quote in reply a card which I once saw in an office in New York. It read: "If you think you know what is going on round here you clearly do not understand the situation".
  A most important subject was raised during the debate, more particularly by my hon. Friends who represent Belfast, in two very good speeches. I congratulate particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) who I thought put the case extremely well. The problem faced in Belfast is fundamentally the problem of Northern Ireland. The fact that there is 8 per cent. unemployment is serious, but it is a Northern Irish problem. I think that fair critics would agree that Government policy has done a great deal to help the underdeveloped areas in the United Kingdom. In fairness, the Ministry of Aviation within its limitations has also played its part, and indeed the hon. Member for Belfast, West accepted this and accepted that a lot has been done. However, this is not to say that the situation in Northern Ireland is satisfactory; 8 per cent. unemployment cannot be regarded by the Government as satisfactory.
  From the point of view of the Ministry of Aviation, the present 10 Belfast aircraft that have been ordered meet exactly the need for the R.A.F. strategic freight lift, and this requirement is in accordance with the plans laid down by the Chiefs of Staff. It is future requirements that are now under consideration, and it is to the future requirements that my right hon. Friend will give his urgent attention.
  I am glad that points have been raised in favour of the Belfast aircraft. I think it is right that hon. Members should make their points genuine sales points in favour of the aircraft and should endeavour to sell the aircraft on the basis of its price, performance and specification. We have had some very remarkable performances in technical salesmanship during the course of the debate.
  544
  However, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Aviation to take a balanced view of its purchases of aircraft. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) particularly brought this point out. There are many considerations which must be taken into account when a decision is being made to purchase an aircraft. I therefore ask hon. Members not to lose heart over the situation. The matter is being actively considered by the Government at the moment and it will be the very first duty of my right hon. Friend to apply himself to this problem with the greatest possible urgency.
  There are always some rays of hope in this situation. I have found in my previous incarnation that, alas, due to the incompetence of statesmen around the world, defence is really a very stable business. I wish that this were not so, but orders keep coming up for defence requirements.
  We also understand the points that are being put forward from the point of view of Northern Ireland. The Government clearly realise the urgency of this situation and are doing all in their power to think of ways in which the situation can be assisted. But I must stress that it is clearly impossible for my right hon. Friend to come to a decision today.
  Mr. Diamond: Why?
  Mr. de Ferranti: The hon. Member for Gloucester, commenting on my right hon. Friend's digestive capabilities, asked why he could not reach a decision today. It would not be in the best interests of Short Bros, of Northern Ireland or of the nation for rash and rapid decisions to be taken which might well result in the situation worsening rather than improving.
  Mr. Diamond: This matter has been before the Ministry for a long time. As for the hon. Gentleman's comment about things being worse, there could surely be nothing worse for the board of directors of this company than not to know what the position is.
  Mr. de Ferranti: The hon. Member has missed the point. I am referring to my right hon. Friend. It would clearly be rash of him to make a decision today. I have said that my right hon. Friend will look at this problem

  545
  with the greatest possible urgency and that he realises how necessary it is for the management to have an early decision. This he undertakes to do his best to provide.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's maiden speech from the Dispatch Box, but could he, irrespective of this decision for which we are waiting, reiterate the pledge given by his predecessors, namely, that Short Bros, will be maintained as a balanced design and production unit in the future, irrespective of this immediate decision?
  Mr. de Ferranti: If the hon. Member looked at the assurances which have been given on this point, he would see that they have been carefully guarded. If I gave another assurance on the point, I would, no doubt, be carefully guarded myself too. Therefore, I would rather stick to what I have said. It is clear that we are willing to do our best over this problem and my right hon. Friend should be allowed the opportunity to do so. I wish that I could say more.
  Many other hon. Members have spoken in the debate and I hope that I may have an opportunity now to pass to the subject of air safety, which concerns the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) particularly. [HON. MEMBERS: "All of us."] As I was about to say, everybody is concerned at this problem. It is important to take a balanced look at it. When the hon. Member goes in his motor car, he is running greater risks than when he goes in an aeroplane. I trust, therefore, that with the interest that he has in safety, he does up his safety belt when he gets into his motor car and practises what he preaches.
  Mr. Rankin: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that in air travel, we lack one thing that is present in all other forms of travel—what I call crash survivability?
  Mr. de Ferranti: I accept the point, although I am not really sure what it means.
  Up to a point, we are all cowards when we get into an aeroplane. We are, therefore, interested in knowing that everything possible is being done to ensure passengers' safety in the air. Per-
  546
  haps I may tonight reassure the Committee in the same way that I have reassured both myself and my wife about what goes on to ensure passengers' safety.
  The first and most important people are the crew and the pilot. That is not to infer that they are most responsible for accidents—not at all. The important thing is that they should be looked after in every way possible and my right hon. Friend therefore endorses the policy suggested in the recently-published White Paper. This has been followed up in several ways—for instance, through the air training college at Hamble, where the Government have made a contribution of £200,000 to the running costs in the last two years. This provides a valuable institution and will give that incentive to air training and to the careful selection of pilots which will be invaluable to the future health of the industry.
  Another important aspect concerning the pilots is route familiarisation. It is a condition of the air operator's certificate that the necessary procedures on route familarisation be carried out. As I know, however, from my brief sojourn in the Home Office as Parliamentary Private Secretary, it is enforcement that matters. In this connection, the Ministry is appointing five more flight operations inspectors who will be able to ensure that the regulations are being fully carried out.
  Mr. Brockway: Is one of the concerns for the pilots the increasing of the charges for their six-monthly licence by over 300 per cent.?
  Mr. de Ferranti: In quoting the figure of 300 per cent., the hon. Member is giving a false impression. If I said £11 a year, it might, perhaps, bring it into perspective.
  Mr. Brockway: It is from £3 to £11.
  Mr. de Ferranti: This is a most important subject which is of interest to the whole nation and I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to continue.
  Mr. Brockway: It is important also to the pilots.
  Mr. de Ferranti: Various other things can be done to help. These include the provision of various aids. Electronics

  547
  is coming greatly to the help of the pilot. We have heard about the auto-land system, for example, from my right hon. Friend, who trusted himself to it earlier in the year. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, who raised the point, the military requirements of both auto-flare and auto-land are going ahead as planned. Concerning the Trident, however, the auto-land aspect is still under discussion. I am advised that these discussions are unlikely to delay the eventual date of introduction of both auto-flare and auto-land into commercial service. There are considerable commercial problems involved which it would be right to examine fully. Other things can be done to help, as hon. Members know. I assure the Committee that the very greatest consideration is being given in the Ministry to all aspects of the problem of air safety.
  The hon. Member for Govan spoke about Abbotsinch Airfield. My right hon. Friend is going to Scotland on 24th July and he will be able to discuss the matter fully then. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield spoke about the Trident. I can tell him that the Trident 1D and 1E are to go ahead; a decision in their favour has been made. Furthermore, the Dart engines for the Avro 748 are now being discussed with Rolls-Royce and there is a prospect of agreement being successfully reached.
  I come now to the merger of Cunard and B.O.A.C. In any competitive system—I know this from my business experience—survival is a continual problem. Hon. Members opposite always think in terms of gross profits being made by big business, but survival is a very real problem, survival both for the company and for the people which it employs. Survival is a real problem in the case of B.O.A.C. and Cunard.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: And for Ministers.
  Mr. de Ferranti: I am glad that some hon. Members accept the existence of the instinct for survival.
  In the airline business there is great competition, but there are economies of scale which are possible by which efficiency can be increased for instance by the full utilisation of capacity and of maintenance facilities, selling effort,
  548
  services and so forth. It seems to me that in this case the managers of both companies, in their own commercial opinion, have done the right thing. B.O.A.C. has gained Cunard's equipment, personnel, experience and, above all, its enormous standing and sales effort in the United States of America. Cunard, in its turn, will be able to maintain a position based on a long tradition on the Atlantic which it should not be denied.
  As I see it, Parliament set up nationalised industries to serve the public. By taking commercially sensible decisions, the managers of these two businesses are serving the public. In both cases, the sensible thing is being done.
  Mr. Cronin: The hon. Gentleman should make clear to the Committee that B.O.A.C. has said at all times that it would never have contemplated this merger if it had not had the burden of the Civil Aviation Licensing Act, 1960, which was put upon it by this Government.
  Mr. de Ferranti: It seems to me that, as a result of that Act and as a result of Government action, we have now a much more competitive British airline on the North Atlantic than ever before. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) complained about the statute. The statute under which this is done was passed in 1949 when the Labour Government were in power, so that it should hardly give hon. Members opposite cause for complaint.
  It has not been possible for me to deal as I should have liked with all the points and important issues which have been raised. I have learned a great deal from the debate. I have realised the difficulty of survival. However, I think that it would not be inappropriate in closing the debate to mention one aspect of the work of the Department about which I feel very concerned. We have heard a lot about what are really short-term problems. They are very real but they are none the less short-term. What we must realise is that, in the longer term, this country's very survival depends upon technology. It has depended upon technology in war in the past and it depends upon technology in peace today. This has probably always been

  549
  true. Some centuries ago, we made great advances in the wool trade. Today, the Lord Chancellor sits upon the Woolsack. There were Mr. Townsend's famous turnip, which is always quoted to schoolchildren, Watt's steam engine, Faraday's electromagnetic induction and, in more recent times, Professor Williams' cathode ray tube memory.
  This is typical of why hon. Members opposite are not getting their points across to the country. [Laughter.] I know that in my constituency and in my business people are looking to Parliament to use technology to bring these benefits to us all. What do hon. Members opposite do? They fool about playing a stupid game of politics— [Laughter.] This is a real point. It may seem amusing here and now, but technology is our very means of survival. The Ministry of Aviation controls a very great deal of this nation's technological resources and, therefore, has a very grave responsibility for our future prospects.
  There are so many subjects of importance to the Ministry of Aviation which reflect this position. For instance, there is the problem of supersonic aircraft. This may sound very dull after the great excitements of a true political debate, but it is probably on our success with
  supersonic aircraft and other technological developments that the incomes of hon. Members' constituents depend. The profits of shareholders are, of course, important because on them depends the employment of employees; and I hope that hon. Members will remember that.
  These sound dull subjects, but they are of vital importance to us. We must catch some of the excitement of the technical advances which are being made. We must realise what is in store for us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I was thinking of something else in which hon. Members might be interested, namely, their pockets, which, indeed, will be affected if we are unable to seize the opportunities which are available to us. Certainly my right hon. Friend and I will put forward our very best endeavours to get this Department of ours to play its maximum possible rôle in the life of the nation, and I hope that in so doing we shall have the support of our hon. Friends.
  Mr. Lee: I beg to move, That Item Class IV, Vote 7 (Ministry of Aviation), be reduced by £1,000.
  The Committee divided: Ayes 191, Noes 250.

  Division No. 249.]

  AYES

  [9.29 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hannan, William

  Alnsley, William

  Darling, George

  Harper, Joseph

  Albu, Austen

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Awbery, Stan

  Deer, George

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hilton, A. V.

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Dempsey, James

  Holman, Percy

  Beaney, Alan

  Diamond, John

  Hoosen, H. E.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Dodds, Norman

  Houghton, Douglas

  Bence, Cyril

  Donnelly, Dosmond

  Hoy, James H.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Benson, Sir George

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Blackburn, F.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Blyton, William

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Boardman, H.

  Evans, Albert

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Fernyhough, E

  Jeger, George

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)

  Finch, Harold

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Bowles, Frank

  Fitch, Alan

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Boydon, James

  Fletcher, Eric

  Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bradley, Tom

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Forman, J. C.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Brockway, A, Fenner

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Galpern, SirMyer

  Kelley, Richard

  Callaghan, James

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

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Chapman, Donald

  Gourlay, Harry

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Cliffe, Michael

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Lawson, George

  Corbet, Mr. Freda

  Grey, Charles

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Cronin, John

  Grimond, Rt. Hen. J.

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Gunter, Ray

  Lubbock, Eric

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Mabon, D. J. Dickson

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  MacColl, James

  MacDermot, Niall

  Parkin, B. T.

  Snow, Julian

  Mclnnes, James

  Paton, John

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Spriggs, Leslie

  McLeavy, Frank

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Steele, Thomas

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Peart, Frederick

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

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

  Pentland, Norman

  Stones, William

  Manuel, Archie

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  Mapp, Charles

  Popplewell, Ernest

  stross,Dr.Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

  Marsh, Richard

  Prentice, R. E.

  Swain, Thomas

  Mason, Roy

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Taverne, D.

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Rankin, John

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Redhead, E. C.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Reid, William

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Millan, Bruce

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Milne, Edward

  Rhodes, H.

  Tomney, Frank

  Monslow, Walter

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Moody, A. S.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Warbey, William

  Moyle, Arthur

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Weitzman, David

  Mulley, Frederick

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Neal, Harold

  Rogers, G. H. R, (Kensington, N.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Ross, William

  Willey, Frederick

  Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn. Philip(Derby,S.)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Short, Edward

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Oram, A. E.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Owen, Will

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Padley, W. E.

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Slater Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Pargiter, R. G.

  Small, William

  Parker, John

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Irving and Mr. McCann

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Costain, A. P.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Coulson, Michael

  Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Allason, James

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Critchley, Julian

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hobson, Sir John

  Balniel, Lord

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Holland, Philip

  Barber, Anthony

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Hollingworth, John

  Barlow, Sir John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hopkins, Alan

  Barter, John

  Donaldson, cmdr. C. E. M.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Batsford, Brian

  Doughty, Charles

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Bell, Ronald

  du Cann, Edward

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Eden, John

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Bidgood, John C.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Biffen, John

  Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  James, David

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Emery, Peter

  Jennings, J. C.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Farr, John

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Bossom, Clive

  Fisher, Nigel

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Box, Donald

  Foster, John

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Braine, Bernard

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Brewis, John

  Freeth, Denzil

  Kirk, Peter

  Brooman-White, R.

  Gardner, Edward

  Kitson, Timothy

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Leather, Sir Edwin

  Bryan, Paul

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Bullard, Denys

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorser, N.)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Bullus, wing Commander Eric

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lilley, F. J P

  Burden, F. A.

  Gough, Frederick

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Gower, Raymond

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Longbottom, Charles

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Green, Alan

  Longden, Gilbert

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Gurden, Harold

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Channon, H.P.G.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Chataway Christopher

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  McLaren, Martin

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Maclead, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

  Cole, Norman

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)

  Maddan, Martin

  Collard, Richard

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Maitland, Sir John

  Cooke, Robert

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Hastings, Stephen

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hay, John

  Marshall, Douglas

  Cordle, John

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Marten, Neil

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hendry, Forbes

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  552

  553

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Maudllng, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Mawby, Ray

  Rees, Hugh

  Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

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

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey

  Turner, Colin

  Morgan, William

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Morrison, John

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Neave, Airey

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Roots, William

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Walder, David

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Sharples, Richard

  Walker, Peter

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Shepherd, William

  Wall, Patrick

  Partridge, E.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Webster, David

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Peel, John

  Smithers, Peter

  Whitelaw, William

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Speir, Rupert

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Pitman, Sir James

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Wise, A. R.

  Pott, Percivall

  Stodart, J. A.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Temple, John M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Pym, Francis

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Mr. Finlay.

  Original Question again proposed.
  It being after half-past Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
  Question put and agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of Civil Estimates, including Revised Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts outstanding in the Ministry of Defence Estimate, and in the Navy, the Army, and the Air Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates: and that sanction be given to the application of the sums temporarily authorised in respect of the Navy, Army and Air Services [Expenditure]:
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1962–63
  CLASS I
  That a sum, not exceeding £58,143,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for
  554
  Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:

  £

  1.

  House of Lords

  178,000

  2.

  House of Commons

  1,124,000

  3.

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  2,474,000

  4.

  Privy Council Office

  32,000

  5.

  Post Office Ministers

  5,000

  6.

  Customs and Excise

  13,933,000

  7.

  Inland Revenue

  39,298,000

  8.

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  378,000

  9.

  Civil Service Commission

  397,000

  10.

  Royal Commissions, etc.

  324,000

  58,143,000

  Question put and agreed to.
  CLASS II
  That a sum, not exceeding £91,056,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

  £

  1.

  Foreign Service (including a Supplementary sum of £50,000)

  13,355,000

  2.

  Foreign Grants and Loans (including a Supplementary sum of £90,000)

  9,203,000

  3.

  British Council

  2,652,000

  4.

  Commonwealth Relations Office (Revised sum) (including a Supplementary sum of £245,000)

  6,225,000

  £

  5.

  Commonwealth Grants and Loans (including a Supplementary sum of £4,178,000)

  9,730,000

  6.

  Development and Welfare (Central African Office) (Revised sum)

  1,950,000

  7.

  Colonial Office (Revised sum) (including a Supplementary sum of £240,000)

  6,184,000

  8.

  Colonial Grants and Loans (Revised sum) (including a Supplementary sum of £1,263,000)

  7,883,000

  9.

  Development and Welfare (Colonial Office) (Revised sum)

  13,400,000

  10.

  Department of Technical Co-operation

  17,898,000

  11.

  Commonwealth War Graves Commission

  780,000

  12.

  Central African Office

  1,796,000

  91,056,000

  Question put and agreed to.
  CLASS III
  That a sum, not exceeding £88,939,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, viz.: —

  £

  1.

  Home Office

  6,422,000

  2A.

  Scottish Home Department (Revised sum)

  900

  3.

  Home Office (Civil Defence Services)

  7,314,000

  4.

  Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services)

  980,000

  5.

  Police, England and Wales

  45,559,000

  6.

  Police, Scotland

  6,920,000

  7.

  Prisons, England and Wales

  14,477,000

  8.

  Prisons, Scotland

  1,310,000

  9.

  Child Care, England and Wales

  2,756,000

  10.

  Child Care, Scotland

  373,000

  11.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, &c.

  500

  12.

  County Courts

  329,000

  13.

  Legal Aid Fund

  1,544,000

  14.

  Law Charges

  559,000

  15.

  Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland

  334,000

  16.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, &c, Northern Ireland

  61,000

  88,939,400

  Question put and agreed to.
  CLASS IV
  That a sum, not exceeding £207,142,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
  556
  the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, viz.: —

  £

  2.

  Board of Trade (Pro motion of Trade, Exports and Industrial Efficiency and Trading &c, Services)

  3,842,000

  4.

  Export Credits

  900

  5.

  Export Credits (Special Guarantees, &c.)

  900

  10.

  Ministry of Transport

  2,230,000

  11.

  Roads, &c, England and Wales

  89,033,000

  12.

  Roads, &c, Scotland

  13,217,000

  13.

  Transport (Shipping and Special Services)

  681,000

  14A.

  Transport (British Transport Commission)

  80,000,000

  14B.

  Transport (Railways and Waterways Board)

  16,125,000

  15.

  Ministry of Power

  2,013,000

  207,142,800

  Question put and agreed to.
  CLASS V
  That a sum, not exceeding £255,850,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, viz.: —

  £

  1.

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  14,552,000

  2.

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  5,176,000

  3.

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)

  51,683,000

  4.

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)

  9,081,000

  5.

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Price Guarantees)

  131,524,000

  6.

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Price Guarantees)

  19,173,000

  7.

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural and Food Services)

  9,836,000

  8.

  Food (Strategic Reserves)

  1,474,000

  9.

  Fishery Grants and Services

  4,194,000

  10.

  Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry

  1,692,000

  11.

  Forestry Commission

  7,465,000

  255,850,000

  Question put and agreed to.
  Class VI
  That a sum, not exceeding £1,504,456,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

  £

  1.

  Ministry of Housing and Local Government

  12,331,000

  2.

  Housing, England and Wales

  46,139,000

  3.

  Housing, Scotland

  8,875,000

  4.

  General Grant to Local Revenues, England and Wales (including a Supplementary sum of £5,457,000)

  349,533,000

  5.

  General Grant to Local Revenues, Scotland

  41,114,000

  6.

  Rate Deficiency, etc., Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  77,500,000

  7.

  Equalisation and Transitional Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland

  13,966,000

  8.

  Ministry of Education

  74,481,000

  9.

  Scottish Education Department (including a Supplementary sum of £1,075,000)

  13,057,000

  10.

  Ministry of Education (Teachers' Superannuation)

  900

  11.

  Scottish Education Department (Teachers' Superannuation)

  900

  12.

  Ministry of Health

  2,183,000

  13a.

  Department of Health for Scotland (Revised sum)

  900

  14.

  National Health Service (Hospitals, etc., Services), England and Wales

  265,352,000

  15.

  National Health Service (Executive Councils Services), England and Wales

  113,259,000

  16.

  Miscellaneous Health and Welfare Services, England and Wales

  24,957,000

  17.

  National Health Service (Superannuation), England and Wales

  900

  18.

  National Health Service, etc., Scotland

  51,956,000

  19.

  National Health Service (Superannuation), Scotland

  900

  20.

  Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance

  5,046,000

  21.

  National Insurance

  131,600,000

  22.

  Family Allowances

  85,727,000

  23.

  National Assistance Board

  123,114,000

  24.

  War Pensions

  64,262,000

  1,504,456,500

  Question put and agreed to.
  Class VII
  That a sum, not exceeding £104,268,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimataes, viz.:—

  £

  1.

  Universities and Colleges, etc. Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £5,819,000)

  55,323,000

  2.

  Office of the Minister for Science (including a Supplementary sum of £28,000)

  101,000

  3.

  Atomic Energy

  28,113,000

  4.

  Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

  12,100,000

  5.

  Medical Research Council

  3,742,000

  6.

  Agricultural Research Council

  4,330,000

  7.

  Nature Conservancy

  390,000

  8.

  Grants for Science

  169,000

  104,268,000

  Question put and agreed to.
  Class VIII
  That a sum, not exceeding £3,434,997, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

  £

  1.

  British Museum

  528,000

  2.

  British Museum (Natural History)

  403,000

  3.

  Science Museum

  227,000

  4.

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  378,000

  5.

  Imperial War Museum

  43,330

  6.

  London Museum

  36,000

  7.

  National Gallery

  70,000

  8.

  National Maritime Museum

  66,000

  9.

  National Portrait Gallery

  30,000

  10.

  Tate Gallery

  54,000

  11.

  Wallace Collection

  33,000

  12.

  Royal Scottish Museum

  69,000

  13.

  National Galleries of Scotland (including a Supplementary sum of £14,000)

  54,000

  14.

  National Library of Scotland

  65,667

  15.

  National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland

  15,000

  16.

  Grants for the Arts

  1,353,000

  3,434,997

  Question put and agreed to.
  Class IX
  That a sum, not exceeding £83,478,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

  £

  1.

  Ministry of Works

  4,904,000

  2.

  Public Buildings, etc., United Kingdom

  22,920,000

  3.

  Public Buildings Overseas

  2,879,000

  4.

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  251,000

  5.

  Royal Palaces

  533,000

  6.

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  757,000

  7.

  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments

  849,000

  8.

  Rates on Government Property

  11,070,000

  9.

  Stationery and Printing

  10,699,000

  10.

  Central Office of Information

  3,724,000

  11.

  Government Actuary

  22,000

  12.

  Government Hospitality

  70,000

  13.

  Civil Superannuation, etc.

  24,800,000

  14.

  Post Office Superannuation, etc

  900

  83,478,900

  Question put and agreed to.
  Class X
  That a sum, not exceeding £4,757,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

  £

  1.

  Charity Commission

  156.000

  2.

  Crown Estate Office

  113.000

  3.

  Friendly Societies Registry

  82,000

  4.

  Royal Mint

  900

  5.

  National Debt Office

  900

  6.

  Public Works Loan Commission

  900

  7.

  Public Trustee

  900

  8.

  Land Registry

  900

  9.

  War Damage Commission

  198,000

  10.

  Office of the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements

  106.000

  11.

  Ordnance Survey

  2,423.000

  12.

  Public Record Office

  110,000

  13.

  Scottish Record Office

  33,000

  14.

  Registrar General's Office

  552,000

  15.

  Registrar General's Office, Scotland

  58,000

  16.

  Department of the Registers of Scotland

  900

  17.

  National Savings Committee

  921,000

  4,757,400

  Question put and agreed to.
  Class XI
  That a sum, not exceeding £47,807,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class XI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

  £

  1.

  Broadcasting

  36,583,000

  2.

  Carlisle State Management District

  900

  3.

  State Management Districts, Scotland

  900

  4.

  Pensions, &c. (India,Pakistan and Burma)

  4,114,000

  5.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, &c

  660,000

  6.

  Irish Land Purchase Services

  560,000

  7.

  Development Fund

  806,000

  8.

  Secret Service

  4,600,000

  9.

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  336,000

  10.

  Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

  147,000

  47,807,800

  Question put and agreed to.
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1962–63
  That a sum, not exceeding £12,280,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.
  Question put and agreed to.
  NAVY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE. 1962–63
  That a sum, not exceeding £285,194,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.:—

  £

  1.

  Pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines (Supplementary sum)

  2,974,000

  2.

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy (Supplementary sum)

  13,000

  3.

  Medical Establishments and Services (including a Supplementary sum of £55,000)

  1,566,000

  4.

  Civilians Employed on Fleet Services (including a Supplementary sum of £207,000)

  8,777,000

  5.

  Educational Services (including a Supplementary sum of £22,000)

  1,952,000

  £

  6.

  Scientific Services (Supplementary sum)

  206,000

  7.

  Royal Naval Reserves (including a Supplementary sum of £28,000)

  1,252,000

  8.

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:-

  Section I.-Personnel (including a Supplementary sum of £643,000)

  48,906,000

  Section II.-Materiel (including a Supplementary sum of £2,000)

  71,273,000

  Section III.-Contract Work (including a Supplementary sum of £105,000)

  91,627,000

  9.

  Naval Armaments (including a Supplementary sum of £157,000)

  25,553,000

  10.

  Works, Buildings Machinery and Repairs at Home and Abroad (Supplementary sum)

  155,000

  11.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services (Supplementary sum)

  3,000

  12.

  Admiralty Office (including a Supplementary sum of £337,000)

  11,073,000

  13.

  Non-sffective Services (including a Supplementary sum of £131,000)

  19,864,000

  £285,194,000

  Question put and agreed to.
  ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63
  That a sum, not exceeding £281,320,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz:

  £

  1.

  Pay, &c, of the Army (Supplementary sum)

  5,350,000

  3.

  War Office (including a Supplementary sum of £230,000)

  7,120,000

  4.

  Civilians (including a Supplementary sum of £2,170,000)

  120,850,000

  5.

  Movements

  27,890,000

  6.

  Supplies, etc

  41,360,000

  7.

  Stores

  78,500,000

  10.

  Non-effective Services (Supplementary sum)

  250,000

  281,320,000

  Question put and agreed to.
  AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1962–63
  That a sum, not exceeding £149,020,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz:

  £

  1.

  Pay, etc., of the Air Force (Supplementary sum)

  4,750,000

  3.

  Air Ministry (including a Supplementary sum of £210,000)

  6,060,000

  4.

  Civilians at Outstations and the Meteorological Office (including a Supplementary sum of £1,570,000)

  46,070,000

  5.

  Movements

  14,200,000

  6.

  Supplies

  64,300,000

  10.

  Non-effective Services (including a Supplementary sum of £220,000)

  13,640,000

  149,020,000

  Question put and agreed to.
  NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1960–61
  That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £9,989,092 3s. 6d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March, 1961, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 13th February, 1962 (H.C. 114) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 210).
  Question put and agreed to.
  ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1960–61
  That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £4,675,101 5s. 7d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March, 1961, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 16th February, 1962 (H.C. 127) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 210).
  Question put and agreed to.
  AIR EXPENDITURE, 1960–61
  That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £497,875 1s. 3d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March, 1961, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by a saving in expenditure from the same Vote as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 19th February. 1962 (H.C. 120) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 210).
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow;
  Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Six WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, the sum of £3,402,234,997 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. —[Mr. Barber.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow;
  Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  UGANDA INDEPENDENCE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Uganda of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth, it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund, the raising by the Treasury, or the payment into the Exchequer, of such sums as may be required to be so issued or paid, or as the Treasury may think fit to raise, as the case may be, in consequence of providing that, for the purposes of the making of loans to the East African Common Services Organisation, and in relation to loans made at any time to that organisation, section two of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1959, shall have effect, on and after the date appointed by the said Act of the present Session, as if Uganda had not ceased to be a colony within the meaning of the said Act of 1959.
  Resolution agreed to.

  UGANDA INDEPENDENCE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  Clause 1.—(PROVISION FOR FULLY RESPONSIBLE STATUS OF UGANDA.)
  9.52 p.m.
  Miss Joan Vickers: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after "sixty-two," to insert
  "providing that prior to that date agreement has been reached between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Uganda that a referendum shall be held on the future status of the counties of Bugangazzi and Buyaga not earlier than two years and not later than five years after the appointed day, and if not, on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State after the reaching of such an agreement."
  This Bill was recently given a Second Reading, and during the Second Reading debate I asked for full and cogent reasons for the Government's refusal to implement the Reports of the Molson and the Munster Committees. I was not told, and that is why I have tabled this Amendment which I hope will be accepted, because it is essential that the Government should make up their mind about these two lost territories before Uganda is given independence.
  566
  We have the very difficult situation in which the Uganda Yekka Kabaka Party is committed to keeping the six territories, and the Opposition Party is committed to returning them, and it is only the British Government who have made an arrangement that the two lost territories should be returned following a referendum.
  During the Second Reading debate it was said that after independence it would not be possible for the British Government to lay down any particular point of view, but we have the statement of the Secretary of State for the Colonies dated 28th June, 1962, which says with regard to the referendum:
  "On a date to be decided by the Uganda Government, after consultation with the Governments of His Highness the Kabaka and the Omukama of Bunyoro, a referendum will be held by the Central Government in each of the two counties.
  This referendum"—
  and this is the point that I want to emphasise—
  "will not, however, take place earlier than two years after the day on which the new administration is established."
  If we can lay down that it will not be earlier than two years after the new Administration is established, I cannot see why we cannot put in a date as suggested in the Amendment, that it shall be not later than five years after the appointed day.
  Because of the views already expressed by various political parties in Uganda, it is clear that this referendum may never take place and this would be extremely dangerous. On 5th July a letter was sent to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury in respect of this situation. Part of it said:
  "This Commission"—
  that is, the Molson Commission—
  "was headed by Lord Molson who made a compromise by recommending that two of the six counties should be transferred back to the Bunyoro Kingdom."
  That is most important. The letter continues:
  "Although compromise is quite unknow to the Africans yet we willingly accepted that compromise. This compromise was turned down on the grounds that Buganda decided to be intransigent. Buganda has always had her way since 1900 and, therefore, was confident that she will have her own way even at this late hour."

  567
  It seems to me that we are giving way to Buganda again.
  "No person on earth ever wants to part with his privilege, and it is futile to think that Buganda will give up her privilege."
  I shall not reiterate all the other reasons that I gave during the Second Reading debate why I feel it essential to adhere to the recommendation mentioned in the Munster Report and recommended by the Molson Commission, that these two counties should be returned before independence. I hope even at this late hour that my hon. Friend, whom I am sorry I forgot to congratulate on his new appointment —I do so now—will not be tied by any previous decision, and will be able to give the matter sympathetic consideration and will take note of what I said in the Second Reading debate and have repeated tonight.
  Paragraph 69 of the Molson Commission Report says:
  "In such a situation, embittered as it is by malicious damage to the personal property of chiefs, it is a natural reaction on their part to retaliate by using their wide discretionary powers to make life unpleasant for their antagonists."
  That is just what we fear—that during this period of two years life may become rather unpleasant when both sides are jockeying for position. Therefore, I plead that Her Majesty's Government will agree either to hold the referendum before we leave the country or decide here and now to have another agreement and to return the two counties before independence.
  I remind the Committee of what happened in India. We do not want to see a similar situation develop in Uganda. That is why I hope that the matter will be reconsidered, and that we will either hold a referendum now or agree to have another meeting with the Kabaka and the leaders of Bunyoro in order to try to reach an agreement upon the two lost counties.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: In rising to support the Amendment, I want to join in the warm congratulations to my hon. Friend who came into his new office a few days ago. I hope that the Committee will pay considerable attention to what may appear to be a rather small matter. In an era when the cry is very much for self-determination all over the
  568
  world, we must remember that self-determination is just as important for the people of small countries as it is for those of larger ones. So I hope that considerable attention will be paid to the implementation of this principle, even though, at this late hour, in this instance it may appear to the Committee to be a comparatively unimportant matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) and I, together with several hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, have been concerning ourselves with this question ever since her Majesty's Government's decision became known about the implementation or otherwise of the recommendations of the Molson Report. In the Molson Report, it was suggested that the two counties which are the subject of debate tonight should not even be the subject of a plebiscite, but should be transferred direct to Bunyoro control. Her Majesty's Government, in their declaration, decided that, although this Commission was appointed by them, nevertheless, they would not implement this recommendation.
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress.

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

  UGANDA INDEPENDENCE BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted.
  Mr. Bennett: I was saying that Her Majesty's Government, although the Molson Commission's recommendations were perfectly clear that these two counties should be transferred while we were still in control of the situation, nevertheless decided, in their wisdom, that instead of this, a plebiscite would be held not earlier than a certain period of two years after the date of independence.

  569
  Although this caused fairly widespread disappointment in Bunyoro and in certain quarters elsewhere, nevertheless, it has been accepted now that there is no likelihood of an immediate transfer of these territories before a referendum or plebiscite takes place.
  I should like to remind the Committee that when we come to the question of when and how the plebiscite should be held, and when we are considering the importance or otherwise of the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved, we should have regard to two sentences in the Molson Report. I propose to direct the attention of the Committee to paragraphs 104 and 105 respectively of the Molson Report, the first of which reads as follows:
  "The right under the new constitution of the Lukiko to act as an electoral college for choosing all the representatives of Buganda outside Kampala may result in a solid block of Buganda nationalists being elected to the Assembly."
  I do not think I need weary the Committee by reading the rest of the paragraph, because that one sentence indicates the danger to which I am now alluding. We now come to paragraph 105, and we see what is extremely important in this matter:
  "If a Prime Minister of an independent Uganda were dependent on the Baganda bloc for staying in office he would find it difficult to support any concession to the Banyoro."
  That has very great relevance to the purpose of our Amendment.
  Since my hon. Friend and I and other hon. Members have sought to obtain some form of concession regarding the holding of a referendum, we have sought good and cogent reasons why our arguments are not accepted. We have virtually had only one reply, either during Second reading or in answer to a Question yesterday, and it was that once a territory had become independent, we had no right at all to decide when and how it carries out its electoral arrangements within the territory. That would be much more impressive if it were not precisely what we have done in the declaration issued a few days ago.
  It is not acceptable to us that the Government should say that they cannot accept, on moral, judicial grounds, that they have any right to interfere once a territory has become independent, if at the same time they issue a prior declaration, which is now part of the Constitution of the new Uganda, to the effect
  570
  that that country, although independent, shall not hold a plebiscite until two years after the date when independence has been achieved.
  If there is any logic at all, it cannot be said to be intereference with an independent country to say that they shall hold a referendum within five years, when, at the same time, it is said that it is perfectly right to say that they cannot have one, whether they want it or not, within two years of independence. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend, in replying to the Amendment, will not use this argument, because it is not particularly clever to say that we cannot interfere with the independence of the territory, when this is precisely what has been done in the declaration already laid down as part of the Constitution. Whatever arguments my hon. Friend may use, I advise him, in all sincerity and friendship, that this is not one which could be acceptable to me.
  It may well be that, the agreement once having been reached, and the declaration once having been made, it is very difficult for Her Majesty's Government to make any change now but, for myself, I should at least be content to receive some asursance that an attempt will be made to obtain the agreement of the Prime Minister of Uganda to something on the lines of this Amendment. We have inserted a term of five years. That might be the wrong period, but we have at least tried to choose a period within which we think it reasonable to ask that the plebicite should take place.
  If there is a genuine intention by the central Government of Uganda to carry out a plebicite after two years, I cannot see one good and honest reason why they should not say, "That is perfectly all right. We intend to hold it in 4, 5 or 6 years." There can be reluctance to say that only if there is reluctance ever to hold the referendum at all. Although I address my hon. Friends tonight, perhaps my remarks should really go to the central Government of Uganda. They could resolve this tangle tonight or tomorrow by saying to the world that they accept that no referendum should be held for two years—with that, I think that we axe all in agreement—but that they have no intention of holding back an ultimate referendum but agree that one should be held within five years.

  571
  We have in the world today one example of an untidy and rather unpleasant issue at stake which prevents friendship developing between the two great Commonwealth countries of Pakistan and India. Both sides agreed that there should be a referendum on Kashmir, but no date was fixed. As I address the Committee now, no referendum has been held there, and there does not seem to be any possibility of one within the foreseeable future.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will not turn down this Amendment, because I feel that if he does, Her Majesty's Government will have a large share of responsibility for many years to come in another issue that may prevent a freely united Uganda becoming a real member of the Commonwealth and we in this Committee would share the responsibility.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I am very interested to find that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) places so much emphasis upon the decision of a Commission appointed by his Government. He did not show the same enthusiasm for the recommendations of the Devlin Commission or the Monckton Commission, but I appreciate that he is now taking some notice of the Molson Commission—
  Mr. Bennett: That is quite wrong. If the hon. Gentleman looks at HANSARD, he will find that I warmly endorsed almost all the Monckton Commission's recommendations.
  Mr. Brockway: I recognise the phrase "almost all", and I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman omits to refer to the Devlin Commission. However, I do not want to speak from a party point of view—
  Mr. Bennett: Then why do so?
  Mr. Brockway: Because the hon. Gentleman always does so, but I did not intend to make that my main point.
  I am glad that this matter has been raised, and I very much appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Lady, the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) has raised it. This problem has gone on for years in Uganda and all of us who have had any association with
  572
  movements in the territory and with representatives of it are very much aware of it.
  There is now an opportunity for Uganda to obtain its independence in October. That opportunity might be prejudiced by the acceptance of the terms of the Amendment. Nevertheless, I intend to make a strong appeal to the Under-Secretary. I say quite honestly that he is one of the two new Members of the Government whom I am glad to see in their places. I will not on this occasion mention the other. I have the feeling that if the Under-Secretary, with his attitude of sympathy for the peoples of the Colonial Territories and his defence, even against his own Government, of the principle of racial equality, will use his appointment between now and October to try to secure from the Government of Uganda a promise that when the territory becomes independent they will seek—I will not say within five or even two years—to have a plebiscite, he will be contributing greatly to a solution of this problem.
  The real appeal tonight must be made to the central Government in Uganda. Those who have had some association with the members of that Government in their struggle for independence have the right to make an appeal to them to seek a solution of this problem in the spirit of self-determination for these two territories. I hope that the Under-Secretary will reply in a way which will encourage that hope.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: I should like to sum up the arguments adduced on this problem, a problem which has been bedevilling the situation in Uganda for more than 60 years. It is, therefore, a live and difficult one. We have had two high-powered Commissions, and both said that if the problem is not solved before independence it could result in civil war. That is a serious warning in view of what has happened in another continent, as we have been told earlier in this debate.
  It is incumbent on us to do everything we can to prevent such a catastrophe. I accept that it is really too late to take effective action but if any blame is to be placed on anyone it is blame for action which should have been taken in past years. However, I

  573
  still think that there is something we can do. On Second Reading the Minister, winding up the debate, said that we could not bind an independent Government, yet that is exactly what we are doing today, because we are saying in the Bill that a referendum must be held not earlier than two years hence. Why on earth can we not add a little more and say "but not later than five years"? That is all we are asking.
  Even if those words were inserted in the Bill I recognise that the provision could be implemented—either in two or in five years—only by the sovereign independent Government of Uganda. In other words, by Mr. Obote, the Prime Minister. I hope that this appeal will be listened to and acted upon. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, whom I heartily congratulate on his appointment, for he well deserves his new office as a result of the outstanding work he has done in colonial affairs from the back benches, will, in his first speech as Under-Secretary, tell us that the Government can do something towards helping the people of Bunyoro in this difficulty and that he will do his best to pass on the views that have been expressed by hon. Members to Mr. Obote and his Government in Uganda with the request that the necessary action be taken.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Strachey: We on this side of the Committee all wish to join in the congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in his new office, because his record, I say quite plainly, is a very fine one on 'these colonial and Commonwealth matters. It is bad luck on him that on his first appearance he has to defend a quite hopelessly illogical position of the Government, because there is no answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) and the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett).
  If we can make a condition of independence that a referendum is not held before a certain date, we can obviously make a condition that it must be held before another date. There is no possible way out of that, and all this talk about the sacred rights of independence, which is quite true, should be dropped in this connection. Either there are no
  574
  conditions or we can make the conditions we think right.
  Although the position is totally illogical, I agree that it probably would be dangerous and irresponsible action to insert the Amendment in the Bill tonight, because this is a settlement which has been arrived at on the matter of Uganda independence with great difficulty. It is a very delicate matter, and no doubt the Government have done their best to make a settlement. It does not sound a very satisfactory one. I think that both sides of the House of Commons have felt that, but we could hardly take the responsibility tonight in this Committee of altering it.
  The answer surely is to answer the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and others that all effort should be made to reopen the matter with the Uganda Government on the basis of friendly negotiations and see whether something better than this cannot be achieved. It may be a mistake actually to put the condition that is in the Bill if we are not to go a little further and put the further condition in. At any rate, let us get the best possible understanding with the Uganda Government, because obviously all of us, on both sides of the Committee, feel that in all these independence Measures which come in an unending stream through the House the vital thing is to leave the new country in a condition in which it has the best chance of survival, unity and avoidance of the disaster of civil conflict. We certainly appeal to the Government to make another effort to help the Uganda Government in what is obviously the difficult problem which it faces.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): I should like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) and Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), and also an old opponent but, I hope, an old friend, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), and the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) for their generous welcome to me at the Colonial Office. I wish very much that I could reciprocate this welcome by giving them what they want this evening. I should like to do so, but I am afraid that they will be rather disappointed by my reply.

  575
  One of my hon. Friends, quite rightly, drew attention to the Buganda fly in the Uganda ointment, and this, as everybody in the Committee knows, is the one matter—that is the boundary dispute between Buganda and Bunyoro— which was not settled with an agreed solution at the conference. I have never been to Uganda, so this is a new field for me, but, from what I have read during the last day or two, I am sure that the Molson solution was the best one. Unfortunately, I do not think it would be possible, and I am advised that it would have led to real trouble in Uganda.
  It has often been said that politics is the art of the possible and, human nature being imperfect, ideal solutions cannot always be achieved in practice. A referendum at this time would not give a reliable result. I think it would increase the bitterness of feeling on both sides. This view is endorsed by the Molson Commission which in paragraph 98 of its Report said:
  "We have decided against a referendum"
  and goes on to say
  "… a referendum would inevitably fan the flames of tribal feeling, would invite intimidation, and would create a situation in which no lasting settlement could be expected. At worst, it could lead to bloodshed."
  That was the view of the Molson Commission. In the face of that, we have tried to choose a middle way, a compromise if you like, by putting the two counties under what I would call the neutral control of the central Government. I hope that this will ensure peace in the area. I think it is about the only thing that could possibly ensure peace in the area at this time.
  Hon. Members have asked why we have not put a date upon the referendum, a maximum period. The answer to that is that, first, we do not know when conditions for a referendum will be right. Secondly, we really cannot bind the Government of Uganda to a precise time limit. The two-year time limit— the opening time limit—has been agreed, but the five-year maximum for which I have been asked has not been agreed and there is every difference between the two. In the face of no agreement on this point, independence means precisely what it says. It means that the
  576
  decision in the future will be for the central Government of Uganda and not for Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. I do not see how one can get away from that.
  I come directly to the Amendment. This seems to me to be open to three different interpretations. I am not clear, having heard my hon. Friend, which interpretation she really wants put upon her Amendment. The first interpretation is this: If no referendum is held, my right hon. Friend should intervene after independence to make sure that it is held.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: No.
  Mr. Fisher: I did not think that could be my hon. Friend's interpretation, because it does not make sense and I know my hon. Friend's experience in the House. I did not think she would put on the Order Paper an Amendment which did not make sense, so I rejected that interpretation. The second one is that the date of independence will be 9th October only if before that date Her Majesty's Government and the Uganda Government have agreed that the referendum will be held within five years.
  Miss Vickers: No.
  Mr. Fisher: If there is no agreement there will be no independence. That is the interpretation which the Colonial Office legal advisers, reinforced by Parliamentary Counsel, put upon my hon. Friend's Amendment. They have no doubt at all that that is what it actually means, whatever she says it means.
  Mr. Hirst: Let us change them.
  Mr. Fisher: If they are right, I would say that important as it is, this is not really so important that it justifies postponing the independence of Uganda. Postponement would be greatly resented in Uganda and there would be bitter disappointment in 'the country as a whole. There are, after all, only 200,000 people in Bunyoro and the two counties whereas there are 6½ million in Uganda. There is another point. If we impose a new condition such as this, we reopen the whole basis of the conference and that is out of the question because the whole independence of Uganda would be in jeopardy.

  577
  Now I come to the third interpretation of the Amendment, and the third view of what my hon. Friend might mean. Although the Colonial Office legal advisers do not agree with me, I think that this is what my hon. Friend means. The third interpretation of her Amendment is that if he cannot get agreement on the maximum date before independence, my right hon. Friend should write five years into the Constitution before 9th October as the maximum. If this was not adhered to, judging from my hon. Friend's Second Reading speech, I believe that she would like to see a right of appeal to the Privy Council.
  Miss Vickers Miss Vickers indicated assent.
  Mr. Fisher: Assuming that that is the case—and I am glad of confirmation that I was right in what I thought my hon. Friend meant—I must put to her this point of policy. The object of our policy—and it must be the object of my hon. Friend, too—is to allow everyone to calm down and to allow passions to cool in this dispute. If now we write in a date, that would be almost an open invitation to both sides to stir up feeling in anticipation of a referendum. [HON, MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] There is real feeling that that would be the case. We want to avoid it if possible. If there is no date, we hope gradually that feeling will simmer down. If, however, we write in a date, until that date is reached both sides would work up their people to a general crescendo, which would be inimical to a peaceful settlement.
  I believe genuinely that if we do not specify a date we shall have the best hope of a peaceful solution, which is what we want to achieve. However one interprets the Amendment, it would be a departure from the general settlement made at the Conference which was agreed with the central Government of Uganda. It would lead inevitably—I do not see how anybody can refute this— to the reopening of the whole difficult negotiations, which, I am sure, none of my hon. Friends or any hon. Member opposite wants. On these grounds, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw her Amendment.
  Mr. Wall: Has any representation been made by the Colonial Office to the
  578
  Government in Uganda asking whether they will consider this further date, since the matter was raised by nearly every speaker on Second Reading?
  Mr. Fisher: The only thing we have got agreed with the central Government is the two-year minimum period. We do not have the maximum five-year period agreed. As far as I know, there is no possibility of achieving agreement on the five-year maximum—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not try?"]
  Mr. Peter Kirk: I come completely fresh to the matter but have listened to virtually the whole of this short debate. Cannot my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary go just a little bit further? I accept fully that the Amendment in its present form is not suitable. I am not prepared to ask the Committee to vote for it and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) will withdraw it.
  Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been asked by every speaker in the debate whether the Government will not approach the Government of Uganda and ask them to do something about it. Cannot my hon. Friend at least say that the Government will do that? If he would say that, I should be quite satisfied. I see no point in writing in any date, because once the Government of Uganda are sovereign, they can ignore anything that the House of Commons says. I well remember that when I was a foreign correspondent at the conference on Vietnam, it was written into the Treaty that elections must be held throughout Vietnam within two years of signature of the Treaty. That was eight years ago, but elections have never been held yet.
  It is clear that anything we write in now will not bind the Government of Uganda, but cannot my hon. Friend at least say to them that there is strong feeling here that unless they are prepared to take this step, there is grave danger of civil war, and will not the Government of Uganda at least agree to consider the matter and make a statement before 9th October? If my hon. Friend replies in that way, I will be perfectly satisfied, and I hope that my hon. Friends will be, too.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Fisher: I understand the feeling on both sides of the Committee. I will put these aspects of the matter, particularly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk), to my right hon. Friend. I do not think that any fair-minded person in the Committee would expect me to take responsibility at this Box in answering the debate to go further than that. I do not think that it would be right for me to do so, even if I were prepared to take the responsibility, because I do not know enough about it.
  I shall refer this matter at once to my right hon. Friend and convey to him the feeling of hon. Members about it and ask him whether, in his judgment, he thinks that it would be useful and helpful in the context of all that has been said this evening to reopen this particular question about a maximum five-year period with the central Government of Uganda with a view to reaching an agreed settlement. I emphasise that it must be agreed; otherwise, nothing will flow from it whatever. I shall certainly put it to my right hon. Friend. If hon. Members would allow me to leave it like that, I think that that is as far as I can go this evening.
  Sir John Barlow: I do not regard that as entirely satisfactory. We are here acting as a legislative body. What does this promise mean? As I understand it, it means that this matter will be put before the Colonial Secretary, and there the matter may end. He may say "Yes" or "No," and it will not be referred back to us or to any other authority at all. That is not quite what I had hoped.
  I appreciate that there is the difficulty that the Parliamentary Secretary has not occupied his position for very long. He cannot help that, and we cannot help that. We are a legislative body, and we are asked to pass a definite piece of legislation tonight. It puts a great responsibility upon us. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot go a little further because, as far I can see, the matter will be out of our hands tonight. Could he go any further to meet us?
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: I feel intensely sympathetic towards my hon. Friend
  580
  the Parliamentary Secretary in the position in which he is placed, but, as has been said, that is not our fault. I know that he will not expect us to weaken our sense of responsibility towards this problem on account of our personal regard or sympathy for him. We have a wider responsibility which we must fulfil to the best of our ability.
  I very much welcomed the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk). For my part, although I did not move the Amendment, I should be prepared to accept an indication that an attempt would be made not just to refer the matter to the Colonial Secretary but—there are methods of achieving some some of understanding from a higher quarter— to address an appeal, conveying the feelings of the Committee and of the House of Commons, to the Prime Minister of Uganda. If my hon. Friend cannot be expected to give a definite answer tonight as regards a period, I should for myself be very pleased if the Prime Minister of Uganda could even be asked to reiterate his determination and that of his Government to hold a referendum, without any date being specified at all. In other words, will the Prime Minister of Uganda say, in effect, "These suspicions are unworthy. We accept a minimum period of two years. We are not prepared to accept a maximum period, but we intend quite definitely to hold a referendum"? I go so far as to make that suggestion to my hon. Friend because I very well understand the position in which he is placed.
  Mr. Hirst: I have not followed this matter in every detail, but I have visited the State of Uganda on more than one occasion and I, therefore, have a certain interest—not an interest to declare but the interest one inevitably has when one has visited a country. I accept the position which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is in. He has not held his office very long, and, obviously, it is rather a trial to be placed as he is. But I suggest that the House and this Committee should not be placed in this position. Probably, there is a very adequate reason for the absence of the Colonial Secretary. I do not know it myself, and I think we might be informed of the reason.

  581
  This is a very important matter. It has not been bounced on the Committee in any way. The Amendment is on the Notice Paper. The question was raised on Second Reading. There is nothing new about it. Why on earth we should be placed in this situation and be told that this matter, which has been raised now, will be brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend, I just cannot conceive.
  It is not the first time in this Committee, and it will not be the last, either, that I have had to complain about discourtesy. I am always having to do it and I regret it very much, but I will not have it, and I will not stay in this Committee or the House and not if necessary raise my voice against discourtesy to the Committee or the House—and, indeed, to the country—in a case like this, on an important Bill, with Amendments put down. The Under-Secretary of State, for whom I have the highest personal regard, though I did not share all the views which he expressed from these back benches on more than one occasion—though that does not alter my regard for him—is placed in the position of having to answer, as he has, in a matter like this, and appeal to the Committee and say, "I have only been a day or two in my office and I cannot say a confounded thing."
  I can understand his feeling in his position, but it is really not good enough that he should be placed in it. In the circumstances we must appeal to the Leader of the House, if we cannot get any satisfaction in the matter. I do not want to see the Amendment, per se, pressed, but I do not think the Committee should leave this matter alone. It is quite disgraceful that we should be put in this position on an important Bill and told that the matter will be referred to my right hon. Friend when he knows the point perfectly well already. It was made perfectly clear in the Second Reading debate, the report of which I read. It is perfectly clear, and the Amendment is perfectly clear, also, and yet on a matter of this sort we are told, "I have only been in office a day or two and I cannot give an answer." This is a grave discourtesy to this Committee.
  I personally consider that we ought to protest against this sort of situation. I am not prepared to accept it. Some-
  582
  thing ought to be done. I am not prepared to allow it to go like this. While understanding the position in which the Under-Secretary is placed, I want to say to the Leader of the House, who is here, and who has great experience, that he ought to intervene, and the Committee ought not to be treated with this discourtesy.
  Mr. Fisher: I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett). I recognise that the Committee is in a difficulty. He has gone a long way to meet me. I think that everybody on both sides recognises that this is ultimately a matter for the central Government of Uganda to decide, and so I think that the only point on which we are at issue at this moment is whether my right hon. Friend is to approach the central Government of Uganda to ask them if they will agree to a five-year maximum—
  Mr. Hirst: Why should he not?
  Mr. Fisher: This is, as I see it, a fairly narrow point, as to whether my right hon. Friend is prepared to reopen this matter with the central Government of Uganda.
  I have given the Government's view in reply to this short debate. I cannot go further than the view of the Government on this matter, but, of course, I will ask my right hon. Friend if he will take the action which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee propose that he should take. I think it will be generally recognised—and I am not appealing for mercy because I have only been in this office for one day; I do not mind about that—in any circumstances, however long a Minister had been in office, the Committee could not really expect an Under-Secretary, to commit in advance a Cabinet Minister, his own leader, to a move of this sort if he had had no instructions before hand. I do not think I can.
  I will put the views of the Committee very strongly to my right hon. Friend, who will read this debate. I will suggest to him that he might consider if it is possible in the context of the negotiations which have taken place, of which I had no knowledge and in

  583
  which I had no part, to reopen this issue with the central Government of Uganda.
  But I cannot go further than that and I do not propose to do so. If hon. Members think I have not gone far enough, I am afraid their only remedy is to divide the Committee— which I hope they will not do, for I think this is a fairly narrow point. I believe I have given as complete an undertaking as a junior Minister can give under these circumstances, and there I propose to leave it. I do not think that I can be persuaded to go further, because I do not think that it would be right for me to do so.
  Mr. Strachey: The Under-Secretary of State is clearly in a difficulty. But so is the Committee. He has argued— and this is a substantial point—that if we put anything of this sort into the Bill we have no sanctions after independence by which it can be carried out. Of course, that applies to what we have already done by putting in the two-year provision. If the Uganda Government do not carry out that agreement—Governments often do not carry these things out after independence—we again have no sanctions. His point that after independence the decision will rest with the Uganda Government is therefore sound.
  But the Committee feels strongly that the Uganda Government, in the remaining weeks before independence, should be pressed very strongly to give an indication that in the not too distant future they will hold a referendum. I should not have thought that we really require more than that. It would be a mistake, perhaps, if dates were mentioned one way or the other, but there should be a referendum and we should have an assurance about this. It would be a great advantage.
  I understand the Under-Secretary of State's position. He can hardly give that assurance to the Committee. But, after all, the Leader of (the House is present even if the Secretary of State is not, and he is not unfamiliar with the office of Colonial Secretary and this situation. Perhaps he could give the Committee an assurance that the Secretary of State will, when he has considered this matter, come back on a
  584
  suitable occasion and tell us his decision, so that at any rate the matter will not have gone entirely from our hands.
  Perhaps we could have an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will approach the Uganda Government. There may be reasons against it and I should not like to be dogmatic about it. But we should like an assurance that the Secretary of State will reconsider the matter in the light of what has been said and will tell us his final view. It would help the Committee if the Leader of the House could give an assurance that we shall hear of the matter once again.
  Mr. Hirst: This situation is utterly fantastic. I cannot for one moment understand why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been placed in this position by the Government. It is astonishing that in a matter of this grave importance some arrangements have not been made for the Secretary of State to handle this situation here. There may be an adequate reason—we know that Ministers have important engagements to fulfil outside this Committee—but that the Under-Secretary of State, after so short a period in office, should be placed in this position is disgraceful.
  I have nothing to complain about in the way my hon. Friend has handled this debate. He knows that I do not share all his views, but I pay the highest personal tribute to him. But this situation is discourteous to the House and is absolutely intolerable, and for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to sit there and listen and do nothing—
  The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but we are discussing one rather limited Amendment, that certain words should be inserted in the Clause. I hope that the hon. Member will not go too far.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to you, Sir William, and I agree with you. I am angry about this situation, and I probably went a little outside the Amendment.
  We have been discussing an important Amendment in relation to a matter raised on Second Reading, and the Government are therefore fully aware of the feelings of many hon. Members about this. In the circumstances I do not think that my hon. Friend's reply was satisfactory.

  585
  There is nothing personal in what I am saying, and I am sorry that it is my hon. Friend whom I have to address. The Opposition have their rights, and I will uphold them as strongly as I do my own. I agree with the appeal of the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). The absence of my right hon. Friend 'the Secretary of State for the Colonies is a grave discourtesy to the Committee, but there must be some reason why he is not here. However, the Leader of the House is present and I think that he ought at least to reinforce the view of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies that the matter contained in the Amendment will engage the attention of the Government to the best of their ability. We cannot expect more than that, but nothing less than that is our right.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am glad to respond to what has been said from both sides of the Committee. I have attended the debate not in my capacity as Leader of the House, but because no Member of this House has been as closely connected with these matters as I have. The last day on which I held office as Secretary of State for the Colonies I presided over the Uganda Independence Conference, and my last act as Secretary of State for that Department, which I recall with great pride, was to announce the success of that Conference and the date of independence as 9th October of this year.
  From that date, as we have recognised, it became inevitable and right, and we welcomed it, that Uganda would take its place as a Sovereign nation in the Commonwealth. Also at that time, because I was responsible for appointing the Munster Commission, I appointed, or devised the idea of appointing, the Commission of Privy Councillors which eventually became the Molson Commission, so I have throughout had a responsibility for that matter.
  I think that we are agreed that it would be wrong to put in the words suggested in the Amendment, for two reasons: First, because they do not exactly carry out the intent of those who have been putting the point before us; and, secondly, because we have not agreed these words with the country that is to be a sovereign kingdom within the
  586
  Commonwealth within a very short time. I think that the point made by my hon. Friend is very valid. Two years is in because this has been agreed to, but we cannot insert five years, because we have not agreed to it. I gladly reinforce what my hon. Friend said, and I do this in response to the request of the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey).
  I take the helpful point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) but he will realise that one cannot from this Box promise that the Prime Minister of a country in the Commonwealth, about to become independent, will or will not make a particular statement. One can only see that the views of this House are put to him, and I give that undertaking.
  Also in response to the right hon. Member for Dundee, West I will see that in some way the House is apprised of the situation once more before we rise for the Recess.
  On that understanding, and after this very good debate, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
  Miss Vickers: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend for the answers which have been given. There is nothing new in this debate. We have had a Second Reading of the Bill, we have had questions, and on Monday I presented a Petition. The situation has materially changed since this Bill was printed. Bunyoro feels more strongly than it did before, and it should be remembered that its delegate walked out of the Conference.
  I want to suggest to the Committee tonight and to my right hon. Friend that in this period of good will—after all, the day of independence is always a time of rejoicing and good will—the matter might be reopened on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend between the Kabaka of Buganda and the Amukama of Bunyoro. I fed that if in a spirit of good will they could get agreement on an agreed date for the referendum, it would be a very good thing. I should like my right hon. Friend, if he can, to see if it would be possible to place in any further agreement the right of appeal to the Privy Council should no action fee taken. A right of appeal to

  587
  the Privy Council is written in the Constitution.
  I am vary grateful to my right hon. Friend for the suggestion that he has made, and on the assurance that he has given to the Committee, I bog to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

  BOLTON WATER ORDER
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Thornton: I beg to move,
  That the Bolton Water Order, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th June, be annulled.
  I move this Motion in order to give an opportunity to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) to move and to my hon. Friend the Member for Charley (Mr. Kenyon) perhaps to support if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Amendment which is on the Order Paper. We are all three, I think, seeking the same objective, namely, the reference of the Petition of General Objection by the Irwell Valley Water Board to a Joint Committee of both Houses.
  This collusion is forced upon us by the cumbersome and rather complicated procedure. I want to add my strong protest against this procedure to the protests made in earlier debates on the Llanelly and Cambridge Water Orders. Not only is it inconvenient in that it requires two or more hon. Members to stay late at night engaged in a sort of collusive, bogus action—I do not think that anyone wants the Order annulled— but we have so to move, I understand, in order to get consideration of the Petition of General Objection referred to a Joint Committee.
  The very unsatisfactory procedure applied to these Orders can operate very harshly against a petitioner. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the
  588
  Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) on 13th March, there are only six Parliamentary days available for moving a Motion from the time of the report by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and these six days can be even further reduced by the operation of the 11.30 p.m. rule, which we are now observing, and which we had experience of last night. We can well visualise circumstances arising in which it would be impossible to discuss a Petition to Parliament, due to the unsatisfactory nature of this procedure. I urge that a more satisfactory way be found.
  I must make my remarks even briefer than I intended, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale has arguments to deploy, and I do not want to preclude the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. E. Taylor) from making the remarks that I know he is anxious to make. The petitioners, the Irwell Valley Water Board, submit two Petitions—one of General Objection to, and one of Amendment of, the Bolton Water Order, 1962. I understand that the Petition for Amendment will go automatically to a Joint Committee of both Houses. The purpose of the Motion and Amendment is to ask the House to refer also the Petition of General Objection to the Joint Committee. I hope that the Minister will concur in this.
  In the case of the Cambridge Order the then Parliamentary Secretary argued that expense would be saved if the Petition of General Objection were not referred. That argument cannot apply in this case, because a Joint Committee will have to examine a case on the Petition for Amendment.
  In their General Objection the petitioners point out their expectation that the ultimate move will be to make a larger grouping, embracing not only the Bolton area and the Irwell Valley area but the Heywood and Middleton Water Board, and the Rochdale Corporation water undertaking. The point I want to put to the Minister is that I know these areas very well, and the recommendation and advice of an eminent water engineer is to the effect that the best solution would be to have this wider grouping.
  Mr. John McCann: Surely the Vail Report recommended that the

  589
  Irwell Valley Board should be amalgamated with Bolton in the east, while Rochdale was included in the Tame and Roche Valley area. The objection of Rochdale Corporation is that it should be asked to go in with the Bolton area.
  Mr. Thornton: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is lengthening my speech, which I was trying to curtail. The petitioners content that the Vail Report of 1950 is now somewhat outdated, and that the best scheme would be to have this wider area. My apprehension is that if this comes as a second step, after the grouping of the Bolton undertaking with the Irwell Valley undertaking, the next step would be to have the wider area, and in the wider area the probability is that we would have a joint board consisting only of the Bolton County Borough and the Rochdale County Borough, and representation by the county district would be irretrievably lost.
  It is unthinkable that in this wider area the Bolton County Borough should be the responsible Authority, because its population would constitute only about 25 per cent. of the population served by the wider area, including Rochdale. Therefore, the petitioners feel strongly that the problems of the wider areas and adequate statutory representation on the controlling water authority should be examined by a Joint Committee of both Houses.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I beg to move, to leave out from "the" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
  "Petition of General Objection of the Irwell Valley Water Board against the Bolton Water Order 1962, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses".
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) has said, he and I are tonight in perfectly honourable collusion on this subject, and his characteristically lucid explanation has greatly eased my task. As he has reminded us, on this occasion both a Petition for Amendment and a Petition of General Objection have been lodged, and certified by the Chairman of Ways and Means and by the Lord Chairman of Committees as proper to be received. In those circumstances, the Petition for Amendment will go automatically to a
  590
  Joint Committee but, unless the House so decides, the Petition of General Objection will not.
  The right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Public Building and Works explained to the House on 13th March that the Government do not think it right that all Petitions of General Objection should go automatically to a Joint Committee. I think that the House would accept that point of view. But unless it agrees—and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, upon whose appointment to office all of us would wish to congratulate him, will encourage it to do so—only specific amendments will be considered by a Joint Committee, and not the general objections.
  We object, not to regrouping in principle, but to this Order. The area of three water undertakings will be affected. First of all, there is the area of the Bolton Corporation, which extends considerably beyond the county borough boundary. It has a population of 270,000, and a rateable value of just over £3 million. There is the area of the Bacup Corporation, with a population of 17,000, and a rateable value of £159,000. And there is the area of the Irwell Valley Water Board—the Board was established in 1900—which covers nine local authority districts, the principal being Bury, Rawtenstall, Radcliffe, Haslingden, Ramsbottom and White-field, with a population of 162,000, and a rateable value of just under £2 million. Under the Order, all three of those undertakings would become part of the Bolton Corporation undertaking.
  Bacup, and a large part of the area of the Irwell Valley Water Board, are in my constituency. Bacup Corporation is happy about the proposal, but the Irwell Valley Water Board, with two-fifths of the population of the area and two-fifths of the rateable value, is very far from happy, and I will state very generally what the objections are. I will state them generally, because I think that the detailed objections should be considered by the Joint Committee.
  Our main objections are twofold. First of all, as my hon. Friend implied, we believe that the proposals in the Order are based largely on the recommendations of the Vail Report of 1950. I understand that at that time it was envisaged that, in future, bulk supplies

  591
  for both Bolton and the Irwell Valley area would come from the Manchester Corporation's Haweswater aqueduct. Since then, it has been arranged that Bolton will continue to have water from Manchester's Thirlmere aqueduct, and that the Irwell Valley will get supplementary supplies from the Haweswater aqueduct at Whitefield.
  It was further envisaged at the time of the Vail Report that supplies from Manchester would be taken into the Tame and Roche areas. But since then new reservoirs have been constructed and it is the view of the Irwell Valley Water Board that the arguments raised in the Report are no longer relevant and that proper regrouping should be on a more comprehensive scale than was envisaged at that time.
  Since the inquiry conducted by the Minister, the Irwell Board has taken the advice of an eminent water engineer, who has commented:
  "Ultimately—particularly if legislation is introduced to form River Conservation Authorities—I think an amalgamation of these three units [Bolton, Irwell and Bacup, and Heywood & Middleton and Rochdale] supplying the whole of the Irwell catchment north of Manchester would be desirable. As there appears to be no prospect of accomplishing any amalgamations by agreement, compulsion will have to be used. This being so I should have thought it might as well be used to form a single authority for the whole area (i.e. Bolton, Irwell Valley, Bacup, Heywood & Middleton and Rochdale) straight away."
  The tactical advice of the water engineer need not be considered too seriously by the House, but in making the political decision we should take into account his specialist technical advice.
  Our other principal objection is one covered by the Petition for Amendment, but it raises considerations of a more general nature. At present Bolton and Bacup have unfettered control of their water undertakings and run them with remarkable efficiency. I defy anyone to get better water than one can obtain in Bacup. The Irwell Valley comprises a number of local authorities and all of them have statutory representation on the Irwell Valley Water Board. They feel that, in those circumstances, they have some guarantee of fair treatment for their areas, and their representatives are answerable to the people of the area.
  If we go ahead with the Bolton Water Order as it stands at present, the policy
  592
  for the whole area, covering nearly 500,000 people, will be decided by a council which is answerable to only about one-third of the people affected. Representation on the Water Committee of the Bolton Corporation will be purely an act of grace on the part of that Corporation. It will be open to annual review and there will be no guarantee that any of the authorities concerned will have any influence on the policy of the undertaking.
  We say, therefore, that a joint board, comprising representatives of all the local authorities affected, would be the ideal solution and would facilitate future mergers. It is because I deprecate any further erosion of the powers of our smaller local authorities, and because I believe that a more comprehensive scheme for the reorganisation of the water undertakings in this district is needed, that I ask the House to support the Amendment.
  11.9p.m.
  Sir John Barlow: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on his promotion to the Front Bench, the more so since this is a subject with which he is familiar and about which he has deep knowledge.
  As the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) said, we are indeed in honourable collusion tonight. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in this area are very much concerned about the problem of water, but since the hon. Member for Rossendale has dealt with the matter adequately I do not propose, at this late hour, to delay the House. I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Rossendale had to say. I support his Amendment and hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept it. We are really discussing a matter which is far too complex to debate at great length at this time of night. Suffice to say that if my hon. Friend accepts the Amendment, which I hope he will, the problem might be suitably solved.
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. Edwin Taylor: I realise that there is some difficulty on account of time and therefore I shall be brief but, as a representative of one of the major towns concerned with this Order, I feel bound to speak. I strongly

  593
  oppose the Amendment, for several reasons.
  Firstly, I want to make it clear that Bolton has no intention of empire build-in. Bolton was asked by the Ministry to take over this extra responsibility and did so. Having done so, it must sup-pout the Order. I do not see that it would be in any way useful to form a board on this occasion. The board formed in the Irwell Valley has already failed. The water is dear and the undertaking needs a great deal of money spent on it.
  We in Bolton are quite prepared to take over this responsibility and I appeal to my hon. Friend to leave the Order unchanged. There is no evidence that the population which is affected by the Order thinks otherwise. I have proof that 77 per cent. of the people concerned want the Order to go through. As users of the water they do not care who does the management. All they want is good, cheap water supplied efficiently. We consider that the grouping system now coming into operation can exactly meet that requirement.
  There have been droughts from time to time and we in Bolton can proudly say that we have supplied the other authorities with water from Bolton and we are always pleased to do so. I hope that the Order will be left as it is and that the grouping system, with which we fully agree, will remain unchanged.
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. John McCann: I intervene briefly to put the point of view of the Corporation of Rochdale. We do not mind the Order going through or even going to a Joint Committee of both Houses. We only hope that it is not sent to the Joint Committee for the wrong reasons.
  We feel that one of the reasons why a Petition was presented against the Measure was to prevent the Irwell Valley Water Board from losing its identity. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO".] When the regrouping was suggested, we in Rochdale objected, and the Minister wrote on 2nd March:
  "On the suggested regrouping to the east, the Minister would have been prepared to consider this alternative if there had been expressed to him any strong mutual desire among the authorities themselves for it. The Board do not appear to have won the sup-
  594
  port of the authorities to the east and, in the absence of any agreed case being put to him for such a merger, he sees no reason to depart from the implementation of the water survey recommendations."
  In an intervention earlier I made our position clear. I hope that the Joint Committee will bear these reasons in mind in reaching a decision and will allow us in Rochdale to retain one of the finest water undertakings in the North-West
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Clifford Kenyon: When I came into this House in 1945 I resigned from the Irwell Valley Water Board, having been a member for a number of years. I support my hon. Friends the Members for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) and for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) in what they have said on behalf of the Irwell Valley Water Board. To say that it is inefficieint, has dearer water and so on is an argument that cannot be borne out. This is one more case of a large authority swallowing up small authorities, on this occasion at the instance of the Minister. We are seeing democracy eroded in so many of these mergers of undertakings, and it is no wonder that the public are losing interest in local government in many spheres.
  This merger is put forward on a number of grounds, but I will deal with only two. We are told that economy and benefit will follow from it. We always find that these arguments are used on these occasions. They are very desirable but they are very hypothetical. We often find that they do not work out in practice.
  When a large undertaking takes over small authorities, the costs, however small they may be at the beginning, gradually increase until they are as high as ever. The Irwell Valley Water Board serves a very large area. If it is taken over by Bolton, right over to the west of the area, because of the geographical conditions the transport costs alone will be tremendous. It will mean more staff, more travel and more vehicles. I cannot see how in this merger there could be cheaper water or a more efficient service.
  I now want to deal with the subject of representation. At the moment all the undertakings in the Irwell Valley Water Board area are represented on

  595
  that board. They have a say in the work of the board. They can report to their respective authorities and they can put forward proposals from time to time which have the approval and support of the authorities. If they come under Bolton the nine authorities will have about three representatives. Some of the authorities will not be represented at all. Under a joint board it would be possible for them all to be represented. There would be fair representation.
  I hope the Minister will send the Petition of General Objection to a Joint Committee.
  11.19 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I should like to start by thanking the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) for their kind welcome to me in this rather frightening position in the House.
  This Order differs considerably from the Cambridge Order where the objections to the Petition were against the whole policy of amalgamation which I think is a policy accepted by both sides of the House, and indeed was inaugurated with the agreement of the party opposite as far back as 1944. There is no question of opposing the Amendment, although, owing to this rather curious procedure by which we have first to move the annulment of the Order altogether, I have to advise the House not to accept the main Motion. I think that I should be defeating the object of hon. Members opposite if I did not do so.
  The hon. Member for Farnwoxth (Mr. Thornton) drew attention to this procedure once again. I appreciate that it is to some extent both inconvenient and artificial. He will, however, appreciate that it is laid down in the Water Act, and legislation would be needed to alter it. We shall keep it under review, but I cannot make any immediate promise about it. Although we ran it a bit fine on this occasion, there never has been an occasion on Which anyone has been prevented from moving a Motion and Amendment such as we have tonight.
  596
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, Bast (Mr. E. Taylor) is quite night when he says that my right hon. Friend takes the view that the arrangement set out in the Order would be the most satisfactory, but I cannot agree with him when he suggests that people do not care. I believe that they do care. People get intensely patriotic about their local water supply. This seems to be an admirable subject for a Joint Committee to study. My Ministry is very willing that the matter should go to a Joint Committee. We accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) but, of course, we must oppose the main Motion moved by the hon. Member for Farnwonth.
  Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, put and negatived.
  Proposed words there added.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Petition of General Objection of the Irwell Valley Water Board against the Bolton Water Order, 1962, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  PNEUMOCONIOSIS MEDICAL PANEL (CLAIM)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  11.23 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Tomney: I offer my congratulations to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary. It is one of the pleasant features of the House of Commons that we always offer our congratulations to hon. Members on the occasion of their maiden speeches and on the occasion of appointment to office.
  I do not suppose that the case I am raising tonight is the first of its kind. It has certain unusual features, one of which is that the commissioner's judgment is very long. The circumstances raise the question as to what reliance may be placed upon the decision of a

  597
  local tribunal when, after the tribunal had reached a majority decision in favour of the claimant—with a dissenting chairman, whose appointment is the prerogative of the Minister—the insurance officer thereupon referred the matter to the commissioner. In my submission, the whole concept of delegated legislation as we know it in this country according to the accepted concept of established law and practice is brought into doubt, at least from the point of view of claimants.
  Most claimants in these cases are very ordinary citizens who do not know the intricate aspects of the application of the law by local tribunals. Even in a case like this where the claimant had the advantage of being represented by her husband's trade union, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, neither the weight of argument nor the weight of representation can ever be equal. The Minister is able to call upon the experience and advice of his own expert and specialist staff. I can imagine that his specialist staff are some of the best men in the country that the Minister can recruit to his service. He is far more able to reinforce his opinion if necessary by further expert consultancy.
  However, in this matter the judgment of the Commissioner is complicated by the fact that the medical expert. Dr. Hinson, who was Director of Pathological Services at London Chest Hospital, has on occasion acted for the Ministry in other cases and surely on this occasion his judgment could have been unbiased and objective. Chiefly on his judgment the local tribunal made an award in favour of the claimant. On 21st April, 1961, the pneumoconiosis medical panel, which, I understand, is a consultative body, completely nullified the evidence of Dr. Hinson and said that its findings were based on medical facts. This case is unusual in so far as the claimant is making a claim on behalf of her deceased husband and we have medical expert opinions at variance with one another.
  It is interesting to note the obvious leaning of the Commissioner towards the pneumoconioisis medical panel, whose decision he obviously wanted to support, and he states in his judgment that such changes as occurred were due to general emphysema and chronic bronchitis and
  598
  changes due to dust were insignificant. He refers to Dr. Hinson's report in this manner—that he stated there were black silicotic nodules in the lungs, but he
  "does not go into any details about the numbers, extent or distribution. We found no silicotic nodules. If such were present, they must have been extremely sparse. In his description of the deceased's heart, equally brief, the pathologist states that apart from early purulent pericarditis, the organ was normal."
  Just because a statement of medical fact and opinion is brief does not, in my submission, rule out its expertise.
  The Commissioner was wrong to draw his conclusion that because the statement of the pathologist was brief it was not of any value, but when we look at paragraph 9 of the report of Dr. Hinson there is no doubt that he claims that although bronchitis and emphysema were present pneumoconiosis was the material contributory factor in the deceased's death. He goes on to say quite frankly:
  "In my view this is a difficult case for decision but I think there is just sufficient pneumoconiosis to hold that it materially accelerated this death. The presence of calcified tuberculosis in the lymph nodes and the mainly subpleural location of the large nodules of the fibrosis in the lungs suggest that this disease while never overt, may have played some part in the progression of the fibrosis."
  He concludes:
  "I should like to emphasise that the case is a 'borderline' one and that I have considerable sympathy with the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel's opinion."
  But there is no doubt that he is of the opinion that pneumoconiosis materially affected this man's death.
  Therefore, we now arrive at the position, surely, when, according to the Commissioner's own statement of the views of both medical panels, Dr. Hinson's opinions seem to stand medically discredited. I would take a very poor view of the credentials of the panels if I were the specialist involved. This situation alone should have given the Commissioner food for a much longer period of thought, and should have led him to seek further consultations before arriving at this decision, so that, as he suggests, justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done.
  If the opinions of Dr. Hinson, an acknowledged expert, can be overturned by a medical panel, what injustice has been done in innumerable

  599
  cases to claimants who could not afford extra medical advice and had no union representation? The issue of payment for expert witnesses on behalf of claimants has never been dealt with adequately by Parliament and it is one which should be considered.
  The dilemma in which the deceased's union found itself, because evidence by one of the foremost experts in the country was being cast aside in doubt, was that it could become involved in endless expense in contesting the opinions of the experts which the Minister might choose to call.
  This is not a very satisfactory position. A union does not have unlimited funds at its disposal for these purposes. But the Minister has, of course, the taxpayer to foot the bill. This was one of the reasons which led the union to seek further adjournments of the case so that it could be sure that there was some point in securing further medical opinion.
  A union cannot proceed in cases of this kind as smoothly as can the Minister. It has to call together its executive and general committee members from different parts of the country to consider exactly what is involved, how much it will cost and whether there is a good chance of the outcome of the original application being supported.
  The Minister, under Regulation 41 of the 1948 Regulations can secure an oral hearing of Dr. Hinson. But the Commissioner, in his submission, says that he no such power. But after reading the Regulation carefully, I am of the opinion that while the Regulation does not say that he shall do so, it does not say that he shall not seek further medical opinion.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I may not be hearing the hon. Gentleman quite rightly. If so, I apologise. Could he explain to me what his complaint is about? It appears to be a complaint about a decision of a tribunal. Can he satisfy me that it is within my power to let him go on about that—that is to say, that there is Ministerial responsibility for the decision? I may not be following him.
  Mr. Tomney: There is Ministerial responsibility in this case because these tribunals were set up by the Ministry under the National Insurance Acts. In fact, these tribunals operate under a
  600
  system of delegated legislation. The tribunal decided in favour of the claimant, but the Commissioner upset the decision and the claimant has therefore been put to further expense to try to prove his case.
  I appreciate what you say, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister has no power to intervene to upset this decision of the Commissioner, but surely in a case of this kind, where the expert witnesses are at variance with each other, if there is any doubt about the matter the claimant should be given the benefit of that doubt. The Commissioner failed to realise this, although paragraph 18 of the regulations says:
  "To discharge the burden of proof it must be shown that the balance of probabilities favours the contention which it is sought to establish, and accordingly in proceedings under the Industrial Injuries Acts no question of the claimant having been given the benefit of the doubt arises."
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, because I do not want to use the hon. Member's time, but he knows the limits of my power. I am not following. The hon. Member seems to be complaining about some decision of the Commissioner, but not suggesting that the Minister has any power to intervene in the matter. I do not follow how there could be Ministerial responsibility for the subject matter of the complaint.
  Mr. Tomney: I do not know whether the Minister has power to intervene, but I suggest that in cases like this he should consider the possibility of making medical witnesses available to the claimant without involving the claimant in extra expense. There is also the point that, having secured one adjournment, the union was desirous of producing further medical evidence and asked the Commissioner to further postpone the case to enable that evidence to be brought before him, but this the Commissioner refused to do. The union contends that the claimant should be given the benefit of the doubt which has been created by the medical evidence being at variance
  I realise that the Commissioner has every right to refuse to grant a further adjournment, but surely in justice to the claimant he could have said, "Very well. This is a complicated case and I will therefore grant a further adjournment ". The claimant is unable to call further medical evidence unless the union provides the money for this to be

  601
  done. Union funds however are not unlimited, and because this is such an unusual case I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to issue a direction that in a case of this kind every effort should 'be made to grant adjournments to enable the claimant to call such evidence as is necessary to prove his case.
  11.39 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon): I start toy thanking the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) for his kind reference to my having recently taken over this position. I very much regret, however, that the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to raise this case on the Adjournment without previously writing to my predecessor in office or going to see him to discuss it. If that procedure, which is normal and consistent with the courtesies of the House, had been followed, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have been reassured and would probably not have asked for this Adjournment debate. I know that the hon. Member did see my hon. Friend who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works, but not until after he had given notice of the Adjournment debate.
  These cases, in which there is often much physical suffering and which sometimes end in the bereavement of a family, always arouse, and very rightly so, the sympathy of hon. Members. I want to reassure hon. Members that the processes of determining and of making awards are as considerate as they can be and have for long been generally accepted as the best that can be devised. My right hon. Friend the Minister has responsibility for the Industrial Injuries Fund. He must see that the wishes of Parliament as expressed in legislation are properly carried out so as to ensure the proper use of the Fund to allay hardship and suffering, that the scales are adequate and that the rules are such that there is fairness as between one case and another and that they are clear to those whose responsibility it is to administer them.
  I want to make it plain to hon. Members that, very properly, the Minister is not responsible for the determination of individual cases. Responsibility for this has deliberately been given by Parliament to independent persons over
  602
  whom the Minister has no influence. Cases such as the one which has led to this discussion tonight involve the insurance officer, the local appeal tribunal and, finally, the Commissioner. The Commissioner is appointed by the Crown and is the highest authority for determining questions on the cause of death under the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinonis Scheme just as he is the highest authority under the Industrial Injuries Acts.
  In his speech the hon. Member remarked that the Minister could call upon the most expert medical advice in the country, and he seemed to imply that that was unfair. I put it to the House that quite the contrary is the case. If the Minister is to have advice on these matters it should and must be the most expert advice in the country. The hon. Member also commented on the payment of witnesses' expenses. The Minister in this matter has no power to pay the fees of doctors who attend hearings at the request of a claimant, or, for that matter, any other costs which a claimant may choose to incur in support of his claim. The claim procedure has been laid down so that it should be just, comparatively speedy and inexpensive.
  The other matters which the hon. Members has raised in the course of this debate tonight seem to rest upon the position of the local appeal tribunal, and the hon. Member inferred that its position in this case was doubtful. I think that by the very nature of events it must be so because the decision was not unanimous. It was a majority decision of the two lay members of the appeal tribunal against the appointed chairman. Failure to agree is not altogether unusual, and the fact that the majority decision was later upset by the Commissioner on appeal by the insurance officer does not to my mind make this process an invalid or an unfair one.
  I have examined this case with considerable care, and am quite convinced that although the process has been a rather more complex one than usual— and the hon. Member commented on the length of the report of the Commissioner, which admittedly runs to five foolscap pages—justice has been done and can quite clearly be seen to have been done.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Twelve o'clock.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  GENEVA DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE
  GENEVA DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE
UNITED NATIONS
  Kashmir
  Kashmir
  Congo
  Congo
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Portugal
  Portugal
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  THAILAND (R.A.F. SQUADRON)
  THAILAND (R.A.F. SQUADRON)
  LIBERIA (DISCUSSIONS)
  LIBERIA (DISCUSSIONS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Lincolnshire River Board (Fishing Licence Duties)
  Lincolnshire River Board (Fishing Licence Duties)
  Pig Meat
  Pig Meat
  Swine Fever
  Swine Fever
  Fowl Pest
  Fowl Pest
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Medical Supplies and Services (Centralisation)
  Medical Supplies and Services (Centralisation)
  B.A.O.R (Cost)
  B.A.O.R (Cost)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Blue Water Missile
  Blue Water Missile
  Nuclear Warfare
  Nuclear Warfare
ROYAL NAVY
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Dockyard Workers (Pay)
  Dockyard Workers (Pay)
  Greenwich Hospital School
  Greenwich Hospital School
BRITISH ARMY
  Overseas Personnel (Local Languages)
  Overseas Personnel (Local Languages)
  National Service men
  National Service men
  German Troops (United Kingdom)
  German Troops (United Kingdom)
  British Forces, Germany
  British Forces, Germany
  Ammunition, Gwernyfed
  Ammunition, Gwernyfed
  Changing of the Guard
  Changing of the Guard
  F.N. Rifle
  F.N. Rifle
SCOTLAND
  High Court of Justiciary and Court of Session
  High Court of Justiciary and Court of Session
  Lobsters
  Lobsters
  Scottish Council (Meeting)
  Scottish Council (Meeting)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Housing Schemes (Playing Fields)
  Housing Schemes (Playing Fields)
  Toothill Committee (Report)
  Toothill Committee (Report)
ROADS
  A.1 (Micklefield and Ferrybridge) Scheme
  A.1 (Micklefield and Ferrybridge) Scheme
  Residential Streets (Lorry Parking)
  Residential Streets (Lorry Parking)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  London-Southend Road (Gypsies)
  London-Southend Road (Gypsies)
  Road Schemes
  Road Schemes
  Road Safety (Films)
  Road Safety (Films)
  Leeds
  Leeds
  Estimates Committee's Report (Classified Roads)
  Estimates Committee's Report (Classified Roads)
TRANSPORT
  Blind Persons (Guide Dogs)
  Blind Persons (Guide Dogs)
RAILWAYS
  Westminster Underground Station (Platform Extension Works)
  Westminster Underground Station (Platform Extension Works)
EMPLOYMENT
  Paisley
  Paisley
  Scotland
  Scotland
EDUCATION
  Glamorgan
  Glamorgan
ADEN
  Newspapers
  Newspapers
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Dental Health
  Dental Health
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Metropolitan Water Board (Charges)
  Metropolitan Water Board (Charges)
  Local Authority Loans (Interest Charges)
  Local Authority Loans (Interest Charges)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Probation Officers
  Probation Officers
  Nuclear Warfare
  Nuclear Warfare
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  National Assistance
  National Assistance
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Underground Gas Storage
  Underground Gas Storage
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Wire
  Wire

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool
The Earl of Derby—Took the Oath.
The Earl of Stair (L. Oxenfoord)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ROAD TRAFFIC THROUGH KING'S LYNN
2.36 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to relieve the abnormal road traffic passing through King's Lynn owing to the unsafe condition of the river bridge at Downham West.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the existing wooden bridge at Downham Market is still usable one way by vehicles of up to 5 tons. The old iron bridge has recently been reopened, but with similar restrictions. This permits the road through Downham Market to be used again by such vehicles as an alternative route to the east coast holiday resorts and so to reduce the traffic through King's Lynn. It has been signposted again from last weekend.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. He mentioned traffic up to 5 tons. I understand that heavy traffic has to go very much out of its way to get round from Wisbech to Lynn and other districts. Is it not possible to make some sort of temporary bridge, other than the iron bridge, which would carry heavy traffic and so save a good deal of waste time and money?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that heavier vehicles than that have to go the other way. There is, I understand, a further road that can be used through Stow Bridge, which means going about five miles out of your way to the north. I think that what we have decided to do is a better answer than constructing further temporary bridges there—namely, in the circumstances, because the wooden bridge had deteriorated rather faster than anybody thought would happen, to bring forward the permanent reconstruction of the bridge, which was in the programme for 1963–64, into the current year's programme. My right honourable friend has already announced that as soon as the scheme for reconstruction can be completed by the county council, who are the highway authority concerned, a grant will be forthcoming to enable it to be done at once.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to tell the House what is the line of demarcation between light and heavy traffic? The noble Lord referred to traffic to holiday resorts. Should I be right in assuming that coaches and road passenger traffic would come within the category of heavy traffic?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the line of demarcation is five tons.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Laden or unladen?
LORD CHESHAM: Laden—because this is, after all, a matter of what the structure of the bridge will carry. I should have thought it was a fact that the majority of coaches with their loads would not be able to use the bridges, although there is always the possibility that there will be some smaller ones which can.

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PORT OF LONDON BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY CORPORATION BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a thirl time.
Movel, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that this Bill aroused some discussion in this House, and I see that we are now asked to approve the Third Reading of the amended Bill. Could the noble Lord tell us whether there has been any Amendment to this Bill since we passed the Second Reading?
LORD MERTHYR: Yes, my Lords; there have been some Amendments made by the Select Committee. I have the details here, if the noble Lord wishes to have them now; or perhaps he would like me to send them to him. In my judgment, they are not Amendments of any considerable importance; they are not Amendments to any of the major issues.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would let me see them. I was rather concerned as to Whether there had been any Amendments on the basis of compensation.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, perhaps I might say, as Chairman of the Select Committee which considered the Bill, that these Amendments were agreed by the two parties and are of no substance.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for taking the somewhat unusual step of saying a word or two about this Private Bill on Third Reading, but perhaps I have a justification, since other noble Lords have already done so. As I said when your Lordships considered this Bill on Second Reading, there is in fact a great deal which is unusual about the Bill. Although its purposes may be local, there are important principles underlying it. I need not spend long in reminding your Lordships—in fact it is not for me to do so—what this Bill seeks to do. It provides for the setting up of
602
a Corporation called the Letchworth Garden City Corporation and for the transfer to the Corporation, on payment of compensation, of the undertaking of First Garden City, Limited. My real purpose in speaking is to draw your Lordships' attention to the constitution of the proposed new Corporation, to which my noble friend Lord Albemarle referred on Second Reading.
The Bill provides that my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government shall appoint the chairman and three other members, the remaining two members to be appointed by the County Council and the Urban District Council respectively. Since the conclusion of the proceedings before the Select Committee my right honourable friend has been giving consideration to the appointments which he should make under this Bill, if it is passed. He will, of course, be in close touch with the Urban District Council and the County Council, and if your Lordships decide to give the Bill a Third Reading and it receives the Royal Assent, he hopes to appoint members without delay, so that the new Corporation can start work and be ready to carry on the undertaking when it is transferred to them on January 1, 1963.
May I, in conclusion, congratulate my noble friend Lord Molson on sponsoring this measure in your Lordships' House, and may I also add a personal tribute to the Urban District Council's courage and initiative in dealing with this unusual situation, and wish the new venture every possible success?
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, may I add a word to what I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin? The Amendments which have been made, and of which I will let him have copies afterwards, do not alter the scope or the amount of the compensation. I thought the noble Lord might like to know that.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (DISTRIBUTION OF LEVY) (AMENDMENT No. 2) REGULATIONS, 1962
2.47 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I feel that your Lordships may require a word or two of explanation about the precise purposes of this Order, which possibly may not be entirely clear to your Lordships at first blush. I would confess that they were not entirely clear to me at first sight. The background is as follows. Since 1950 there has been a levy on cinema exhibitors for the benefit of the producers of films. The arrangements, as I understand it, were originally voluntary ones within the industry. These, however, were made statutory by the Cinematograph Films Act, 1957, and the statutory instruments which were made thereunder. Last year, the levy, which is called the British Film Fund, yielded about £4 million. However, the continuing decline in cinema audiences may lead to the Fund's declining somewhat this year, but it can still be expected to yield broadly £3½ million to the total income of British film producers, and so bring that income to around £15 million.
The levy fund is shared out among film producers by the British Film Fund Agency, a statutory body set up by the Act of 1957 and appointed by the Board of Trade. The agency determines the producers' shares of the fund by reference to their films' normal commercial earnings from exhibition in this country. The rate of the Fund's payment, however, is different on each of the three main classes of films. Thus, short films, other than newsreels, have their commercial earnings multiplied by two and a half times for the purpose of calculating their entitlement. Low-cost films' earnings are doubled for this purpose or, at any rate, until the earnings of each film reach £15,000 or the film's labour cost, whichever is the lower. And the earnings of the remaining films, full-length first features and newsreels, are brought in as they stand. Preliminary indications are that in the levy year which ended in October, 1961, short films took from the fund about £320,000; low-cost films some £460,000; newsreels £125,000; and first features just under £3 million, £2·8 million.
604
If I may just continue, as I should like to explain the basis of the change from two to two and a half times—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: He is waiting for the boss.
EARL JELLICOE: —the statutory instrument which is before your Lordships at this moment will change the existing arrangements in that low-cost films will have their earnings multiplied by two and a half, just as those of short films are already, in order to provide further encouragement to their production. I should perhaps add, in conclusion—and I gather from noble Lords on the Benches opposite that those two words are welcome—that the change is, broadly speaking, welcomed by all the interests concerned in the industry. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations, 1962, be approved.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say that the Opposition is quite willing to pass the other Order straight away. We do not need to have the House, with 26 speakers on a vastly important Motion, kept jogging along in the hope that some other meeting will finish and the "big guns" will come in.

COMMONWEALTH PREFERENCE (WEST CAMEROON) ORDER, 1962
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think you would possibly like my explanation—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: No.
EARL JELLICOE:—of this instrument to be short, and I can undertake that it will be.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: This is really obstructing the House.
EARL JELLICOE: I think that if the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition would bear with me just for a moment he would realise that this is not an unimportant instrument. The Order before your Lordships' House will,

605
if approved, have the effect of adding the name of West Cameroon to the countries already listed in Section 2 (4) of the Import Duties Act, 1958, as part of the Commomwealth preference area. The Order would take effect on October 1, 1962, the date on which the provisions of Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1961, cease to be effective. Those provisions maintain the status of the former Southern Cameroons, now West Cameroon, in the area for one year after the Southern Cameroons were no longer administered by Her Majesty's Government as a United Nations Trusteeship territory. I think that perhaps, on balance, your Lordships will feel it right to extend this Commonwealth preference to this former Commonwealth territory in the way proposed. I hope the House will therefore give its approval to the draft Order in Council.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It has already done so.
EARL JELLICOE: I note that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has said that the House has done so, but I have not heard any word from the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Opposition in this House. However, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Commonwealth Preference (West Cameroon) Order, 1962, be approved.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE PILKINGTON REPORT ON BROADCASTING
2.55 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM) rose to move to resolve, That this House approves the Memorandum on the Report of the Committee on Broadcasting, 1960 (Cmnd. 1770). The noble Lord said: My Lords, ever since the publication of the Pilkington Report, it has been obvious that we must have a debate upon it, and ever since the Government brought out their White Paper—with what, I hope, will be considered commendable promptitude—it has been obvious to me, and I hope to others, that I must move a Motion upon it asking the House to give general approval
606
to the contents of the White Paper. None the less, I must express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who is to follow me, for allowing my own Motion on the White Paper to have precedence of his Motion on the Pilkington Report.
In moving this Motion, I do so in no spirit of political dogmatism or aggressiveness; rather the reverse. I do not ask noble Lords to mortgage their consciences in any way by tying themselves in advance to every detailed proposal contained in the White Paper. Still less is it in my mind to divert the House from what I hope will be the widest, liveliest and friendliest debate on the whole wide range of the subjects covered by the Pilkington Report. Rather I would ask the House to endorse the general approach which the Government have taken towards what, as we have all learned at some time or another, is apt to be a thorny and controversial as well as a technical and complex subject. The details I will leave to my noble friend Lord St. Oswald and to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, Who, by winding up the debate tomorrow, will be making his first important contribution to your Lordships' debates.
The general thesis which I wish to advance is that the time has come to move away from the possibly somewhat superficial and academic generalising about paternalism, commercialism, monopoly and free enterprise which have dominated discussion of this subject so long, and to move towards a return to an agreed broadcasting policy based upon technical necessity and practical politics.
My Lords, the shrill cries of almost hysterical lamentation and rage which arose on the lips, not always entirely disinterested, of certain newspapers and certain magnates on the publication of the Pilkington Report were surely both undignified and out of place. I doubt whether they furthered the case which they were designed to support; nor did the strange action—out of character in the scion of a famous Quaker House—of Mr. Cadbury in burning the Report in effigy. For my part, I found the Report excellent but not always convincing reading, and I consider the personal attacks on the members of the

607
Committee, who, to my mind, have performed an arduous public service of great importance, were in extremely bad taste and quite uncalled for. The fact that the Report is so controversial is a fact which I welcome, since it provokes interest, but it has the disadvantage of meaning that we cannot implement it all without further discussion. Moreover, it is fair to say that even since the publication of the Report events like the television exchange through Telstar and other developments in the international and technical field constantly remind us that the subject is simply not one that will ever stand still at all at this stage of its development.
But the fact is that seven years ago we took an important departure of policy in establishing a second channel of television broadcasting financed by advertising. My noble and learned friend, Lord Kilmuir, in a debate some weeks ago, in which I remained, I hope, discreetly silent, said that he was unrepentant about the part he played in that decision. I, too, am somewhat unrepentant. Obviously, one has learned, and I hope forgotten, something in the last seven or eight years. I still think I had something to say which was worth saying, and I was, I think, at that time probably the only Member of your Lordships' House—I certainly am not now, but I think I was then—who had made for upwards of seven years a useful side income by professional broadcasting in both media. I see a smile upon Lord Francis-Williams' face.
But the fact is that we cannot put the clock back; there I start. Nor can we leave things exactly as they are: and there I go on. We had better take a long, calm look at the situation which has been brought about, take the urgent decisions which are necessary in the light of technical requirements, with all their important political and practical corollaries, and decide at leisure our future course in the light of experience and of existing facts and of our interests, moral, aesthetic and commercial, and of the practical possibilities, and, above all, in the light of a rapidly developing and changing public opinion.
Of course, in such an assessment commercial interests cannot be allowed to dictate policy. But by the like token we
608
must be careful not to assume that commercial interests, simply because they are commercial, or even because they sometimes become hysterical when they are criticised, are bad. We must deal with commercial television as a fact, with the authorities and with the companies as established entities, with programmes as supplying entertainment and much else to millions to their satisfaction, all entitled to respect and consideration but, from Parliament, surely never deference or submissiveness. We must accept the inviolability in our discussions of the matter of no vested interests, and above all we must take our decisions on a calm understanding of the essential characteristics of this medium, of which we now all have a good deal more practical experience than seven years ago, and not on the mythology, political or otherwise, to which we happen to be adherents.
I think people should not underestimate the popularity of the commercial programmes, as at times I was tempted to think that the Committee had done. But I beg my friends also not to ignore on the other side or to dismiss as contemptible or ridiculous the genuinely popular basis of the serious moral unease reflected on almost every page of the Report. It happens that I agreed with the noble Baroness who wrote in the Press this week about the absence of scientifically acquired evidence, for which I myself must hold the Committee responsible. But, weighing that absence in the same way as the noble Baroness does, I think we should also admit that the bodies who did give evidence to the Committee and whose evidence they accepted form a formidable mass of responsible and organised public opinion, which neither the companies nor political Parties can afford to dismiss.
On sound and on its one television channel the British Broadcasting Corporation has survived in competition with the commercial broadcasts, and I am glad to think that it has received such a good report from the Committee, although, I am not sure I am one of those who would go the whole way with them in seeming to exonerate the B.B.C. from all criticism. The B.B.C. is a national institution of which we are all, I hope, justly proud. The I.T.A. and the programme companies got a basting

609
from the Committee which they may or may not have deserved. But here again I would venture to think that there is no practical politician who believes that they can now be destroyed, or that we can now afford to disclaim revenue from advertisements as the main source of revenue from some of our T.V. channel broadcasts, at least until there are more than four channels altogether.
This is the thesis of the White Paper which after discussion I ask your Lordships to approve. Some decisions are urgent and cannot be delayed, even though they necessarily involve, as they do, controversial corollaries, like that to allot forthwith a second television channel to the British Broadcasting Corporation while not immediately allotting one to the Independent Television Authority. Other decisions will be better delayed for an airing in the light of public opinion as it develops and further consideration of possible alternatives. If I begin with one or two theoretical considerations, I hope that I may be acquitted of being dogmatic in the sense which I have deprecated. It seems to me that both extreme theoretical cases have been in danger of overstatement. If therefore I re-state my own position in relatively moderate terms I hope that I may be forgiven.
Despite a belief in freedom, which I suppose every Member of this House will share, I also think that no responsible Government can wholly wash its hands of anything touching our standards of taste and behaviour. The Puritans may have been wrong, or perhaps they were right, to forbid bear-baiting for the sake of the baiters rather than the bear, but it is not mere puritanism to assert that the state of public morals and the standards of taste in public entertainment can never be a matter of indifference to patriotic men and women and are not necessarily adequately catered for by purely commercial considerations. We can surely all agree that since the Church won her first victories in the blood and sand of the Coliseum it has been impossible since then to assume a purely cynical attitude to the business of amusement.
But surely we must also be on our guard against the opposite danger of paternalism. Prohibition and censorship can be, as we have often discovered
610
in the Christian centuries, as demoralising as surfeit. And if commercial considerations are admittedly inadequate as a criterion of public interests, those who seek to equate the pursuit of profit with the worship of evil are often better friends to the Devil than the porno-grapher or pimp. If we cannot pass by undismayed by the spectacle of violence, vulgarity and triviality in art, there is also, surely, great unwisdom in trying to shackle human nature to an unnatural asceticism. The truth, my Lords, is surely that in matters of this kind there is somewhere a balance to be struck.
This balance must surely be influenced, and to some extent even dictated, by the nature of the medium itself. As President Kennedy recently remarked, mythology is a worse enemy to sound policy than the lie. In the anatomy of mythology the false analogy has surely always played a dominant part. A broadcast service is not a newspaper; it is not a book, and it is not a stage play. Analogies drawn from any of these are therefore completely misleading. Like drama, a broadcast service is displayed in time more conspicuously than in space; like the Press, it demands a wide range of different kinds of items, none of which everybody uses; as it were, a city page, a sports page, news items, literary features, instruction, entertainment, a children's hour, items of religion, philosophy and science.
But unlike any of the media based on the printing press, there is a strict limit in broadcasting to the variety of choice. We cannot multiply programmes as we multiply books. This limit is imposed not by Government but by the facts of life, the existence of a limited number of bands and frequencies upon which programmes can be shown or heard. In Northern Europe, which suffers more than North America, or perhaps the Middle East, from the Curse of Babel, there are also limits imposed by the numbers of human languages in which the different programmes are put forth. It follows from this that broadcasting is in its nature essentially more monopolistic than drama or the printing press. This is what lends the danger of paternalism to public service broadcasting. But it is this, too, which creates the danger of an incautious franchise offered to purely commercial interests.
One of the things which may be clearer with experience, as the Committee point out, is surely that people who view or listen to programmes often do so with different degrees of enthusiasm. It follows that the knob—that instrument which turns on and turns off—is an important but not necessarily a conclusive guide to popularity. It can be like an election by proportional representation, in which no one is given either a first or a second preference vote. The T.A.M. rating can be, and I am inclined sometimes to think is, a melancholy record of third and fourth preferences, the maximum number of viewers who can be induced not to turn off, the highest common factor of endurance without enthusiasm. It needs to be supplemented, and it is fair to say that in the case both of the B.B.C. and of the Independent networks it is supplemented by listener and viewer research, and by a wide range of experimental programmes to discover the real nature of public taste, and even to create tastes not previously enjoyed. Although this is sometimes overlooked, nothing is more remarkable in the Pilkington Report than the unanimity of Commercial and B.B.C. producers on both these points.
Surely the contrast between highbrow and lowbrow can be a misleading one. In my experience, most highbrows like lowbrow entertainment. All lowbrows are also members of minorities of one sort and another, and minorities are entitled to be catered for. Stamp collecting and pigeon fancying are not particularly highbrow activities, but it would be a poorer society, surely, which had no innocent minority hobbies and poor broadcasiting which did not cater for them—and that, as the Conservative Political Centre Group pointed out to the Committee, not always at inconvenient hours.
It is the finance of broadcasting which has always presented the most considerable difficulty. Leaving aside for a moment pay T.V. (as something not yet proved but which your Lordships will wish to discuss to-day), you cannot buy a broadcast programme as yon buy a book or a newspaper. It is of its nature something essentially, as the Americans say, for free. You turn on your switch
612
and you get what is going. Yet broadcasting is surely one of the most expensive of human activities. Let anyone who doubts this visit the new B.B.C. centre at Shepherd's Bush or the Independent Television studios, say at Bore-ham Wood. Surely we have imagination enough to see that the technological marvels implicit in sound and vision, and now in colour, are not going to be cheap, and in practice they must be financed by licence or by advertising. Both are public services but, being differently financed, their characteristics are different.
Perhaps I should be unjust or trespassing too much on your Lordships' time if I characterised these dangers at greater length, but if both systems have, as they certainly have, their advantages and their disadvantages, it may be that with typical British pragmatism we have been wise to opt for both. If so, it is surely also practical wisdom to try to ensure that we do not suffer unduly from the shortcomings of either. So my object in speaking to-day at this length is not to reopen old controversies or to start a new one, but rather to try to give a fresh lead, to indicate a course upon which sensible men can agree, a course dictated not by mythology or doctrinal considerations, but by the logic of the present situation and by the technical requirements of the case. This is the course favoured by the White Paper, which is designed to select from the Report points for decision, whether or not controversial, which will not brook delay, and to leave others for further consideration, for what I think the late Lord Salisbury, the Prime Minister, used to call "the open air cure"—that is, the cure of public opinion.
The key decision which is urgent, and but for the Committee I would have said overdue, is the necessity to adopt the standard of 625-line definition as against the 405-line definition or any other alternative system. This is a matter involving complex technical and practical arguments, but I hope the House will be satisfied that the course of action which these dictate is ultimately simple. We must act, we must act now, and the logic of our acting involves, I believe, two consequences. The first of these is to ensure that the existing services on 405 lines continue for a sufficient period so as not to deprive existing set owners

613
of what they have; and the second is the provision of a new service, which should be obtained on 625 lines, in order to provide an incentive for the acquisition of sets on the new line standard. Incidentally, one hopes that this will stimulate an improvement in the radio industry and retail trade.
If these conditions are observed, it seems to me inevitable that the new service should be provided by the B.B.C., if there is to be only one new service for the time being. The Government have again and again gone on record as assuring the future of the Corporation, and to refuse this would, in my judgment at least, be regarded in many quarters as a deliberate decision to undermine it. Apart from that, for reasons which I will try to elaborate when I discuss the future of the Independent network, if a service is to be provided at once, as it must be if the decision to change from 625 lines is to be effective, it would seem that the B.B.C. is the only body fully competent to do it, and to provide properly complementary programmes. If these two requirements, both of which are recommendations of the Report, are to be compiled with, and a licence to proceed with colour also to be accorded, a more leisurely approach to the fourth channel is clearly indicated.
I have already suggested that there are matters which deserve further consideration. It is not to condemn the Report as so many critics have too hastily done, that I think this is so. Many who accept the diagnosis of the Committee will dispute the remedies that they prescribe. Some who do not dispute the animadversions on the programme companies are not wholly uncritical of the B.B.C. as well. Others who do not criticise the programme companies may have feelings of considerable disquiet at the fecklessness and general amateurishness of the evidence said to have been produced on behalf of the I.T.A., although it is fair to say that Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, in what I thought was a most convincing letter, has complained that in this he has been misrepresented. Still more those who generally support the continuance of the present arrangements must recognise that the days of almost unlimited profits must come to an end.
The first franchise of the programme companies was obtained in circumstances which, however strange they may now appear, were genuinely thought to include the risk of loss. Indeed, actually in the first months a loss was incurred. It was therefore, I should have thought, reasonable that when their speculation turned lout well they should be allowed to have the advantage of their bargain, although I myself was always a little doubtful of the doctrine of the I.T.A. that it was impossible to ask of them that they should pay economic rents. The new franchise, however, is not being negotiated in the same circumstances. The business of the companies is essentially a near monopoly; they cannot be permitted to take advantage of this in order, to use a phrase, to print money.
Some of us, moreover, have been distinctly disturbed at the extent to which their tie-up arrangements have been permitted to defeat the object of the Act in encouraging competition. Whatever the framers of the Act of 1954 intended they surely did not intend to set up a commercial monopoly. Yet this is perilously near what the programme companies by their interlocking arrangements have appeared to achieve. It is not enough, surely, to say that competition is possible only with two I.T.A. programmes in each area. I refer particularly to pages 158 and 159 of the Report which have not, so far as I know, been challenged. There the Committee say, after describing the networking arrangements:
"In this way, the same programme items can be seen all over the country simultaneously; and for the most part, they are. In effect, independent television provides, for most of the time, a national programme."
Then, after some further words, the Committee went on:
"Drawing our attention to this the Authority added that it had miscalculated the amount of competition likely to be generated. In fact, the four main companies, for all practical purposes, arrange the provision of programme items for the network among themselves."
Then it goes on to set out What they are. Then, after saying that the Authority has prescribed that not less than 15 per cent. of the time should in due course be originated by each company, major or regional, the Committee say:
"The balance, about 80 per cent., of permitted broadcasting time is shared by agreement between the four major companies. Each supplies programme items to fill its share of the time. What particular 'time slots' each

615
is to occupy, and with what programme items—that is to say, the overall programme planning—is arranged by the four major companies. Each of them produces a fixed amount of programme material for the network and there is at any one time only one programme available for showing on the network. … Each minor company is 'affiliated' to a major company. The major company acts for all four major companies in booking its affiliates' requests for networked programme items. An affiliate company pays only its own major company for the supply of network programmes. Each of the four major companies takes a fixed proportion of the sum total of all the monies paid to all of them by the affiliates. Under the agreements the minor companies, with one exception, are not bound to take the network programmes. In practice, they almost invariably do."
My Lords, it may be that the nature of the medium is such as to create, or at least to encourage, this effect. But, if so, surely it should be recognised that if, in their own interest, the programme companies do not to some extent mitigate it and limit their profits, the days of their empire may be numbered. At all events, they should accept it as unlikely, I think—and I say this with the best will in the world—that Parliament will entitle them to enjoy their present margins or extend a near monopoly over the fourth channel. At the same time, the White Paper makes it clear that the Government consider any fourth channel should belong to the independent network and not to the B.B.C. But even though it belongs to the independent network, the existing companies cannot be allowed a prescriptive right to carve up the new cake among themselves.
Of course, if the Government believed that the reorganisation of the I.T.A. recommended by the Committee represented an acceptable solution of our difficulties, it would be easy to announce an early decision on this point; though if I did so, I doubt if it would command ready acceptance with either Parliament or the viewer. But, as I have said, it does not require a supporter of the status quo to have a considerable number of reservations about the practicability, or even the desirability, of the solution the Committee propose. They appear to have come to their conclusions with not, perhaps, adequate argument and to have supported them with evidence—and here I agree with the noble Baroness who wrote to The Times the other day—not all of which is scientifically based.
I myself would ask some of the following questions. As a body, the I.T.A. comes rather worse off from the criticisims of the Committee than the programme companies. Can the I.T.A. be made to bear the additional weight the Committee thrust upon it? Even if it can, is the creation of a public corporation, with all the powers suggested by the Committee, desirable? Is it possible to buy and plan programmes without producing them? Is it intrinsically acceptable for a public corporation to sell advertising time? If it is, as the Committee claim, the pressure of the desire for mass audiences to support advertisements which sometimes produces bad programmes, will these motives operate less on the I.T.A. if it plans programmes and sells advertising time than they are said to do on the programme companies? If the Treasury is to be the eminence grise of independent television—pocketing the surplus, as the Committee suggest that it should—would it be content to remain a sleeping partner, or will it bring pressure to bear on the Authority to cheapen its programmes financially or culturally and so to extend its audience? Can the existing programme companies continue to exist, or will they be deprived of all incentive, if they become mere producers of programmes without the chance of selling advertising? And what sort of programmes will they produce if the whole programme service is to be planned by another body, namely the Authority?
The Report indicates that some at least of the trouble of which it complains was due to a failure by the I.T.A. to use adequately the powers it already has, or to be given adequate powers to fulfil the rest of its functions. Can it be that reforms here would suffice without the organic reconstruction favoured by the Committee, for the reasons they give? Above all, it seems to me that the Committee fail to grapple with the really radical question of the price the I.T.A. is to pay for programmes if it is to buy them. If cost-plus is to be the basis, we may expect to see lavishness and extravagance. If quality is the basis, it is difficult to see how cost is to be related to profit. If popularity is the basis, we are back to square one. I was not myself convinced that the Committee had fairly dealt with the suggestion that the I.T.A. might have a programme-planning function without disturbing the present duty

617
of the companies to sell advertising time. I should like at least to see the answers to some of these questions discussed at greater length by the public, or considered by public opinion, before I was ready to endorse the Committee's solution.
But, my Lords, if, on the other hand, you cannot endorse the Committee's answer without a good deal further thought, you are left with the necessity of providing an arrangement for the fourth channel and terms for the continuance of the second different both from the status quo—which I reject, for the reasons given—and from the Committee's Report. Such a solution cannot be improvised, and should not be attempted, in my opinion, without some effort to test and consult public opinion. The attribution to the B.B.C. of the third channel may it is said cost a licence fee of £6 if it is financed in that way. Is it conceivable that licences could be made to finance a fourth channel when advertisement revenue could admittedly do so? I would think manifestly not. What experiments, if any—by wire or otherwise—can be made in "pay T.V."? Certainly the arguments against it by the Committee differ, both in quality and nature, from those against the programme companies. All this, I think, must be elucidated and must take time. In the meantime the urgent decisions cannot be allowed to wait.
My Lords, there are many other items in the White Paper which I have not mentioned, not because they are not all interesting and important, and not because your Lordships will not wish to spend some time discussing them; but because it is upon the issues which I have discussed that the ultimate verdict on the White Paper will depend. What I have said has been intended as a plea from one who took a strong and controversial part in the debates of 1954, and who has not, as I have said, repented of the stand he took then, to adopt now a robust and realistic attitude in the light of the present situation. The White Paper is not a compromise between two irreconcilable points of view. It is not a dither based on irresolution. It is a positive lead for a solution based on solid technical necessities. My Lords, it is a plea for the abandonment of doctrinaire or extreme positions, and for the pursuit of ends generally agreed upon
618
present economic and political realities. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves the Memorandum on the Report of the Committee on Broadcasting, 1960(Cmnd. 1770).—(Viscount Hailsham.)
3.31 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, my first pleasant duty is to congratulate the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House on having survived the storm. I often quarrel with him, but I think we have a sneaking regard for each other, though we do not often show it in this Chamber. But he is a lucky man to have survived this cataclysm, the great storm; and I think he knows that himself, for I have never seen a boy upon the burning deck looking more contented with life than he was this afternoon, and not worried too much about the burning of the ship. Anyway, we are glad to see him here and we have been very pleased to listen to the able speech that he has made. It is a different speech from the one he made some years ago, which I listened to sitting on the steps of the Throne, as I was not eligible to sit anywhere else here. I liked that speech very much: it was after my own heart. If, this afternoon, he has delivered a much more moderate one, with balances and inhibitions of some sort, because he has to think about his colleagues in the Government as well as himself, I am not going to criticise him or pull his leg about that.
When he made the earlier speech he was a Back-Bench Conservative Peer and, therefore, in a position of freedom, especially in this House. He is now a member of the Government, and he has to live with the rest of them. Moreover, as a Minister he may have come up against some additional facts which might have modified his opinion; and I do not complain about that at all. For myself, I have been fortunate. I do not think I have ever had to say as a Minister, something that undid something I had said in Opposition. But that was because I was always very careful what I said in Opposition. However, we are glad to see the noble and learned Viscount here, and to hear the other speech which he has now made.

619
I do not think it would be quite accurate to say that the Pilkington Committee exonerated the B.B.C. from all criticism. There are a number of criticisms of the B.B.C. in the Report, which I have very carefully read. It took a long time to read, because I was interrupted by television which, unfortunately, is the enemy of reading. But there it was. They are critical of the B.B.C. on a number of points. They are more critical of the I.T.A. and the commercial companies, I agree. Personally, I think their criticism has been justified, hut I do not think it is fair to assume, as the noble and learned Viscount did—not as much as some of the newspapers have—that they were wholly uncritical of the B.B.C.
The noble and learned Viscount is doubtful about the new proposal for the I.T.A., and that I will come to later on; and he is doubtful whether a public corporation can, in principle, he allowed to sell advertising time. Well, I do not like it. I never did like it. But, on the other hand, if the advertising revenue is there and if it is excessive for one of the channels or one of the systems, I do not think it is wholly illegitimate that some of it should go somewhere else, nor do I think it Wholly illegitimate that some of it should go into the pockets of the Authority rather than the programme companies; and, certainly the Authority would not have any conscientious feelings about advertising revenue, because they have defended it, as probably it was their duty to do.
My Lords, I hate to say this, but I do not take quite the same view of concurrence with a letter in The Times by my noble and very able friend Baroness Wootton of Abinger. There was a statement in the letter that
"In reaching their conclusions the Committee appeared to have leaned heavily on the opinions expressed by such bodies as the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Workers' Educational Association and the Trades Union Congress."
I think that is not fair to those bodies. After all, what one wants is the best judgment on this subject from a cross-section of the community, and we have cross-sections of the community in those organisations, and, indeed, in others. I would not write down the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Workers' Educational Association or the Trades
620
Union Congress as people who are not competent to express an opinion which will at any rate be given public consideration.
It is true that the Committee did not go in for an elaborate business of scientific examination and listening research. I have read the various documents about the number of listeners on the B.B.C. and I.TV. and the more I read them the more I am uncertain as to who is teling the truth and who is not. They may be trying to tell the truth, but I do not think they always succeed. I have read both the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. cases, and I am not disposed to accept either of them as final. Indeed, the B.B.C. say that the method is different and that these things are somewhat unreliable. So I do not think it would have been useful if the Committee had gone in for a further lot of elaborate calculations, or if they had appointed a team of university ladies and gentlemen to go out on research and find out what the common people were thinking. That was done by the London School of Economics in relation to London government—not quite to that extent—and I must say I think they produced wrong and inaccurate conclusions. So I do not think that that is necessarily the best way to do it, and I speak as one who looks at a fair amount of television—more than I ought to—both B.B.C. and I.T.A., and therefore I have not become entirely prejudiced about it.
I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that on the reception of the Pilkington Report, about which to some extent there was evidently intelligent anticipation, some of the Press—this will not stop newspapers to-morrow saying, "Morrison attacks the Press" as if I had attacked the lot of them; there is a hit of trade organisation about newspapers—gave a shocking exhibition. The Daily Telegraph has no money in television, so far as I know, and they were critical of the Pilkington Report as they were entitled to be. The Guardian, on the other hand, has some money, not a great deal, in television in East Anglia, and the Guardian, by and large, backed the Report. They were two good examples, I think, and they were quite entitled to express their view.
The Times at the beginning had a curious leader. I am a great admirer of

621
leaders in The Times, and of the newspaper, but I really thought it was a curious leader, and I could not make head or tail of it until I got to the last paragraph. But somebody said to me, "That leader was written by two men, one in favour of the Pilkington Report and one against it. Sir William Haley, who is a very good friend of mine, wrote the last paragraph, which on balance could be interpreted with sufficient good will to be favourable to the Pilkington Report." My Lords, that may well be an inaccurate description of what happened. I wonder whether The Times newspaper staff is not split down the middle, pro and anti, and that was the best solution to keep peace in the household. That is all right. I have no complaint about that. The Economist has been anti-Pilkington, and has gone in for some of this naughty propagandist language by persistently calling the B.B.C. "Auntie". I really do not know why. I do not think that is an accurate description, but that is one of these terms of abuse or implied abuse. Probably the Economist, which is an intellectual paper and afraid of being so thought, considered it had better jump off that fence and talk about "Auntie". So that was that.
Then there was the Director-General of the I.T.A., who is also a friend of mine. I approved his appointment to run the Central Office of Information and he did it well. He is a very able man. But a Director-General is in a position of trust, of responsibility, and ought to have a fairly good judicial sense when proceeding with his work. Apparently, he went to a Labour Party meeting and talked about the people who support Pilkington, or the Pilkington Committee itself, "catering for an élite class". That is language that ought not to come from a Director-General of an organisation like this. Goodness knows! I do not belong to an élite class. I was born and reared with the working class, I still think of myself as working class, and I am very proud. I had no education but at an elementary school. I do not belong to the élite class. If I may say so, a little restraint in those quarters, a little less willingness to jump to the defence of the programme companies, would be acceptable. Having said that, I add that the Director-
622
General is a good friend of mine, and I would not hurt him for the world.
Then, the Daily Herald, I think, opposed commercial television when it began but it is now part of the Mirror group and, therefore, is partly dependent, I suppose, on the money from the extensive investments of the Mirror group in television. They have come down against the Pilkington Report, but bad the decency to say at an early part of their leading article, "We, as part of the Mirror group, have a financial interest in this business". I think most of the papers did, but not all of them with the prominence that the Daily Herald employed. I was disappointed, but being a student of the materialist conception of history as promulgated by Karl Marx, I quite understand how the transformation has occurred.
Then it had a report of a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party. I cannot speak as to its accuracy, because I was not at the meeting; I was attending a Joint Select Committee of the Lords and Commons on the future of some of your Lordships and others. The Daily Herald reporter, the political correspondent, was not at the meeting either, but that did not stop him from coming out with a firm report of what happened. I have asked some Members of Parliament who wore there what they thought of it, and they said it was biased and inaccurate. That is a pity, because the Daily Herald is my first official newspaper. I am very loyal to it; and I am sorry if that is the case. The Express newspapers, by the way, the Beaverbrook newspapers, are supporting Pilkington: and, as I often disagree with them, I am very happy to agree with them on this occasion.
The big interests, the tycoons, some of the millionaires, came out with their opinions on the very day that the Report was published, when they could not have read it. Look at the time it has taken me to read it. But that did not stop them from declaring what their opinions were. There was Sir Robert Renwick. I used to have a lot of quarrels with an ancestor of his about London electricity supply. He was on the commercial side then. Sir Robert Renwick, of Associated Television, according to the Daily Express, called

623
the Report, "biased, outrageous, deplorable". That is a nice quasi-judicial view on the part of a programme company leader. Lord Derby, of Television Wales and West, said, "unworkable, unjust". Mr. Peter Cadbury, of Westward T.V., called it "Virtual nationalisation of I.T.V.". That good old word "nationalisation" has done service to both Parties in the past, but why it should be dragged into this arena of controversy I do not know, because the issue does not really arise. Mr. Roy Thomson, of the Thomson Newspapers, who more or less owns Scottish Television, expressed "amazement and disgust". I have summarised those views, but I could have read them at greater length with much greater effect. And so it goes on.
Then there was, by the way, Mr. John Spencer Wills, the Chairman of Associated Rediffusion. He said—and this is supposed to be a fair summary of the Pilkington Report, and is in quotes; he does not claim more, but he does claim it is a fair summary:
"We"—
that is, the Pilkington Committee—
"find the B.B.C. beyond reproach. Their ideals are lofty and so are their programmes. We find independent T.V. 'guilty'. 'Guilty' of what? 'Guilty' of being successful."
My Lords, anybody who has read the Pilkington Committee Report would not agree that that is a fair summary.
Finally, with regret and with real sorrow, I come to the Daily Mirror. It is a great newspaper. I would say that, of all the popular newspapers, it carries more influence with the public in politics than does any other newspaper. I do not want to prejudice your Lordships, but it played a material part, for which I shall be eternally grateful, in helping the Labour Party to win the General Election of 1945. It has helped us on other occasions, too, and I am and will remain grateful to them. I have been friends with the Daily Mirror ever since—noble Lords laugh, tout may I finish—ever since I was invited (as the politicians politely say, tout "ordered" is the proper word) to give them a severe warning that if they did not improve their conduct in the war we would suppress them. I carried out my duties. I did that because that was the only way
624
of preventing the Government from suppressing the newspaper, which I did not want to happen and did not like. I met Mr. Bartholomew, whom I liked, and read him a "curtain" lecture—and we have been good friends ever since. It is a good way to make friends. I was lucky to make friends with them: it was only by letting them know through somebody afterwards that I was the man who saved the paper.
So I have no prejudice against the Daily Mirror. I think it is a great newspaper, and an extraordinary achievement. But this really was naughty. On June 28, it came out with headlines:
"T.V.—Pilkington tells the public to go to hell."
Now that is the limit. It is very, very bad. They say that Pilkington wants an Uncle I.T.A. to keep up sides with Auntie B.B.C. This is all cheap stuff, and it is not worthy of journalism, especially when the newspaper has a substantial material interest in commercial television, which somewhere or another they admitted. But there it is, and I think it is a very great pity that it should have been so.
I have watched both television programmes, more than I ought, as I say, because it is the enemy of reading, and if I believe in anything it is in reading—besides, it keeps me up too late looking at those very doubtful crime stories at the end of the I.T.V. programme. But there are good things on both of them. There are amusing, cheerful, educational things on B.B.C. and some, in varying degrees, on I.T.A. For example, "Steptoe & Son" of B.B.C. is a first-class affair, I think. I like "No Hiding Place" on I.T.V. This is probably because I am the son of a policeman and an ex-Home Secretary. It is well done. The Metropolitan Police come out of it very well. Other people may have different opinions. I gather the noble Viscount has, and I am not a bit surprised. I like "Z Cars", as well. That is a totally different programme, and here you get the ordinary, common-or-garden policeman doing his job in a patrol car or on the streets. They are both good. See how impartial I am. "Maigret" I like. That is a B.B.C. programme. It is very, very good. "Perry Mason" I adore, especially the court scenes. "Coronation Street", on

625
I.T.V., I like very much, except that perhaps twice a weak is a bit too often, and perhaps it has overrun its welcome and they had better think of something else; but it is very, very good. And it is Lancashire, and I married a Lancashire woman. She thinks two days a week is too much, but I like it.
"This Week" I think is good, but not as good as "Panorama". I think I.T.V. did a very good job in the interview with Mr. Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia. It was very useful, and it showed Mr. Menzies much more open-minded about us and the Common Market than he had been before. It is true that the credit belongs to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, because they made the recording; nevertheless, I.T.A. used it, and I think it was to their credit. Sometimes I believe they are a little wrong in timing. "Sunset Strip", which I look at, has a certain amount of violence in it, and I think 7.30 in the evening is a little early; and other such programmes exist also. But these are examples. I think "Dixon of Dock Green" was very good; "Tonight" is good, as is "Panorama"; Fyfe Robertson, the Scot, I think is good; and the B.B.C. did a good job on the Congo and the Swedish ballet.
Many noble Lords may disagree with me about these things, and if I mention them it is only to show that I am capable of looking at both channels and forming an objective judgment as to the merits of the individual items on both of them. But, having said that, I think, as I feared at the beginning, that the introduction of the commercial element—the advertising element—into television was bound somewhat to deteriorate the standard of television, and I consider it has done that. My Lords, it must do so, because the commercial interests concerned are bound to seek the maxi mum of viewers irrespective of merits, and especially the maximum of viewers at the peak hours. It is like the problem of circulation of a newspaper. The Times has a much smaller newspaper circulation than either the Daily Mirror or the Daily Express, but then it is written for a different public. The popular touches in the others are inevitable in the circumstances of the case, and I am not complaining about them.
626
To bring this element into commercial television, however, inevitably tends to lower the standard, because of the chase for viewers at any cost. I think that is a pity. It is a pity for the I.T.A., but it has also been a pity for the B.B.C. I admit that the competition may have improved, and probably did improve somewhat, the efficiency and the standards of the B.B.C. television service. That improvement may have come in any case, but competition has probably had some effect. On the other hand, if the B.B.C. slips up now and again and begins to descend towards the level of I.T.V., that also is because of the competition; they want to retain their numbers of listeners as well. So I think, in principle, the commercial element was, and is, wrong; but it is now there.
Moreover, I think it has been inflationary both in the use of materials and of labour, by way of inciting the public to spend more money on things that either they could not afford or that they did not need. And the curious thing is this. I do not want to attack Mr. Selwyn Lloyd—the poor man has had a rough deal lately—but he was the minority of one on the Beveridge Committee who recommended commercial television. He probably did not know that he would become Chancellor of the Exchequer and a fighter against inflation some years afterwards, but the Report which he made was an incitement to inflation through the effect of commercial television.
Now I come to the rival detergents. That really is a joke. Each tries to make out that it is whiter than the rest, and some of them are made by the same firm. There is, moreover, a degree of violence and triviality which is not too good. Each man, of course, must have his own choice, but I think that the B.B.C. maintains, on balance, a higher standard than commercial television. With regard to political broadcasting, one of the troubles with the I.T.A. is that when you go to do a political broadcast the chances are—it is not always the case—that you will find half a dozen other politicians, or even more, on the same programme. You are all competing for time over a limited period, and if you get about two sentences in you are lucky. If noble Lords do not believe me, I invite them to consult Lady Violet Bonham

627
Carter, who had the same experience as I and was very cross about it. That is an occasion when I sympathise with her.
The Pilkington Committee was appointed by the Government, who I am inclined to think made a reasonable choice of people who were not too specialist one way or the other. The Report was unanimous. I do not say that all Reports which are unanimous should be accepted, but it is a point which the Government have argued in other connections. There is quality in the Report. I thought it was pretty well written. There is some repetition and one considerable misprint, but, as a whole, I thought it was fairly written. It is not violent and it is not hysterical. It deserves fair consideration.
On the question of hours, I do not think that this business ought to run for too many hours of the day. In the United States one can see it at almost any hour of the day or night, on goodness knows how many programmes, and the programmes are nearly all as bad, in the main, as each other. It is not good for people to stay up too late at night, or to be distracted from their work in the daytime by looking at television—or even by listening to sound broadcasting. I am not sure that the B.B.C. should get this other time extension. I admit that people on night shift are worthy of consideration, but so are the people who are asleep in bed and who are wakened by these instruments. It is a difficult point, but I do not think that hours should be unduly extended. Too much television may be dangerous for self-education, and it can give us a superficial education. That is a point which has to be kept in mind.
There are two views about subscription television, and I have not finally made up my mind. In the cinema industry, where I declare such interest as I have as President of the British Board of Film Censors, there is a division of opinion. The exhibitors and the legitimate stage theatre people, on the one hand, tend not to like it; they are apprehensive that it will take away their audiences. I think the film makers tend to like it, because it may give an extended market for British films. But I am not sure that it is good to have this slot business, and to add to the
628
enticement always to stay at home. It is a good thing now and again for families to get out of their homes and see the wider world outside. I am not sure that subscription television is a wise thing, apart from the question of resources again. A considerable amount of labour and materials will be involved in this business, and that has to be taken into account from the point of view both of the right use of the nation's resources and of the inflationary effect.
I agree with the proposal that there should be no special educational channel. The element of education must be fairly based on the principle that the television people themselves must provide that; and I think that an educational channel alone, segregated from the others, would not be particularly successful. We are against bringing the commercial element into sound broadcasting. There is enough trouble where it is, and it would be a waste of resources, too. I am not even sure about local broadcasting. There is regional broadcasting now, and I am not sure that "local" is worth the resources involved. I think local broadcasting would be a complicated thing to handle; but there may be some of my noble friends who do not fully take the view which I have on this matter, and, indeed, possibly on some other matters. The third channel is now committed to the B.B.C. I doubt whether there ought to be a fourth channel at all. We are in danger of going television mad, of thinking that television can have anything it wants—but not the building of schools. That is a nasty contrast. There has to be some limit to the amount of resources squandered, or spent, on television and broadcasting. I do not think there should be a fourth channel at all, and if there is to be one, I certainly think it ought not to be commercial.
On the financing of all this, there are difficulties about part of the earnings of commercial television going outside the I.T.A., but I think that it could be done, either by reducing the profits, which is not an easy thing to do and would be letting the advertisers off, or by paying the surplus into a pool under the control of trustees, some from the B.B.C. and some from I.T.A., together with some good citizens from outside. I put this forward for the consideration of the Government. I do not like the

629
idea of the money going to the Treasury, because you really cannot trust the Treasury with money—they will take it. Look at the great Road Fund, which was begun with a flourish of trumpets by Lloyd George and put into the General Exchequer Account by a subsequent Conservative Chancellor, and a subsequent Labour Chancellor followed suit. So that if I am a little suspicious of Her Majesty's Treasury, perhaps I may be forgiven. I would sooner it went into a pool controlled by trustees who would regulate the use of the money, some of which could be used by the B.B.C. possibly to save them, or to help save them, from putting the licence fee up, though I must say that £6 a year, fourpence a day, for all we get on sound and vision is really not an excessive charge to make.
I like the Pilkington Committee's proposals about altering the functions and authority of the programme companies. I think that Parliament has not given the Authority enough power to control the companies, though the Authority is also open to the criticism that they have not used their powers enough. But I think that we are up against a real difficulty in finding a way effectively to control the companies as they stand. With a reservation that I will indicate, I like this idea of making the Authority the recipient of the advertising money, of making them the people who order the programmes and approve them, while the companies go on making the programmes. This would get a better balance in television, freed to that extent from the commercial advertising element. But I have the reservation that if it is proved that it is impracticable, then we must think again about it and come to whatever conclusion we think right in the light of the argument.
The Government have reserved a number of matters for later decision, but this would have been a more convenient debate if they had been able to pronounce upon all the recommendations of the Pilkington Committee. I appreciate the difficulties. No doubt they have views on various matters that do not altogether agree with the Committee's recommendations, but they will have to be agreed or overruled in the end. We must all be free to make our own judgment on the Second White Paper when it appears. I can only hope that
630
the Government will come to conclusions on the issues which are left over which we can welcome, and I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will use his influence in that way.
This Report is a valuable one, as was the earlier Report issued under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. We are indebted to both Committees for the great labours they have engaged in and for the general ability of their Reports. I think it is a good thing that this debate should take place and that the matter should be debated in another place, while the country is debating the matter for itself meantime.
4.6 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, it would be quite wrong for anyone speaking here as I do to-day not to say a word of great thankfulness to both the previous speakers, with both of whom I agree heartily on some points, perhaps more in number upon the points made by the second speaker, but most heartily on one point made by the opening speaker, to which I shall refer almost at the end of what I have to say.
As soon as the Pilkington Report on Broadcasting was published, I received from many sources requests for my views upon it, for publication in the Press and elsewhere. I suppose that those requests came to me because of my chairmanship of the Broadcasting Committee of 1949–50, whose Report reached the Government in 1951. I hope that I may be allowed to say just a few words about the gist of that Report and the points in it which seem to me still to be important. There are only two that I shall trouble to mention. The Report of my Committee, as your Lordships know, was unanimous, except for one member, who became a Conservative Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer and who in due course, in 1954, secured the passage of the Television Act, on his lines rather than those proposed by the rest of my Committee. I say nothing against him for that. I think that a person is bound to carry out his ideas if he has the power to do so.
The problems that the Television Act raised and the management of television between the Report of 1951 and the Pilkington Report of 1962 have been

631
the subject of repeated discussions in your Lordships' House; several of them have been on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan—those on the Television Bill and so on. Having regard to that and to my desire always if possible to debate in this House, I have felt it best to reserve my opinion upon the Pilkington Report until this debate. There was a possibility of a change of views on some things that I said in 1951.
The two main conclusions of my Committee were, first, the continuance of the monopoly of the B.B.C. both for sound and vision; and, secondly, the financing of all broadcasting by licence fees, with any help that the Government might give, but not by any form of sponsoring by commercial companies. Let me say a word on each of those important decisions. Both were rejected by the Government who received the Report and who preferred, as they were entitled to, the opinions of one member of the Committee to those of nine others. What do I think of these two main conclusions on monopoly and commercial advertising after ten years? Well, I have changed my mind on monopoly, and I am against it. On the other hand, I feel more strongly than ever the objections to a commercial sponsoring of what goes out on the either. There were many witnesses who had strong objections to monopoly for the B.B.C. and they included nearly all the Liberal parties that came to see me. I have not been converted by the Liberal parties, although I happen to speak from these Benches; I have been converted by other considerations. I was persuaded to that, among other things, by two witnesses, Sir Geoffrey Crowther and Sir Robert Watson Watt, who came and put their views before us. My Committee resisted both of these, and as a friendly Chairman I felt bound to go with both of them.
To-day I acept the objections to monopoly less as a Liberal than because of the growing importance of broadcasting among our people to-day and its immense technical advancement. I think it is necessary to have more than one independent body to consider who should broadcast. I find myself to-day, rather happily, in substantial accordance
632
with what was said to me by Sir Geoffrey Crowther then, in spite of anything that he may be saying now about my Committee or me in letters to The Times.
I agree with him when he describes broadcasting authorities, as he did in the Economist of June 30, 1962, as "a University in the Air"—a means of communicating interesting and important facts to listeners. I also agree with what he said more than ten years ago, that no university should have a monopoly of teaching. I have never been in favour of monopolies in universities. I do not wish to abandon any of the universities to Which I belong, but if any of the universities that I know (it might even be Balliol) were to take to receiving money from businessmen seeking to increase their sales, to promote the kind of teaching that they want, in order to get the maximum audience, and the maximum number of advertisers and recipients of advertising, then I think I should go to another college for most of my time, rather than to that one.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt, but surely the noble Lord's own college, Balliol, has just set up some Chair of Business Management. What is the purpose of that Chair?
LORD BEVERIDGE: I did not know that it had.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I may have the details wrong, but it is something of that sort.
LORD BEVERIDGE: If I may continue with Sir Geoffrey Crowther, who I hope is still my friend, I have been happy to-day to agree with him against monopoly. I am even happier to believe myself in agreement with him in continuing against commercial sponsoring of what is put over the air for the entertainment or instruction of the viewers. He himself had a means of financing the various authorities by money provided out of the licences or by the State divided equally between the different bodies. He never suggested—and I do not see how he could—commercial sponsoring as a means of providing finance for any of the authorities that he wished to see put up. He wanted them all financed in the same way.

633
The Economist, in its leading article on June 30, described television properly organised as
"a University in the Air … for those who have been squeezed out of the standard educational system;"
and not only that, but also as
"a means of providing many more people with the minimum skills, e.g. in languages, that this country is going to need as part of Europe and the world at large."
I want to emphasise that, because it is the thought of the supreme importance of what can be communicated over the ether by the right choice of subject that is one of the points I want to emphasise most in what I say to-day.
As one to whom the word "university" means the best of everything as a means to understanding the world and our place in it, I accept Sir Geoffrey Crowther's words for good broadcasting and have no objection to having more than one university. I must leave it to them to take the advice of businessmen as to exactly what they should teach and whom they should teach, because that will attract more and more students. I do not believe that the business of a university, whether on the air or elsewhere, is essentially to bring more and more students to its business by telling them what will make them happy or amused. Its business is to tell them what will make them better citizens, and happier citizens in the process of being better citizens.
I have not watched television very often. I did make a study both of the B.B.C. and I.T.V. television before I spoke in this House five and a half years ago in the debate on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan. I am bound to say that I saw (I am not going to say from which authority I saw it) a good many things as beautiful and thought-raising as any one could desire. I saw other pictures so disgusting to decent minds, so corrupting to clean minds, that they were a disgrace to the inventors. I will not say from which authority the pictures came, though I would tell anyone who had the interest to know. Let us keep such pictures out of every television. For the B.B.C., that means what my Committee proposed most strongly—a public representation service, criticising what they were doing, entitled to
634
criticise, entitled to comment and to advise them, so long as they were a monopoly. Also, unless there is State aid as a share in education, it means an end to sponsoring by commercial companies. I say, "an end to commercial sponsoring". Let me say that that does not mean in any way an end to all advertisement broadcasting of goods for sale.
In addition to the six members of my Committee who used the strongest possible language, covering 20 printed pages, condemning commercial sponsoring, there were ten pages written by the two lady members and myself saying that we saw no objection—in fact, we saw advantage—in the B.B.C., or whatever other authority controls television or broadcasting, setting aside a limited time of, say, seven or ten minutes in an hour for advertisement, exactly as The Times and other newspapers set aside columns for advertisement. We saw no objection to that, with one condition. Of course, the obvious condition was that putting in an advertisement should not depend upon being allowed to tell the leader writer or the newspaper reporter what he ought to say. In other words, it would mean nothing in the nature of sponsoring. We were against sponsoring all through. So one may say that nine members of my Committee were as strongly, and rightly, against sponsoring for commercial reasons, or by people interested mainly in commerce, as they were, I think wrongly, against competition.
I have tried to-day to draw morals from the past of what should and should not be done about broadcasting by sound and vision in future. I think the first thing to be done is to realise the supreme importance of broadcasting as an influence upon the minds and opinions of our citizens. Natural scientists—and I am sorry the Minister of Power is not here—are perpetually posing our Governments with new problems. We all know that they have posed the Whole world with a new problem about war. They have made it necessary to abolish war before it manages to abolish us. They are going to do very much the same thing about the means of communication through the air and the ether. They are making these means infinitely more powerful, more varied

635
and influential—more effective for good and, it may be, more effective for bad.
I have spoken till this moment from the standpoint of the Broadcasting Committee of 1950. Assuming that commercial sponsoring is ruled out, as we tried to rule it out then, I see no harm at all in entrusting television, with its growing importance, to more than one authority. What we have before us now is the Report of the Pilkington Committee, and I should think that possibly the argument which has led that Committee to limit further facilities for television and broadcasting to the B.B.C is partly due to its fear that sponsoring might continue as the source of harmful television. With that judgment the attitude of that Committee is intelligible. But I hope that this Government, as all of us, recognise the change which natural science has made, and is making, in the arts of communication by broadcasting.
Let me end by saying that I have no cut and dried solution to this new problem which has been made for us by natural science. If we treat television as a university in the air, cutting out money that may come through commercial broadcasting, or limiting such money to harmless advertisement, without influencing the content of what is broadcast, we then face very serious problems of management, finance, of the constitution of the broadcasting and televising authority, and the way in which their expenses can be met. On the question of expense, can old people afford to pay more in licence fees? If they cannot, can the State contribute more to better standards of citizen life? One or other thing must be done. I am afraid we come back once more to the problem caused by the endless fall in the value of money, and by endless inflation. I do not know how these problems will be solved, but here it is that I agree so completely with the most important words used by the opening speaker, that further thought on many points is essential; and as the Leader of this House is also the Minister for Science I hope he will find a way to effect these thoughts. I fear that my only positive conclusion is for a fresh and full inquiry as to what is needed to deal with broadcasting on three assumptions: of more
636
than one authority; of no commercial sponsoring—I do not mean no advertising—and of adequate help from the Government.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven for intervening for just one minute. Since I made my speech I have seen the Director-General of the Independent Television Authority and he assures me that he did not use the words "class elite" in connection with the Pilkington Report and that he was wrongly reported. I read the report in a newspaper and quoted it in good faith. But he immediately wrote to Sir Harry Pilkington assuring him that he had not said this about the Pilkington Report, and Sir Harry sent a friendly reply in which he himself said he could not believe Sir Robert Fraser would have said it. I think it only fair to Sir Robert Fraser that, having made this statement based on a report in a newspaper, I should put it right for the record.
4.32 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I also should like to refer to what the noble Lord has just said about our appreciation of the chance of speaking on this subject—and of listening to a very large part of it, to judge by the long list of speakers this afternoon—both on the Pilkington Report and on the White Paper which is the Government's first response to it. I speak with some diffidence because, perhaps like many of your Lordships, I am a very infrequent viewer myself and therefore I have no particular personal interest to declare in the matter; but I fear very much for the public interest: a fear which has been expressed by others.
It is remarkable how the Report of this Committee has aroused such intense interest and even feelings—sometimes more heat than light—not only from those mainly involved but also from the general public who are the viewers. I suppose that that in a sense is not surprising, because it is dealing with what might be considered a most sacred part of a person's life, his free time and how he spends it. Most people, whatever we think of others, would judge themselves quite capable of choosing their occupations and following their own personal tastes in a sensible way. Anything which threatens to interfere with

637
their own choice is bound to make for trouble. Moreover, in this instance we are touching upon something else, upon something of a democratic principle. If we were living under a dictatorship or a properly paternal Government there would be no issue of this sort as to what the public should have: they would have what they were given. But we are living in a democracy in which our conception is that citizens are free to choose for themselves, so far as it is possible, in their own right, and have the opportunity of coming to maturity by responsible choice.
That being so, a very acute question in any kind of direction that we give to them is how we ought to balance what is desirable, or even what is true, with what they want or what they think they want. Of course, that problem operates in other levels, too. It operates in politics and perhaps to some extent in religion; but I think that in matters of leisure, in that area of freedom where people give up themselves and expend their time as they like, it is a more crucial issue to them than elsewhere. Therefore any attempt to touch that or affect it is treading on very delicate ground, which the Committee have done.
No doubt the Committee, as some of your Lordships have already pointed out, laid themselves open to some very obvious criticism, and more than criticism, not only by the recommendation which is made but by its assumption of the present situation. There is too much black and white about it. It is very unfortunate, but it has conveyed the impression of widely condemning Independent Television to the extent of ignoring its very real achievements. Certainly in religious broadcasting, to take one instance, that condemnation is not justified. I know that the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, who would very much have liked to be present in this debate, would have said, had he been here, how much, in his experience, as, in a smaller degree, in ours, it has been true that the handling of big events and occasions has been done with more freshness, independence and originality by Independent Television than by the perhaps rather more stilted approach of the B.B.C. There is no particular quarrel, therefore, as this Report might suggest, on that
638
score. Indeed I hope that the somewhat small proposals about the extension of advisory committees, which the Government have already endorsed, will in fact come about. But this is just one instance of the way in which, somehow, Independent Television in this Report seems to have come out all black and the B.B.C. all white.
There is obvious value in competition. Sometimes it is a case, and we know of such, where bad currency drives out good; but it is not always so. There is need for the stimulus of alternatives and of different minds, without which any monopoly would lose its enterprise. We have been entertained this afternoon to some of the personal preferences of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and as I heard some of the characters and programmes I realised how illiterate I was myself in this matter. We could go on debating personal tastes, and it is dangerous when we start talking about them, as the Report must, and trying, it seems, to establish certain canons of taste. After all, what may seem at first very vulgar, crude and common may, in fact, have far greater integrity about it than quite a lot which is dressed up in more respectable, and even in more moral, garb.
The evidence which the Committee had before them—and, I would maintain, very weighing evidence—seems to have led them to far too sweeping condemnation, which has taken away, alas! some of the value of the real criticisms they are making. Even so, it has hardly justified the kind of reception which the Report has had in so many quarters. It has tempted some people to see the Report as a threat to set up some kind of Puritan revival, clamping down on the legitimate amusements of the people and wishing to institute some kind of censorship, bent on improving and educating us. I do not think anybody who has studied the Report really endorses that, and, equally, I do not think that the bonfires and the fires of Smithfield which have been lighted against it in disapproval have generally done any harm except to those who lit them.
We have been asked to consider the practical politics of developments as we see them lying ahead. I am not

639
very qualified to speak on many of the practical issues, but one ought to be grateful especially to this Report for the way in which it has presented two main consideration underlying any decision that we might make. The first of these has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, when he quoted the Committee's statement that they considered broadcasting the main factor in influencing the standards and morals of our society. That is very difficult to prove, all the more so because we are not thinking of what is happening at present but of what is likely to happen, of tendencies that will develop in the future. And some people may be very sceptical about the real power of television. All of us, I suppose, are being subjected daily to a variety of impressions and experiences which pass us by completely; and even children, impressionable though they are, seem to be capable of very strong immunity to much that they see or hear, though one can never say when either the cumulative weight of suggestion that they are receiving or some sudden individual impression may leave some lasting mark upon their minds.
Nevertheless, in spite of the disclaimers that some I.T.A. speakers have made to the Report, we cannot leave our minds open on this question of whether or not it has a great influence. I hope that we shall come down strongly in agreement with the Committee, that in fact it does exercise a very great influence indeed, and one which is quite different in kind from, for instance, other forms of entertainment. About most of those, the theatre, the public show, the cinema, there is something more deliberate and chosen; we get up and go to them. Television brings things to us in an intimate and off-hand way.
The first Lord Baldwin, who was himself a very great exponent, I think, of the art of broadcasting, said more than once that before he started a broadcast he used to try to fix in his own mind a picture of a man and his wife sitting quietly at the fireside. That was the note, the point to which he addressed his remarks, and perhaps in part the secret of his success. To-day he would no doubt add a number of children who would be sitting, though not all viewing.
640
So television is making a much more personal approach, something that is carried out over a long and regular period throughout the year, something with its own domestic appeal, and with a wider effect because so many millions of other people, as we know, are sharing in this same activity—if one can call it an activity. All this, I think, fully justifies the Committee's estimate of the importance of television and the consequent responsibility on those who are going to put on the programmes.
If this is true, then we should be grateful to the Committee for the way they have tried to help to exercise some critical judgment about what is going on. It is something that ought periodicallly to be reviewed. We are having the world brought to the world in television. It may be an over-simplification, as they point out, to suggest that it is in fact reflecting the world quite so simply as that. Everybody claims to see the world as it really is, but in fact all the time we are inevitably selecting, consciously or otherwise, according to our own tastes and our own interests. It would be impossible to do otherwise, just as it would be impossible for any artist to put everything he sees into a picture. Therefore, it is right to contend that those responsible for broadcasting should bear their responsibility in this selection, and cannot divest themselves of that responsibility. They cannot be neutral in their presentation: they must be exercising a discrimination which has in mind not only the immediate but the total effect upon the viewer.
I think this is very important, because there is a very common idea that realism means chiefly the portrayal of the sordid and the unpleasant. These things do exist; there are plenty of episodes in which sex and violence are involved. But to suggest that these predominate in the community over the immense amount of good, sound, healthy behaviour is to present a not realistic picture of the community—though it might lead to that if such programmes went on long enough. Many programmes seem to suffer from this kind of false realism, but it seems a much graver charge that they might suffer from triviality, because triviality is a very difficult thing to assess. It has nothing to do with the type of programme; it concerns

641
rather its presentation, and it might apply to any programme and at any level.
If the criticism the Committee has levelled is true, it is a very serious indictment altogether. The effect of the trivial upon the viewer in the long run will be very hard to detect. It will not debauch him; it will not encourage him in vicious habits. But ultimately, if there is much that is trivial, it will lead to impoverishment of character far more difficult to alter than particular vices. It would lead to a society which might be outwardly affluent but was fundamentally insincere and shallow, in which nothing mattered very much—rather like the Athens which was the centre of ancient culture and which in the time of St. Paul had degenerated into a city in which they spent their time on nothing else than either telling or hearing some new thing. The Report may over-paint this picture, but it has to assess not only the situation but what it is likely to lead to, and it seems quite unfair to condemn it as being restrictive or kill-joy or Pharisaic. It is in fact pressing for what we all want and that is the widest possible choice in order that the interests of viewers, the minorities as well as the majorities, should be extended. It is surely right in maintaining that this can best be done not by separate categories of programmes but over the whole field. We do not want to be divided into high, middle and low brow people. We do not want particularly to be educated in a conscious sense. Therefore, we do not want a separate and specialised educational service. I am glad to see that the Government rejects this. Most of us do not like that process of being educated, although we should like to think that there is educative profit in a wide variety of programmes. But if we are to ensure the great potential value of this medium, then I for one am bound to fee! something of the same doubt precisely where the Committee feels doubt, namely, where the authority must rest in the overall selection and control of what is on the air. The Government, we are grateful to know, has already accepted the main proposal that the second programme should be entrusted to the B.B.C. I hope it will consider further in such ways as it can the introduction through that same body
642
of local sound broadcasting. It is a little non-committal on this, although the case is very carefully reasoned out in the Report and I should have thought that anything which is likely to lead to stimulus of local community interest in an age of centralisation is very worthwhile pursuing. I think the B.B.C. are experimenting in this field in a way which I hope they will be encouraged to pursue.
But I suppose the nub of this whole question as it has been already pinpointed is other developments in the future beyond the B.B.C. channel, and there many us must share the doubt of the Committee whether the system of independent television as it is at present constituted can reassure us that these developments will be healthy. I suppose that in the end it is a matter for the judgment of each of us whether the present method by which the time and programmes are chosen can fail to be influenced adversely by the prospects of financial incentives in selling time. We all know what happens to the artist who begins to think too much of his public and too little of his art.
It is not a question here of impugning the motives of those at present responsible. The influence that is exercised by the advertiser and his demands, or by the quest for popular approval or box office returns, may be exerted much more unconsciously than that. Yet, my Lords, I cannot but think that if we are to safeguard the future of this public service we must consider sympathetically the lines represented in the Report for the transference of the initiative primarily to the authority or to an authority. As the Lord President has indicated in a most hopeful introduction, it is quite natural that the Government should hesitate about their own decision, and to leave some time for further appraisal in this matter. There are great questions of practicality: there are doubts as to whether it will work. But I hope that, when the decision comes—and I hope, too, that no minds have been closed already—it will not be affected either by a reluctance to make a drastic change for fear of the way it involves concerns or individuals, or by the suggestion that such a change might in some way be undemocratic or an interference with the proper interests of people. It is not interference: it is

643
the proper provision and protection of the people that is involved in this. For their real freedom can be menaced by other pressures than autocratic Government or controlling authority—other pressures which may be much more insidious because they are hidden persuaders. I am sure that at the heart of this Report, and of those who would support it, is this genuine hope that what is done may be protecting and advancing the general interests of the viewing public in a way which we cannot be satisfied will be afforded by a continuance of the present system.
4.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I realise that it is remiss of me to have left it until now to speak in your Lordships' House. I have little excuse, except that perhaps Lancashire is a large county and often a demanding one. It is, I believe, not unknown to your Lordships that I am chairman of, and a shareholder in, a television company. I am neither contrite nor repentant, and I believe to-day that larger issues than profits are at stake. If I thought that I.T.V. had failed or had a damaging effect on our way of life, I should not be here this afternoon.
Perhaps too much has already been said about the Pilkington Report, but there are certain aspects of it to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, as they are of special relevance. The Pilkington Committee came to the conclusion that the B.B.C. has a sound and responsible attitude in its belief that television is a main factor in moulding society. The Committee felt that the I.T.A. was irresponsible in its view that this was not so. The Chairman of the I.T.A., in his evidence to the Committee, claimed that it had influence, but was not a main factor. The Pilkington Committee, to justify their somewhat intolerant attitude about something of which none of us can be sure, distorted his evidence, as he pointed out in a letter to The Times. This theme abounds throughout the Report—condemnation for one and praise for the other. What is frightening is that only 15,000 copies of this Report have been sold. Everyone has read of the condemnation of I.T.V., but so few know of the paucity of evidence which caused these conclusions.
644
I should like to give your Lordships a few examples. Evidence was taken from the Viewers' and Listeners' Association, one must presume in support of the views of Pilkington. But in 1949 the predecessor of this organisation, the Listeners' Association, gave this evidence before the Beveridge Committee:
"It is beyond question that since 1935 when one of the founders of the Listeners' Association began to take notes, the British Broadcasting Corporation has pursued a consistent policy of advocating and advertising Communism and of trying to disrupt the life of the country, spread discontent, and discredit our British traditions."
I mention this only to show how careful any Government Committee or Commission should be in taking evidence from volunteers, whose views are so often at variance with those of ordinary people.
A paragraph of the Report refers to evidence by Dr. Himmelweit and Professor Eysenck. I should like to quote that evidence:
"Dr. Himmelweit told us that all the evidence so far provided by detailed researches suggested that values were acquired, that a view of life was picked up, by children watching television. Professor Eysenck told us there were good theoretical grounds for supposing that moral standards could be affected by television, and that these grounds were largely supported by experimental and clinical evidence."
The evidence of those two people inevitably carries a great weight, and so it should; but it seems that the Pilkington Committee conceive from this something much stronger than the real views of Dr. Himmelweit. I should like now to quote from that person's evidence to the Nuffield Foundation in Television and the Child:
"There was a small but consistent influence of television on the way children thought about jobs, job values, success and social surroundings. Television tended to make no impact where the child would turn for information to his immediate environment, parents and friends."
These are only two quotations from a great deal of evidence. I certainly admit that throughout the evidence Dr. Himmelweit did say there was an influence, but this was not stressed to the extent it was by Pilkington.
Now I turn to the question of violence and triviality. Here the Committee made great play. They praised the B.B.C. for its code of violence, published in full. They condemned the I.T.A. for saying it believed in viewing programmes and

645
judging for itself. This, I believe, is the normal method used both in the cinema and in the theatrical world. I should like just to quote from that code:
"Brutality: the most difficult category. Brutality is not the same thing as violence. Violence is not the same thing as combat. Yet because combat, which is healthy, and brutality, which is not, both contain violence, they tend to become identified. Over-emphasis in picture and sound is one key. Long-shot renders many affrays and battles inoffensive; close-up make the same incidents inadmissible."
Then for adults, it says:
"If we expose viewers to shock, or indeed to fear, we must be absolutely certain in advance that our reasons are good and proper ones. They may well be, but justification by hindsight is not acceptable."
I believe, quite honestly, that both these bodies were entitled to their views as to which was the best way of dealing with violence. One thing I should like to say about violence in television programmes. In nearly every programme that deals with Westerns and crime on both the B.B.C. and Independent Television, right is right; the crook or the outlaw is always a crook or an outlaw. I must confess that all my life I have enjoyed Westerns and crime series; but I remember that before the war there were a number of gangster films of which I -missed none, starring people like James Cagney and Edward G. Robinson. In these films the heroes were always the gangsters. Admittedly they died in the end, but they died a martyr's death. I cannot really believe that television is the cause of, and reason for, the increase in juvenile delinquency. Surely when the villain is the hero it has much more effect on a child's mind than where the marshal, or the policeman, or the "private eye" is the hero.
The Pilkington Committee are not consistent. Professor Hoggart was one of the main witnesses in the Lady Chatterley's Lover case. Apparently you may read, but not see. I cannot help feeling that the findings of Pilkington were to some extent preconceived, and perhaps the evidence turned to support this view. It is interesting to note that no major television critic was called before them to give evidence. One can also see throughout the Report a clear clash of personalities with the Independent Television Authority. I admit I have had my disagreements with the
646
Authority, but I believe, in all sincerity, that the Authority have discharged their duties conscientiously and with a sense of responsibility, and nothing can justify the statement that the
"service falls short of what a good public service of broadcasting should be".
I believe the Report to be most ungenerous, and to some extent ungracious, to the achievements of I.T.V. Even if there are too many Westerns and crime series, what of I.T.V.'s contributions in the way of drama, religious and school broadcasts, news, sport, items of local and topical interest? Indeed, in many of these fields it is I.T.V. which has been the leader and the B.B.C. which has followed.
Of course, to a great extent television is a medium of entertainment. I agree that that entertainment should be balanced, but, surely, in our homes the type of entertainment we want is that which is light and gay. Undoubtedly the viewers seem to think so. I can quote the fact that in my own company's area sets have increased from 190.000 to 800,000. Is it just possible that it was the B.B.C. who had fallen a long way short of what a good television service should be? In the 340 pages of this Report nothing is said of the regional companies' contributions. I can speak only of one, and I would crave your Lordships' indulgence, if I may, to refer to that one, but I believe that what I say is true of all the others.
I believe we have integrated ourselves into the way of life in our area. We give a complete service in Welsh, which is considered superior and is, on the whole, preferred to that of the B.B.C. We are lucky in having the advice of eminent Welshmen, and I will quote only the Director of Education of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, who said that
"the contributions of T.W.W. in the field of Welsh programmes are widely appreciated."
In the educational service we serve 500 schools, and issue weekly 10,000 comprehensive teachers' notes; we lend sets to schools for them to make up their minds whether they wish to avail themselves of this service. We hope and believe we support all that is best in the area. I would quote the chairman of the Bath Festival, who said:
"Without the financial and working support of T.W.W., the Bath Festival could not be presented on the scale it has achieved."

647
We have tried in this way to support, as I have said, everything that is best.
We had demonstrations in colour television at the Royal Welsh Show last year and at the Bath and West this year. On both occasions the Shows attributed their vastly increased attendance to this fact. We ran a two-day course for junior clergy in post-ordination training, and were lucky enough to get this comment from the Bishop of Bristol: that there was a
"frank, honest partnership between television and the Church".
Our programmes cover a wide range of subjects from regional news and documentaries to talent shows. How else can the young be encouraged? Serious programmes take 50 per cent. of studio capacity, and they always attained far higher audiences than the B.B.C. programme shown at the same time. I would pay tribute to the personnel who work, in the Independent Television studios. They have a great loyalty, they are well aware of the importance of this medium and have shown throughout a great sense of responsibility. In many ways one would like to see those same loyalties and that same sense of responsibility spread throughout many other industries,
I am not going to pretend that I.T.V. is perfect. It is a young industry and is still growing. There is much, I believe, that can be done in the future. Personally, I should like to see a close liaison with the B.B.C. We may be competitive, but our income is derived from different sources. By doing this one might get much more balanced programmes. I should like to see a longer contract, or, if you prefer, a yearly one—it has the same effect. The uncertainty of the future has been a great disadvantage under which I.T.V. has laboured. As a result, we have mot been able to draw many university students into the industry. We are sadly lacking in apprenticeships and training schemes, and equally this has had a great effect on long-term programmes. After all, the days of universal broadcasting from space cannot be so far distant. I should like also to see the regional companies taking a greater share of the network, and I believe that a stronger Authority could be beneficial to the industry. I am glad about the
648
acceptance of the recommendations in regard to 625 lines and colour. I hope that the B.B.C. will be able to produce this third programme. I have reservations, however, and it may well be that the "jam" will have to be spread even wider than it is. Let us face it: at the present moment the whole entertainment world is in fact engaged in the two networks. I believe that it might be beneficial to have four channels: two commercial, and two B.B.C.
5.8 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, it has been my pleasure to listen to a good number of maiden speeches, but this is the most unusual one I have ever listened to. I have a great regard for the noble Earl's family; I spent many a pleasant hour with his grandfather at Knowsley Hall. I feel the noble Earl would have been well advised not to be so controversial on this occasion. This question will come before this House later on in a different form, and I think he could then have made the controversial speech which he has made to-day. It is not customary to reply to maiden speeches, and I shall leave it at that, and extend the usual congratulations to the noble Earl.
I should like to make a reference to the fact that I was closely associated with the B.B.C. for eight years, five of which were during the existence of the I.T.V. I have many times been asked, "Why have there been so many changes since I.T.V. came into existence?" I would inform your Lordships that I do not know of any changes we made because of the existence of I.T.V., except two, which I personally deeply regretted. One was to take television to the dogs; the other was to give starting-prices at horse races. They may have been because of what I.T.V. was doing, but I personally was very unhappy when those decisions were made. Apart from those decisions, I do not know of any other, except decisions which were delayed for further consideration, and it may be that the I.T.V. got in during that period of delay. From the suggestion the noble Lord made, that the I.T.V. were more in contact with the people than the B.B.C, it is obvious he does not know much about the B.B.C.'s activities.
I looked up the debate held ten years ago, in 1952, which was referred to by

649
the noble Viscount the Leader of the House in his opening speech. During that debate many speeches were made by very prominent Members of this House. I was rather surprised to see that three of them have passed on—Waverley, Halifax, and one other whose name I do not remember. But those three were stalwarts for the retention of the B.B.C. and not for the establishment of I.T.V.
I rise to-day mainly to deal with the Welsh aspect of this question. We have here a practical aspect. The matter is raised by the Government in their White Paper. In this White Paper they refer to the recommendations they can accept, and to the recommendations they are not able to accept. I want to refer to one on which we in Wales put great weight; it may be that the people of England Will not, but we do. I do hope that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor comes to reply he will have a reply which will satisfy Wales on this issue. It was suggested by the Beveridge Committee years ago that members of the National Broadcasting Council should be individuals who would have full regard to the distinctive culture, interests and tastes of our people in that country. It is now recommended by the Pilkington Committee that the chairman should be a Welsh-speaking individual.
The Government, for some reason or another, have found themselves unable to accept that recommendation. I have tried to find out what could be the reason. The reason given was exactly what I thought it would be—namely, that you limit your choice. You cut out a good number of people in Wales who could not be considered because of that provision. The other reason put forward was that to name one essential was never wise. I agree that the Welsh Nationalist Party may have pressed this question of Welshmen a bit too far, but if ever there was a case—and I hope the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, in consultation with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, will be able to clear this up—Where the chairman ought to be a Welsh-speaking individual, it is this one.
The organisations involved in broadcasting are very largely cultural and literary in Wales, more so than in
650
England. The people who are members of them are usually Welsh-speaking Welshmen. When they are discussing Welsh problems regarding the B.B.C., they like to be able to do it in Welsh. As regard the limitations, when you say that the chairman must be Welsh-speaking you still have half a million people to choose from. During my eight years in the B.B.C. as a Governor and a National Governor for Wales, I had to meet every type of person in various parts of the country and on many occasions they were monoglots. In a sense we have 100,000 monoglots in Wales. In other cases, though not monoglots, they much prefer to talk in the Welsh language. The fact that I could do both helped me immensely, and I am quite sure that no man or woman who is not able to speak both languages could do this job as it ought to be done. The chairman of the B.B.C. is a different thing from the chairman of any other organisation in Wales.
I appreciate very much indeed the statement in the same paragraph that a specific reference will be made in the Charter to the Welsh language. I do so because it indicates that the Government are fully aware of the importance of the Welsh language in Wales. It is no use those who are not Welsh decrying this and saying that it is a paltry consideration. We are Welsh. We are a small people. We have our own language. We have struggled hard to get it, especially some of us who have had to come outside of Wales. We have our language, and what we want is that that language should be respected in appointments of this kind. We are not asking for it regardless of capacity. We do not want a third-rate Welshman appointed simply because he can speak Welsh, against a first-rate Welshman who cannot speak Welsh. But we want a Welshman in the chair, to contact all the people in Wales in their own native language. I do hope the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will help us in discussions between now and the next stage.
On the same page of the White Paper there is a matter which rather disturbed me. Paragraph 13 reads as follows:
"The Committee recommend an important constitutional innovation in relation to television; namely that the B.B.C.'s National Broadcasting Councils for Scotland and Wales

651
(and for Northern Ireland if one is set up) should exercise the same powers in relation to the content of television services as they already do for sound."
That is not quite the same wording as is in the original Charter, regarding the then powers of the Councils regarding sound. I do not know, but I rather think there is a mistake here. There is certainly a mistake of some kind. Here are the words in the original Charter:
"Each National Broadcasting Council shall be charged with the functions following …"—
the first sentence is enough—
"the function of controlling the policy and the content …".
That is an important question. Why has the policy been kept out of this one? The policy is vitally important to us. For instance, it is policy to opt out of a certain national programme. Are we to understand that it will be decided in London whether Scotland or Wales shall opt out of certain programmes? I can only believe that there is a mistake here. I cannot believe that there is any limitation intended, if they have the same powers as they had over sound. It must be policy and content, and not content without policy. I should like that looked into.
Another matter I want to mention, which has not been raised by the Government themselves in their White Paper, is that of the minority political Parties on television or broadcasting. Since 1954 we have had almost continuous meetings with the Leaders of all the Parties, Conservative, Labour and Liberal, to discuss the question: should the minority Parties be allowed any broadcasting time at all? The first thing we met was that the Charter did not give the power to do so. We were able to satisfy the legal people that the Charter gave the power to the Welsh Council and the Scottish Council if they desired to arrange political speeches for minority Parties. We were advised by a joint meeting not to proceed, but the Council got their teeth into this and decided that they would proceed and would arrange political broadcasting for minority Parties in Wales. Thereupon Dr. Hill—the then Postmaster-General—on instructions from the Government, put on a ban, gave a direction, and it was not allowed. That direction still exists. I understand now—I hope this
652
is true—that the Conservative Party are feeling a little easier on this, but they are not prepared to express their agreement, without the Labour Party's doing the same thing.
I have not consulted the Labour Party at all on this. They will decide later. What I would say to the Government is that, since it is recommended by the Pilkington Committee, they themselves should accept that recommendation with regard to the minority Parties. The Welsh Nationalist Party are a "pain in the neck" to most of us, but they are there. They are working very hard to gain strength, and we do not want to feel at all responsible for doing anything that looks in the least like deliberately trying to prevent them. I do not think that, even if they get a broadcast weekly, it will make any difference to the results, but I should like this freedom for the Nationalist Party in Wales, or any Party in Wales who satisfy the conditions—and the conditions laid down are stringent conditions, as the noble Lord will see later. My appeal is this: that if the Conservative Party are prepared to agree (I know the Liberal Party are, and I hope I can manage to persuade my own Party to agree), we should not prevent this minority Party, just because they are a minority Party, from having some broadcasts on the air. It need not be many, but there should be some recognition that they are a political Party in Wales.
There is one other matter I want to refer to, and that is finance. During my eight years as a Governor of the B.B.C. I felt that the method of providing finance outlined in the Charter was a sound method. During my visits to a number of countries overseas, I found that we stood pre-eminent in broadcasting throughout the whole world, partly because we were financed in this way. I earnestly hope there will be no change in the method of financing. I am quite certain that it is the best method. It is the method which causes the least trouble and the least concern and anxiety to Wales.
As regards Wales, I see that the noble Earl, Lord Derby, is here. As he indicated to us, he is the Chairman of T.W.W. in South Wales. Let me say, quite frankly, that the coming into existence of Independent Television did make

653
an improvement for Wales, in this sense: that they put on programmes in the Welsh language. The B.B.C. were then putting on programmes, and we almost doubled the number of programmes in the Welsh language because of I.T.V. Therefore, we feel a little indebted to them. But they did something else for us, in the early days especially. Had it not been for the turnover of our staff from the B.B.C. to the new organisation, I do not think they would have manned that organisation. We had scores, if not hundreds, of changes among our staff at the B.B.C., who for various reasons (I need not name them) went to join the I.T.V.
Now I enjoy the I.T.V.'s programmes, and I listen in. There are some good Welsh programmes. From that angle, we benefited. That is another reason, any Lords, why the Chairman should know something about the Welsh. We are now going to get from the B.B.C. at least double the amount of Welsh language broadcasting. We ought not to leave the Chairman in the position of having to ask somebody else when a complaint comes in regarding a Welsh broadcast or Welsh item of any kind. In such an event the Chairman has to go cap in hand to ask exactly what happened, what was said. Surely, therefore he is the link between Cardiff and London, and the link between Cardiff and the rest of Wales. I hope that my points will be considered.
As regards the general question of what broadcasting is for, what I like about the Pilkington Report—and I am not surprised that it is there—is the moral tone. Finance is important, very important, but financial considerations must never take precedence over moral considerations. If they do, whatever financial benefits may be derived, it will ultimately spell disaster. From my own point of view, I am satisfied that we can organise a type of broadcasting that will make the Churches better Churches, the schools better schools, and will help those thousands of tired, underpaid teachers to do their jobs. We have our differences, but the right organisation of broadcasting can do a lot, and I am satisfied that the future of Great Britain is linked up vary much indeed with the future of broadcasting.
5.25 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I should dike to begin by welcoming my noble friend Lord Derby and congratulating him on his maiden speech, and I am bound to say that I was rather sorry he received such a Chilly reception from the noble Lord opposite. After all, we in this House pride ourselves on being able to produce people who, on many subjects, know what they are talking about—and the noble Earl certainly knows what he is talking about so far as Independent Television is concerned. I think we are lucky to have him express expert views in this House, and I, for one, am not too worried if the noble Earl may have appeared slightly controversial.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House said he felt that, in considering this matter, we ought all to try to keep calm; to get rid of as many prejudices as possible, and to look at the matter objectively and fairly, with a view to obtaining the best broadcasting system we can. In what I thought, if I may respectfully say so, was an admirable speech, I felt that that was very good advice, and I am quite sure that the Government are wise at this stage to take only the immediate decisions, the necessary decisions, first, and to give themselves time to think about what is not only a very complicated and difficult matter, but also a very important one.
A certain amount has been said about the importance of television, and I should like just to touch for a moment on that. Obviously, it is possible to hold a number of different views upon the impact and importance of this medium, and I must confess that I thought the thing was very well put in a letter from Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick to The Times the other day. In this letter he said:
" … it is, broadly speaking, possible to take up three positions: 1. That television will 'mould' society. 2. That, while television will exercise its own positive influence, society will be influenced as well by other factors, for example, by education, the family, religion, leadership, and the other means of mass communication. 3. That the influence of television is negligible."
He went on to say that, for his part, he accepted the second of those definitions, and that he thought the Pilkington Committee accepted the first—and incidentally, they accused him of accepting the

655
third. Finally, at the end of his letter, he made what I thought was a very wise remark when he wrote:
"In short, to overestimate the influence of television is no less dangerous than to make the mistake of underestimating it".
That is the first thing I think one should bear in mind when trying to consider this matter objectively. I myself think, if I may say so, that the Pilkington Committee have fallen into the first error; and I agree with Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick in thinking that the second position is about right.
I agree with many other speakers, who have said that when one studies the Report, on the whole one cannot avoid the impression that the B.B.C. is all white and Independent Television is all black. Of course, when you actually look at the evidence, a lot of it is very confusing and very difficult to assess. To begin with, I think it is quite impossible to look at it statistically. In the first place, the statistics used by the Pilkington Committee and, for example, the statistics provided in an interesting booklet produced the other day by the I.T.A., are on entirely different bases for different periods. Therefore, I do not think one gets very far in judging the balance of programmes or anything else statistically.
There are one or two things that emerge from the I.T.A. pamphlet which interest me. So far as serious programmes are concerned, they try to classify the "Top twenty". I agree that this would be their assessment, and the B.B.C. would probably have another one. But I.T.V. reckon—I am only saying how difficult it is, but I think it is interesting—that on a T.A.M. basis, of the top twenty most popular serious programmes no fewer then 16 were produced by I.T.V. I do not know about that; but I do not believe, from my own experience of viewing, that either the B.B.C. is as perfect as portrayed in the Report or that I.T.V. is nearly as bad. I think it is a pity that more was not said—other noble Lords have referred to this—about the positive contributions in pioneering various programmes, such as religious broadcasting, and so on. I think Independent Television has un-doubtedy put new life into broadcasting,
656
although I should be the first to admit that it suffers from many imperfections.
The Committee drew attention to things which have been discussed by various noble Lords, and for the sake of brevity I do not want to go into them in great detail: for example, that there was too much violence, too much appeal to mass audiences in the peak period, and so on. I consider there is a great deal in that. I think there is too much violence. When you come to the peak period and mass audiences, I think you run into a very definite difficulty, and I should have thought that this was something which applied to the B.B.C. as much as I.T.V. At that time of day you would obviously try to balance your programmes as well as you could, and you would obviously try not to have them all of one kind. At the present moment, on one set of statistics, it would appear that of that type of programme at that time, the B.B.C. have about 36 per cent. serious programmes and I.T.V. about 30 per cent. There is not very much difference; but there are rather more serious programmes on the B.B.C.
It seems to me that at times you have to try—and whether or not it is the B.B.C., it must be their function—to entertain or instruct or educate or inform as many people as possible. Therefore, your main programmes at the peak hours will always suffer from the defect of their being unable to satisfy minorities. There is a lack of balance as long as you have only one channel, and I should have thought that was unavoidable. Therefore, I think there is a very strong case for a second channel deliberately designed to cater for minorities. To me, one of the most maddening things about television is that generally, if you switch on, let us say, to the I.T.A. and find there is a late show, and you do not feel in the mood for a late show, you switch over to the B.B.C. and get something almost identical. I have given up bothering now. I think there is a great lack of liaison between the B.B.C. and the I.T.V., and that that is unnecessary. I should have thought that you could compete without having the two services exactly the same.
Another point I find rather confusing in the Pilkington Report is the question of who really said what. Here is the

657
chairman of the Independent Television Authority, a public servant of very great distinction, who says quite definitely that what the Report says he said was not, in point of fact, what he did say. Then I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a letter written to The Times by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. He said something which rather interested me. He said that the Director-General of the B.B.C., who appeared in mantles of mysterious white before the Committee, subsequently had an interview (and I thought he rather blotted his book) with Mr. Henry Fairley, of the Queen. Having said all the "white" things to the Committee, the Director-General said in the interview, according to the report quoted by Lord Gladwyn:
"I think television increases people's interests … but I do not think there is any evidence that it seriously affects their opinions or attitudes … it does not determine how, or even what, they will think."
Then, for good measure—I am still quoting Lord Gladwyn—the Director added:
"I think too much fuss is made about the influence of violence and sex in programmes."
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, ended his letter by saying:
"What puzzles me is how television can be a main factor in influencing the attitudes of society, if it cannot be said to affect those attitudes seriously."
Now, my Lords, I think that things of this sort are great defects in the Report, because we are not left with any clear picture of the facts. But my own feeling is, and always has been, that there is a good deal of lack of balance, a good deal of bad programming and inferior stuff, which has to be put right. How it should be put right I should like to deal with later on, if I may. I am sure that a constant and continuous effort has to be made to try to improve the general standard of programmes.
May I pass on now to one other point, the question of the money motive. The Committee said, in effect—and it was for this reason, incidentally, that they condoned pay television—that it was virtually impossible to produce a decent programme so long as there was any question of money. Well honestly, my Lords, I am sorry, but I do not think that is a terrible proposition. T think it may be more difficult, because profit motives, or any other motive except the
658
pure goodness of the programme, perhaps make it more difficult; but I do not think it is impossible. Consider the cinema, the Press, and other people, who, after all, have to entertain, instruct and inform the public and who depend on advertisements or on mass audiences for their success. I know we are told television is quite different from all these things but I do not accept that it is impossible. I think it is possible, although it is more difficult.
Equally, there is one other general attitude of the Committee which I find very difficult to accept. They seem to think, per contra, that the moment you have a public corporation, everything is going to be all right; that you take six men out of business, put them into a public corporation, and immediately they become different people; that these men lose all their human failings; they become wise, progressive, energetic, and so on. Now, I am not a great lover of public corporations—because they are answerable to nobody; they cannot be questioned in either House—but I think that, just as private enterprise might suffer from veniality and stupidity, public corporations suffer from bureacracy and lack of enterprise. The solution of the Committee, in order to put the defects right, is to create what amounts to another B.B.C. and have two State monopolies in complete control of this medium. To me, that is totally unacceptable. It is not what I personally believe in. I do not think it is what I mean by freedom, and I cannot see that that can be the solution.
Again, I find it perplexing, because when one looks at the Committee's observations on the Press one finds that they point to the dangers of too much power in too few hands. That is indeed the reason for the recommendation that nobody in the Press may hold more than a certain proportion of the shares in any television company. Yet their main recommendation puts more power in fewer hands than anything I have heard of for a very long time. My Lords, I do not believe that that is a solution which most of us would like.
Therefore, my Lords, what is to be done? I think it is very difficult to say without a great deal of further consideration. I believe that if you are going to criticise the Authority, you must

659
criticise them on the ground that they have very ample powers to improve standards, to act as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, acts on the British Board of Film Censors. They have considerable powers, and I think they can be reasonably criticised for not having used the powers which they have. But I cannot see that the fact that possibly the system has been imperfectly used is a reason for throwing it out. The answer is to use it properly. Therefore, my view is that the question of standards can be dealt with by a strong Authority.
As regards the future in general, I am sure that there must be another channel. The Government proposed to give it to the B.B.C., initially I think on technical grounds. My feeling is that this is such an enormous field, the opportunities are so vast, and there are so many matters that I have not time to mention, such as what can be done in education, and elsewhere—there is the whole question of pay television, which I believe has very great possibilities—that there is plenty of room for both organisations. If television is to be developed on the right lines in this country, we need the best brains that can be provided, both by Independent Television and by the B.B.C. I have always believed that both should exist and develop alongside each other. Again, I do not believe that any programme can be fully representative unless it has a channel for minorities. The only thing on which I should like an assurance from the Government is that, in giving the first channel to the B.B.C., this will not preclude the possibility of giving another channel to Independent Television.
Finally, I would ask the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Government on question of finance. The Government say—rather airily, I think—that they will provide the cash for this second channel. But I wonder how they are going to do it. If the B.B.C. are to have these new facilities, the deficit will be of the order of £43 million. I suppose that sum can be found in two ways—either by increasing the licence fee to £6. though I am not sure that that is a course which would commend itself to your Lordships; I am pretty certain it would not commend itself to the public and therefore not to the Government either——
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is this £43 million capital or expenditure over a period?
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I have obtained this information not from official sources but from unofficial sources. There is actually an official document on this, which I have seen, but I do not have it with me. My information is that this sum covers the whole thing, both capital and income over the period of the development of these services.
It has been suggested that a lot of this money could come from Independent Television; and undoubtedly, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, Independent Television could reasonably be expected to pay a good deal more for their concessions in future. I think that that would be fair and right. But, even if we were to take the whole of their profits, which I am informed at present moment amount to approximately £28 million a year—they pay £13 million in tax—we should still be left with a deficit of £30 million for the B.B.C. I think it would be helpful to your Lordships if, some time before the end of the debate, the Government could give us some information on this point. I am sorry for detaining your Lordships for so long. That is all I wish to say.
5.44 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, it is never easy to decide whether or not to take part in a debate such as this. Of course, we are privileged here because in another place, the power of decision does not rest with the Back Benches. One waits a long time, and often one is not called at all. Obviously, in a debate like this, one can rush in without much thought and talk about specific likes and dislikes in particular programmes. Equally obviously, one can pontificate about what people should or should not see. Or, finally, one can be so reasonable and see all sides to such an extent that nothing gets done. In short, one can make a contribution that is worth little because one skates on the surface or one can say nothing because it is all too difficult.
"Who am I to decide what people should see?" By that question, one abdicates responsibility. But, of course, somebody has to accept responsibility.

661
And I think it must be the Government of the day, basing its decisions upon discussion in both Houses of Parliament, which, I should hope, would reflect public opinion in the country. Everyone agrees that listeners and viewers are the most important people; because, after all, it is for them that these services are provided. I should like to see any Government taking such decisions on a free vote in both Houses, though as a politician I appreciate the difficulties of that, because I know that the Government have to get their business. Nevertheless, I believe hat this should be a non-Party decision. To my mind, the potential of television is so vast that I feel it to be a matter of moral, civic and national concern. I am quite convinced that there are many, in all political Parties and in none, who agree on the fundamental issues, just as I realise that there are differences in all Parties, and, if one hears correctly, in the Cabinet itself—possibly even within the new Cabinet.
So, if one does not wish to be called a busybody, or to be accused of being motivated by a determination to give people what is good for them rather than what they want, where does one start, as a Back-Bencher, in a debate such as this? First of all, one admits a real urge to speak, which, although I am a newcomer. I feel is the real basis for speaking in your Lordships' House, anyway. Secondly, I think one just hopes that the small contribution made will measure up to the tolerance that your Lordships always give to somebody who honestly feels that he has something to say.
I am not starting to-day with the popular Aunt Sally "Should people just be left to choose for themselves?", but with something which I think is far more fundamental, if less popular: what are the purposes of broadcasting? I feel that if we, Parliament and the Government, are to accept responsibility for this medium of communication, and if our voices and votes are to decide its development, we should say how we visualise its development in a modern society. The B.B.C.'s Charter defines these purposes as "the dissemination of information, education and entertainment". The Television Act refers to them as "entertainment, instruction and
662
information". But the Pilkington Committee, as your Lordships know, state that neither the B.B.C. nor the I.T.A. attach any significance to the difference in wording or to the difference in the order in which these are printed. The Report of the Pilkington Committee is concerned with the three sound programmes and one television programme of the B.B.C. and with the one television programme of Independent Television.
Here, if I may, I should like to make a point which I think is important—that is, that it is the listeners and viewers for whom the services are provided, and they are interested primarily in what is offered to them, not in how or by whom it is produced. Speaking generally and without clothing anyone in garments that are "whiter than white," I believe that there is satisfaction with the sound programmes of the B.B.C. They command the respect, the confidence and the approval of most people in this country—and indeed elsewhere; but I do not believe this to be true of television. If television is to fulfil its agreed purposes of giving information, entertainment and education, what must be included? Here I would make two points which I think will command universal agreement. First, there must be a wide range of programmes so balanced that people have a reasonable choice when they are able to watch. We cannot dismiss the evidence from a widely varied selection of people who said that the range of programmes is not sufficiently wide, and that within this range the emphasis is wrong.
Another point that I was glad to note (and I was also particularly glad to see that it did not spring from any peculiarity of mine) was the repeated evidence that many items are shown only at inconvenient times. It was argued to the Committee over and over again that the whole range of programming should be shown during the hours when most people were able to watch television; that is to say, during the peak hours. I should like to put forward to your Lordships the thought that, even if the total output of a given channel does offer a wide enough apparent choice of subject matter, the effective choice (and I underline the word "effective") is largely limited to

663
what is shown when people are free to choose.
Here I would quote from an impeccable source—namely, the Independent Group of Conservatives, which I think the noble Viscount mentioned in his opening speech. I want to quote them verbatim, because I think what they said is so good; and I am sure the noble Viscount will approve. They said:
"Catering for minorities does not mean always putting on minority taste programmes at times when the average viewer has not arrived home from work or is in bed."
I am sure the noble Viscount will agree that even the Opposition could not have put it better than that. This question of balance is obviously something that is very difficult to define, because, equally obviously, all we who listen and watch judge this for ourselves, and we are apt to believe that our own idea is right. But many people feel that this "lack of balance" is a valid criticism of television; and they believe that this valid criticism applies more to the Independent Authority's programmes than to those of the B.B.C. Considering all this I would suggest that where there is a failure to realise the special value of peak-viewing hours for the purposes of the public service of television there is lack of balance.
What evidence is there in this respect, as distinct from personal opinion? This brings me to the question of freedom of choice. The Report states that the policy of the B.B.C. is to devote about one-third of its peak-viewing hours to serious programmes. We know that if drama were included (and drama is difficult to classify) it would come to about one half. That given by I.T.V. is less, both throughout the day and during peak-viewing hours. I listened with interest to the noble Lord who preceded me, and he mentioned the I.T.A. production "Facts and Figures". I could not agree with him more that one can prove almost anything with their facts and figures. But I am sure that the noble Lord, in reading those, will have also read the leader in last night's Evening Standard. If not, I would recommend him to do so.
It is not my purpose to enter into the dog fight between the Evening Standard
664
and the I.T.A., but they take different points of view. The Evening Standard said (it is of interest if it is correct; and I have no reason to think it is not) that the facts produced in "Facts and Figures" were entirely different from the facts which the Independent Television Authority presented to the Pilkington Committee when they were asked for them. This is a completely new version. I will leave it there, because I do not know which is true. I think there is not as wide and effective a freedom of choice on I.T.V. as on the B.B.C. I believe that I.T.V. has underestimated the public and has put on too many of its serious programmes late at night; and I still think so, even though I have read the remarks of Sir Robert Fraser on this aspect.
That is what I believe—and it is easy to have beliefs—but what evidence is there? Hare I would quote even more impeccable evidence than the Independent Group of Conservatives and cite the programme companies themselves. The Report says, in paragraph 194:
"All the main companies agreed that they had a responsibility for leading public taste, and that this implied a responsibility to cater for 'minority' as well as 'majority' tastes. But whereas the Authority thought that the service had catered sufficiently for minorities, the companies on the whole did not."
The programme companies advanced two main reasons for this, one of which was mentioned by the noble Lord who preceded me—namely, that there was not enough room to do this in a single programme—and I should like to come back to that at the end. The second reason they gave was that
"… since Independent Television derived its revenue from advertising, it was bound to seek the largest audiences."
There are four programme companies here—this is not my opinion. The Report goes on:
"Anglia Television said that independent television must be concerned to hold the maximum audience; Associated Rediffusion said that it was inevitable that it should serve the majority; for Scottish Television, Mr. Thomson said that, because advertisers paid for viewers, 'it is inevitable in the system that you should be reaching generally for a maximum'."
For Southern Television, Mr. Dowson told the Committee that
"the commercial element prevented the showing of minority programmes at peak hours".

665
I think that such evidence is quite irrefutable, and I believe it supports the contention that under a system of commercial television, which has the selling of advertising space as priority No. 1, a truly balanced programme, with real and effective freedom of choice for the viewer, is not possible. However much they want it, it just is not possible. Therefore, I agree that the Authority itself should sell the advertising time.
That brings me, my Lords, I think logically, to advertising. I am no opponent of advertising. I think it is like everything else: some of it is good and some is bad. We shall probably not get a better definition of advertising than that given recently by the United States Supreme Court, which said:
"Advertising as a whole must not create a misleading impression even though every statement separately considered is literally truthful."
I am being very careful about my references to-day, and I can now take a recent speech of the Board of Trade spokesman (who has now been elevated to be Minister of Pensions and National Insurance) in another place, Mr. Niall Macpherson. Speaking at the Advertising Association Conference at Eastbourne in May last, he said—and with this I come to an end of my quotations:
"As people become more and more aware of advertising, they are becoming more and more conscious and critical of the content of advertising. That may mean that it will become easier to bring a product to the attention of the public than it was. It certainly means that more people are more intolerant of what the Bible calls 'vain repetition', particularly on television, and expects to be given more information in advertisements. In other words, the public will tend to expect higher and higher standards of advertising—not merely more elegant or compelling copy, but more informative and unquestionably truthful."
For some time in another place I tried hard to get the onus of proof put on the advertiser, which is where I think it belongs. I do not propose to develop that theme to-day, but I hope that when the Lord President has been able to "chase up" for us that elusive date of the publication of the Molony Report we may have an opportunity of looking into this.
In the Financial Times yesterday, as no doubt he saw, we seemed to get—I do not know whether it was a leak, or some information, or whether it
666
means that I can put down another Question—a statement that the Report of the Molony Committee was expected to be published before the end of the month for the economic debate in another place in order that the Prime Minister might include consumer protection in his remarks. If the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, had been here at this moment, I should have liked to say to him that when the Prime Minister does that, I personally shall regard it as an entirely interesting theft of clothing. I am glad that the White Paper we are discussing to-day accepted the recommendation that advertising magazines should be abolished, although I would be perfectly happy for them to remain in advertising time. It seems to me quite incredible, looking at those advertising magazines, that they could have been anywhere but in advertising time. People may like them or not, but that anyone could believe that they were dispassionate advice to the consumer I think is stretching it a little.
I want to say a word about profits. Obviously the rates charged in advertising are very important in this question of profits. Many advertisers say that the rates charged are too high, but that they have accepted these in order to get their products shown to the mass audiences quoted to them by the programme companies. However, a new problem has arisen here, or perhaps I should say it has received prominence recently. While it may be possible to find out how many sets are switched on for a given programme, what guarantee has the advertiser that the family stay in front of their set when his precious advertisement for which he has paid comes on? I would say, none at all. I am going to put on my spectacles to read this letter, because it is too good to misread. I want to quote only two or three sentences from a letter in the Daily Herald of July 10. It says:
"Nobody I know agrees with the Labour M.P.s who consider that six minutes of T.V. advertising an hour is too much. The breaks are most useful for talk, serving drinks, making up the fire and so on, and with the sound turned off they do not bother anybody."
But, seriously, this question of advertising as a whole is important, and very important for reputable advertisers. As we know, each company is responsible for its own advertisements, but the

667
story-boards or scripts of all advertisements are scrutinised by the Advertising Copy Committee which has been set up by the Independent Television Companies' Association. The Authority is not represented on this, but its Advertising Control Officer is in frequent touch with both the companies and with the copy committee. I feel this is not enough, and I agree with the recommendation that the Authority should assume effective control of the work of the copy committee. I think delegation of this is an abdication of responsibility.
The Motion before us to-day asks us to approve the White Paper. I feel able to support this, being an optimist, in the hope of better things to come. In short, I think it not unreasonable to delay action on some of the main aspects until public opinion has made itself heard. But I should like to raise something here. I do not know whether I am raising a red herring, but I should be glad if the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate could give me a comment here. I think it was partially answered by the noble Viscount who opened the debate, but I should like this point cleared up. Paragraph 49 of the White Paper tells tells us that the B.B.C.'s second channel should be started in London by mid-1964. In paragraph 81 we read:
"The Government considers there will be scope at a later stage for a second I.T.A. programme."
Going back to July 5, I glanced through my papers hurriedly, because I had not time to finish them, and saw something which gave me rather a shock. I got the impression from those papers that I was reading something which was not in the White Paper. I took the papers with me, and on the next day I read them on the train and I found I was not mistaken. I found that practically all the papers I saw, from the reputable to the disreputable, all said one thing in common: the I.T.A. might well start its second channel simultaneously with the B.B.C.'s. As so many of the papers said the same thing, I should be glad to know from the noble Lord when he replies Whether this was a mistake which was common to all the Press—Which I hope it was—or whether it was a leak. If it was a mistake—
668
and it would seem to be from what the noble Viscount said in opening the de-batel—obviously we can leave it there. But if paragraph 81 means that a second channel for I.T.A. is to open simultaneously with the B.B.C's, then I would remind the Government of the U.S. Supreme Court comment that
"advertising as a whole must not create a false impression even though every statement separately considered is literally truthful."
I would suggest that what goes for advertising should go for the Government White Paper.
I know that one of the reasons advanced by the programme companies for insufficient balance in programmes was that there was not enough room within one single channel, and the noble Lord who preceded me also made that statement. That I just do not accept under present conditions. I believe that a second commercial channel, if it were like the present one, dependent on attracting a mass audience, would merely be repetitive. I believe that we should get imitation rather than diversity. So I trust that we shall be told by the Government that the I.T.A. second channel is not to come into operation at the same time as the B.B.C.'s.
So, three main personal conclusions after all this, and then a brief summing-up of what I think should be done. These are personal conclusions reached after as honest a study of the facts, the evidence and the personal opinions as I can make. First, I believe that the B.B.C. have a traditional idea of public service, and it seems to me that this remains their essential consideration. Secondly, I do not believe that the I.T.A. have this same attitude. I have looked many times at the letter to The Times of July 12 by Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick. I have it here. I have read conflicting statements in the papers, but the impression that I gain, whether it is a right point of view or not, is that the I.T.A. do not have this same attitude. On these two conclusions I support the tradition of public service. The third conclusion I reached is this, and I feel very strongly about it. I think there is something inherently wrong in a system which makes the sale of advertising time the main purpose of the television programme contractors. I am quite convinced that however much they wish to

669
put on a more balanced programme in the peak hours, as shown by the programme companies themselves, they cannot do it if their first priority is to attract a mass audience.
Now about the three things I believe should be done. I believe that the I.T.A. should sell advertising time and assume effective control of the work of the copy committee. Secondly, I believe that the Authority, as does the B.B.C., must take more responsibility for programme planning, but I want longer to consider how this should best be done, because I think the selling of advertising time may be the real foundation-stone here. I believe that if we deal with the selling of advertising time, other changes may follow. The third point—and I am glad the White Paper accepts this—is that I believe the B.B.C. second channel should start as soon as possible. That brings me to the question of paying for it. I am probably going to tread on a lot of toes here, but we do not come primarily to your Lordships' House to avoid people's toes. Public opinion, I think, believes that the profits of Independent Television are too large, and that indeed in the immortal phrase which I think will never die, there has been a licence to print money. Therefore, I suggest as an ordinary viewer, that it is just plain common sense that this profit should benefit television development as a whole. I see no reason against it. If people do see reasons against it, I am sure the public will not.
Nobody believes to-day that they pay a licence for the B.B.C. programmes and that they get I.T.V. for nothing. That will not work any longer. If the Authority sells the advertising time, what should they do with what they decide is surplus revenue? Should it go to the Exchequer? I do not think so. I have memories in another place of trying very hard to get out of the Exchequer for sports development some part of the taxation paid in from the football pools, and, quite apart from any other merits of the case, I was told it was not fiscal policy to earmark particular sections of the revenue for particular purposes. So I vote the Exchequer out. I do not mind what you call it, but I really cannot see why we could not have, as my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth mentioned, a fund for research and development in television which should be set
670
up by the Government, possibly with public trustees.
On this financial aspect, I noted a report in The Times on July 12 in which Sir Harry Pilkington said that if the B.B.C. were to get the money needed to finance their new developments, there were three choices: first, a Government grant, which he thought would not be welcomed by the B.B.C. because it would be seen as a threat to their independence; secondly, advertising, which he thought was out of the question; thirdly, an increase in the licence fee, which his Committee felt was the best solution in the circumstances. But, my Lords, as everyone agrees that the listeners and viewers are the most important people to be considered in all this, I can see no earthly reason why they should not benent from the surplus revenue arising out of television services instead of paying an increased licence fee. Finally, what the public wants and what it has the right to get is the freedom to choose from the widest possible range of programme matter. That I believe is our responsibility.
6.10 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I too, should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl who made such an excellent and well-informed maiden speech; and also to declare an interest as I am a director of a television company. Perhaps it might interest your Lordships to know that this company made a loss last year. I will quickly say that I hope it was not through inefficiency but rather because it is the youngest company to go on the air. At the outset let me say that, in general, I welcome the Government's White Paper on Broadcasting because it gives an outline to some of the future technical requirements such as 625-line definition and colour. It is information which is so necessary for the advancement of this young industry which has a great power to influence. Here, my Lords, let me just digress for a moment to say that with the advent of inter-continental television, through such a medium as Telstar, let us hope that people of different races, creeds and colour will learn to understand each other better so that the present tension between East and West can be lowered. If this could be so, then television will have passed over even its most ardent critics.

671
I am glad to see in paragraph 11 of the White Paper that Her Majesty's Government still have an open mind regarding the implementation of policy; in fact, they have gone so far as to say that ideas may emerge in Parliamentary debates. To-day television—that means of information and entertainment—is on the threshold of enormous expansion and opportunity; so, at all costs, this must not be curbed. It is of vital importance that decisions taken now by Her Majesty's Government should be the right ones, as undoubtedly they will affect the future of television over the next ten or twenty years.
Her Majesty's Government have invited ideas and criticisms and I am going to confine my remarks to Independent Television and, in particular, to Independent Television regional programme companies, some of which, unlike their bigger and elder brothers the network companies, are operating on fairly slender margins. For this reason I think it only right that Her Majesty's Government should be aware that, while they have the power to legislate for the advancement of television, one false step might unwitting sink some of the regional companies. First of all, Her Majesty's Government must be conversant with the full and correct facts concerning regional companies, and the best way to do this is for the Government to have talks with the Independent Television Authority and the programme companies, because if Her Majesty's Government were to rely solely on the Pilkington Report they would find that the Committee dismisses in a somewhat airy fashion the programming efforts of the regional companies. This the Committee have done on opinion rather than fact. The facts are that regional companies of Independent Television produce more programmes than the B.B.C. regions do. This achievement by the Independent Television regional companies in a comparatively short space of time is, I believe, noteworthy. Also, in some instances regional Independent Television programmes of a serious nature have attained almost equal ratings, based on the number of viewers, with very popular light entertainment programmes, such as "Perry Mason", put on by the B.B.C. Surely, therefore, there is no doubt that the
672
regional Independent Television companies are serving their regions.
However, as the Pilkington Report appears to have failed to take account of the problems of regional Independent Television companies, especially the small companies, I think it is only right at this stage that Her Majesty's Government should be made aware of the possible legislative waves that could swamp the small regional companies. First of all, it cannot be too strongly stressed that some of the regional companies, although covering a small population of viewers, have very large areas to cover, and this fact must be reflected elsewhere because a small population not only produces a small revenue, but a large area entails large expenses.
I should now like to turn to a specific point made in the Government White Paper. It is evident that the Government wish that the B.B.C. should have, without delay, a second service and probably, if I read correctly between the lines, this will be followed by a second service for Independent Television. This second service may raise great problems for the Independent Television regional companies, especially the smaller ones now operating on slender margins. For instance, a second service for the B.B.C. would mean that with two programmes the B.B.C. would be able to put on a popular programme showing on one or other of its services every viewing hour of the day. With that they would be bound to take away some viewers from the Independent Television Service, unless of course the B.B.C.'s second service is completely different from the other service—perhaps something like the sound Third Programme.
If small regional companies are to survive much thought will have to be given to this problem. Its solution does not appear to lie in giving Independent Television another service, as this would mean a further carving up of the already small slices of cake for the small stations unless, of course, the second service is to be like the Third Programme, or is operated by the existing regional companies. As Independent Television companies are largely dependent for revenue on viewers one solution might be to give Independent Television regional companies more equitable areas of population. Another possible solution might be

673
not to have more than two competing services—just the present B.B.C. and Independent Television services—in areas of small population, on the grounds that these areas are, anyway, covered by a comparatively small Press and that the population just would not justify an increased television service. However, I maintain that this is a dangerous policy, as why should the outlying parts of our country have an inferior service compared to the highly populated industrial areas of the country? My Lords, it is exactly this attitude which has been responsible for much of the depopulation of our rural areas.
I believe that the present policy of the Independent Television Authority, in setting up a decentralised service with regional companies, having control largely in the hands of independent and influential local people who are closely connected with the communities they serve, has been most successful, and infinitely preferable to an almighty Independent Television Authority having arms in each region while its head and body and also the ability to control the purse strings remain in Brampton Road. If proof of this statement is required, it comes from the fact that already an independent television decentralised service has done more for the regions than the B.B.C. centralised controlling body with regional arms. I do not want to give an impression that the B.B.C. provides an inferior service to Independent Television's; this is not so. I merely use some facts concerning the B.B.C. to illustrate my point that the regional independent television companies can give, and justifiably so, a good account of themselves.
I believe it would be in the interests of the viewing public if the independence and financing of the regional companies could be strengthened so that instead of running a risk of getting swamped by the network companies they could in fact produce more programmes which could be seen on the network. This, I am sure, would foe highly desirable. Of course, it must be appreciated that although regional companies may wish to produce more and more programmes of a, high standard, anything they achieve must foe limited by their franchise. The present structure of regional independent television, established and guided by the Independent Television Authority, has
674
provided without doubt a service of local programming which hitherto did not exist, and this record of performance has been achieved by the regional companies which are financially independent and free to extend the scope of their activities without central budgetary control.
In all this the Independent Television Authority have vested a high degree of autonomy in regional companies, and the relationship between the authorities and the companies has been, as it should be, one of effective control without dictation. Perhaps there are some who would prefer more effective control. Nevertheless, however, the Independent Television Authority's great contribution in establishing policy and guiding development appears to have been overlooked by the Pilkington Committee.
I hope I have made my point clear. To sum up it is this: Her Majesty's Government must ensure that, whatever steps they take over the future of independent television, regional companies remain economically viable entities and so have the resources and freedom to continue to develop their service for the community. There are probably few who realise that regional television companies are about the last bastion of local public expression left in certain areas of our country. Today even the Press is largely controlled from outwith the areas it serves. Regional television companies must not only remain but flourish. They must first and foremost serve their own areas, then make their contribution to the whole country and later help to pierce the dark horizons of the world. Finally, my Lords, I must make an apology, as I have to leave immediately to catch a plane to return North of the Border.
6.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I will express my point of view by saying that we are promised three and are threatened with four channels of television. That brings me immediately to a small point of which I am anxious to dispose, a point which may seem of some, though admittedly secondary, importance to your Lordships. It concerns aerials. Already the skyline of our houses and terraces is disfigured by a proliferation of miscellaneous ironmongery. Nor is the

675
æsthetic angle the only one that concerns me. I am a landlord, though now in a very small way indeed, and when I see my tenants affixing at present two and shall in future see them affixing three or four aerials to one of my chimneys, the liveliest apprehensions are excited in my breast. I wonder whether—and this is a subject on which I have already dared to communicate with the Post Office—some consideration might be given to that. Could the trade be induced to provide more efficient internal aerials. Could advice on the positioning of aerials on houses be provided by architects and designers, subject of course to the permission of scientists. So much for that small point.
I now come to the White Paper. I am glad that Her Majesty's Government are holding conversations both with the B.B.C. and with Independent Television on the subject of violence. In this matter I would venture to follow a train of thought arising from a remark made by Sir Robert Fraser in a speech on that subject which is quoted briefly in the Pilkington Report. Sir Robert points out that the Greek dramatists were accustomed to handle successfully themes of the utmost violence and horror? But let us go on from there. The Greek taste, far stronger than any code of violence that we would devise to-day, completely forbade the exhibition of violence of any kind upon their stage. We do not follow Antigone to her tomb, Clytemnestra to her bathroom or Medea to her nursery. And yet is there a greater moment in any drama in the world than that in the Medea when we hear the child crying from within the house, "I am afraid of mother. She has a sword"? Would it not be well that radio dramatists be compelled to take a course in Greek drama in order that they may learn the technique of suggesting, without presenting visually, scenes of horror?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Does that mean they ought to learn Greek, or can they learn it in English?
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: There are many admirable translations in English, as those who are not so intimately connected with the University of Oxford as is the noble Earl are very well aware.
676
Her Majesty's Government are also to discuss the subject of triviality in programmes. There, I am afraid, I do not think they are going to get very far. The real reason why a great number of programmes are exceedingly trivial is a direct consequence of the colossally long hours during which the public thinks it has a right to television entertainment. As a result of the creation of Independent Television, and exacerbated by Her Majesty's Government's most regrettable decision to abolish the silent hour in the afternoon, an immense amount of hours are tyrannising over the producers. They have to be filled somehow and there is not enough good stuff to fill them.
Our situation is that we are transferred to the artistic sphere with which we were only too lamentably familiar after the war, of too many dramatists chasing too few plots, and compelled to find their plots in the eccentricities of morbid psychology; too many comedians chasing too few jokes, and sometimes finding them in places which I personally—but I am an old-fashioned man—rather deplore, and too many panels chasing too few reliable television personalities. So far as I can see, it is impossible to avoid triviality while the tyrannous hours and unforgiving minutes exercise so great an influence.
Despite this, I do not feel that I am being inconsistent in welcoming Her Majesty's Government's just and proper decision to give the B.B.C. a second service. We are well aware that the British Broadcasting Corporation have been devoting a great deal of skilled and anxious thought to the preparation of this service. May I in the first place set the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, at rest if he is going to read Hansard in connection with this debate. I have forgotten his name, but the spokesman for the B.B.C., in a speech delivered in Bristol, specifically disavowed any intention to turn the second service into a Third Programme type of service. I am sure that the B.B.C. would be ill-advised to rob the existing service of television of any of its best and more cultured features. It will, however, be a cultured type of programme calculated to appeal to educated minorities. After all, in these days of general education, with so many of our young people

677
attending grammar schools and universities, education has ceased to be in a minority position; or, at any rate, it is tending to be less of a minority prerogative than it was.
I personally look forward intensely to the B.B.C.'s second service, and I could suggest, though it is quite useless to do so, a good many features which I should be glad to see on it. But my particular purpose in speaking this afternoon is to hope that ample space will be given on that programme to music. By "music" I mean what Mr. Khrushchev calls "good music" and which other people, rather unfortunately I think, describe as "serious music". What a putting-off sort of word that is; and what an inaccurate one! I am not prepared to discuss the seriousness of Figaro; but let there be plenty of music.
I must here be prepared to answer objections. I shall be told that the place for the music lover is the sound service. I, and I am sure others, too, are grateful indeed to the British Broadcasting Corporation for the amount of good music which they provide for us. But I do not feel that I am excessively greedy in demanding a key place for music on television also. In the first place, I would point out that in 1960, or so we are told, only one household in five possessed a very-high-frequency receiver. Of course, in the evenings it is perfectly impossible to listen to music with any delight unless you have very-high-frequency equipment. In the second place, we ask, not unreasonably, for the pleasure of seeing the orchestra. Seeing the orchestra on television has a most definite educational effect. By allowing the orchestra to be seen, and with the B.B.C.'s interesting technique of pointing the camera at the groups of instruments which are important at a particular moment in the performance of the symphony to be followed, many people learn to appreciate the subtleties of orchestration.
I am now going to be accused of wanting to raise people's cultural standards. I tremble at the accusation! But let me put it like this. I have had very great enjoyment at listening to music. I am an average, good-natured man. I believe that many other people could learn to enjoy the pleasures that mean
678
so much to me. After all, few people are tone deaf, but there are a lot of deaf adders who shut their ears and will not hear the voice of the charmer. A little education in music and a little gentle lift—the B.B.C. understand well that technique—will open the door to the delights which they ought to want. After all, people naturally like music; we all like it when we are young, because we dance to it. I wholly commend the young lady who a few years ago announced that her tastes in music were Bach and boogie-woogie—both nice things in their way, and particularly both of them appeal to young people. That young lady is now a little older, and I believe that boogie-woogie has gone out of fashion. I hope that she is now enjoying Bach and Beethoven, Beethoven and Brahms, Brahms and Benjamin Britten.
There is also the question of our desire to see ballet and to enjoy opera. It is not easy to transfer an opera directly to the small screen. I do not think the technique of so transferring opera is fully understood; but I would call attention to a remarkable event in musical history which occurred last Thursday, when the B.B.C. presented an opera which they had especially commissioned for television. The opera was by a talented musician, Miss Phyllis Tate. To my thinking it was a great success, and I trust that that experiment will be fruitfully continued.
The second B.B.C. television service has a difficult task before it. There will be much experiment. Undoubtedly, there will be many failures, as there must be in any worthwhile, long-continued enterprise, I would plead that the task of the B.B.C.'s second service should not be made more difficult by competition from a second I.T.V. service, at any rate until it has established itself. I am doubtful whether there is any need at all for a second I.T.V. service. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, that the independent companies dread the establishment of such a service in which their capacities would be swamped. I do not know that there is any strong demand by the public for this fourth television service, and I am very doubtful whether the independent television companies, even the large ones, have any strong reason—other than

679
the eternal "Jonesmanship" which permeates all endeavours—to want it either. I therefore ask that the B.B.C.'s interesting and vital experiment should be allowed to establish itself.
If we can afford a fourth service—and I never really know whether the economists are tolling me we are as poor as churchmice or as rich as Croesus—but if we can afford a fourth service, I would ask Her Majesty's Government to give serious consideration to the claims of stereophonic sound. To me, one of the greatest disappointments of the Pilking-ton Report—which in general I admire very much.—was their casual and uninteresting mention, tucked away in paragraph 799, I think it was, of stereophonic developments. Stereophony will, of course, mean an enormous increase in pleasure to those who listen to music, but it will also be of substantial help to the televised drama, and even to panel programmes; it will make them very much more lively and pleasant to hear.
My Lords, the Pilkington Committee, having taken evidence from the B.B.C., seem to regard this as a very distant and not very interesting development which they intended to relegate to the relatively distant future. They pointed out, however, that it depended on more research and on the evolution by the industry of what is called "a compatible receiver": that is to say, a monophonic receiver so designed as to be able to receive stereophonic sound. Research depends on a little money and a lot of enthusiasm, and a mechanical invention depends, I have always found, on the urgency of the demand for it. I believe that, granted a little endowment for research and a certain amount of enthusiasm from the public, stereophonic sound could come within a period of ten or twelve years, the period which we are now considering. I would ask Her Majesty's Government, in considering the allocation of radio frequencies, to remember the claims which stereophony may make in the not too distant future. My Lords, I do not know to what extent patriotic considerations ought to come into these artistic matters, but I am very proud of my country's achievement in the sphere of broadcasting and television. Incidentally, the Third Programme is the envy, admiration and
680
model of all European broadcasting, and I would be very proud indeed if Great Britain could take the lead in the development of stereophonic sound, which has to me a very great importance indeed.
6.45 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I think it is right that we should pay our tribute to the Pilkington Committee and to its members for a public task well done over a long period of time; and if I criticise them, as I shall, that is not to say I do not appreciate their earnest, and, as I know from experience, tedious labours. I also would like, if I may, to thank the Leader of the House, Viscount Hailsham, and Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who is leading the Opposition today, for their contributions to this debate, which set the tone for a free, frank and friendly discussion of this important matter.
I myself think the Pilkington Committee's Report was pedantic and unrealistic. I think it might almost be called pompous and a little "upstage" as if they were setting themselves above the people. I am bound to say that the same thought influenced my mind when I listened to speeches from some quarters of the House when it was suggested that to give the people what they want must be to give a lot of fools something that is nauseating. I do not take so dim a view of the people. The Pilkington Committee base their severe criticisms of I.T.V. upon the assumption that the public interest, as intended by Parliament, has not bean served. So I ask myself: what did Parliament mean should be done? I was in the Parliament, in another place, which passed the Television Act, and I had something to do with the Committees which sat behind the scenes before that Bill came to fruition, and I think that I can make as good a guess as most people as to what Parliament at that time intended—and by "Parliament", I mean the majority of Parliament who carried the Bill. I think Parliament intended to use a new channel in the ether for the advertising of manufactures in Britain—mainly manufactures, at any rate—and thereby pay for a new entertainment for the people: to join entertainment and advertising together rather as the large-circulation newspapers do.

681
I do not think it is realistic to try to separate out the purpose of providing broadcasting to the people—as if it were the mission of some church or some philosopher or theologian—from the purpose of providing an advertising programme. I think that Parliament consciously, by a majority vote, in a long and exhausting debate in both Houses, did in fact determine to set up television supported by advertising, and for the purpose of advertising. I will come back to this theme, but for the moment I want to make an observation on the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, which I myself appreciated very much as I am sure did other noble Lords.
The noble Lady said that the programme produced by the I.T.V. was unbalanced because it did not contain within itself so much of the more serious matter that she would like to have heard or seen—so much of what might be called "Third Programme stuff". But Parliament did not intend—at least I do not think Parliament intended as I listened to the debate—that the I.T.V. itself should be balanced in the sense that the B.B.C. is balanced. I think it intended that the I.T.V. should, along with the B.B.C. and its Third Programme, produce a balance for the people. Therefore the assumption all the way along was that this new television system, to be provided by and financed by advertisers, should be primarily an advertising programme; that it should be a majority programme, not ignoring minorities but catering for the majority. I cannot help thinking it has carried out what it was supposed to do and has done it well, and the criticism of the Pilkington Committee in this connection is rather like re-debating the Second Reading of seven years ago. Indeed, I would say that, if the advertising programme of the I.T.V. had been a failure or a near-failure, Pilkington would have been glad and would not have had to write these strictures. But it has been a success. Let us now rejoice about its success and examine it.
First of all, I affirm that success is indivisible. You cannot say: "We have a most successful business but, unhappily, it does not make a profit and so we are going into liquidation." That is not good sense. A most successful business
682
makes something that the public want, or provides something that the public buy, or renders service that the public need, and makes a profit. It is noteworthy that most businesses which do not make a profit go into liquidation, or have to be nationalised. May I then examine, without any passion but coolly, what are the advantages of making a profit? First of all, if you make a profit you pay a lot of high taxation. Now that, surely, is a good thing for the nation. Then in this particular sphere you have the incentive, driving you forward more strongly than most other incentives drive men forward, to do something quickly and to do it well, and to hire the greatest skill and mobilise it and arrange it so that it delivers the goods. This is the most notable example, how in seven years we have covered the land with an entirely new method in the dissemination of speech and pictures, how we have rendered very great service to the community; and I want most briefly to list these services.
There is, first, the profit made by the programme companies, which has paid high taxation. There is, secondly, the fact, which cannot be denied by anybody and which is, indeed, praised by the Pilkington Committee, that this network of dissemination has been created in a short time, with remarkably good administration, executive work and technique. Good as the B.B.C. was, and I as an "old love" of the B.B.C. and one-time Governor of it would be the first to praise it, it cannot be denied that it woke up quite a bit when this rival came into the field. It became more amenable to public criticism, more sensitive of the public taste. It was compelled to pay its script writers, its producers and all its technicians more, lest they should be stolen away by this new rival. It therefore got keener and better service, and it did in fact produce in its own programmes, both sound and television, a better service the moment it was subject to competition. That is not surprising. I am one of those people who believe that that is exactly what competition does, and that is exactly the reason why competition is desirable.
Then, my Lords, it created a boom in the light electrical engineering industry and we manufactured vast

683
numbers of receiving apparatus, considerable numbers of transmitting apparatus, and the aerials which my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh dislikes so much. There I would say, in parenthesis, that I think the trade should do something to try to get all these signals into one aerial, to remove the horror of the thousands of aerials that are to be seen defiling our rooftops. But to come back to the theme, there was a great incentive to the manufacturing industry, the light electrical engineering industry, to make sets. Almost every house in Britain has a television. That has meant a lot of wealth, a lot of employment, a lot of taxation, a lot of good money for the scientists, developers, and executives. Surely, that is a good thing.
I would say, in passing, that, in general, profits have this result. It is all very well to say that you can accept other incentives such as public service, love of country or religious excitement, and there are no doubt minority groups among whom these incentives prevail to a high degree. But for the ordinary run of mankind, the profit motive to get on and do a bit better is the motive that produces the most immediate response. We all have our prejudices. I suspect, from reading the Pilkington Committee Report, that they might find their prejudices were very much the same as those of the noble Lords opposite, against profits in general.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, to whom I am listening with great interest? Why should it be supposed that Sir Harry Pilkington, who is the chairman of one of the largest and most distinguished private businesses in the world, would be opposed to profits?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: By their lights so shall ye know them. I can only say that in reading these strictures of his unanimous Committee upon the I.T.V. I could not help thinking, perhaps wrongly, that the profits I.T.V. had made had excited their envy and jealousy, as I suspect they have excited the envy and jealousy of noble Lords opposite.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, perhaps I might ask the noble Lord a question about that. The noble Lord is presenting an interesting argu-
684
ment for profits, but what many people feel is that the profits in this industry have been altogether excessive. Perhaps the noble Lord would say a word about that.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Yes, my Lords. I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me that opportunity. Whereas I think some people have a prejudice against profits, and therefore would look at this I.T.V. development over seven years with a jaundiced eye, I have a prejudice in favour of profits and I would rejoice, because of the good that it has done to the country, some of which I have enumerated in detail—and I do not want to make my speech too long by elaborating it. I think it has positive and very great advantages. Moreover, there is nothing out of the way about a new industry, or a new public service, or a new design of this kind making great profits. I suppose great profits were made by Lord Northcliffe, by Lord Beaverbrook, by those who started the popular newspaper. Why not, then, by those who start popular television? It does not seem to me wrong. There is this prejudice, which I think has entered into some of our thinking in the matter, and I venture to rebut it.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Is not the difference between Lord Northcliffe and Lord Beaverbrook, and I.T.V. and these other contractors, that in the latter case the contractors were given monopolies? They were given captive audiences in various parts of the country, and, so far as I am aware, neither Lord Beaverbrook nor Lord Northcliffe ever had captive audiences.
LORD STONHAM: Nor, my Lords, did they ever have a licence to print money.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Of course, my Lords, this licence to print money is just a caption. It is a number of words that have no meaning. But, as regards the monopoly question, it is a fair point which the noble Lord has made, and later I am going to suggest that we take this into account. It is true. Nevertheless, let us rejoice that this experiment, started by Parliament's initiative seven years ago, has been a success. Let us not be so cross because

685
they have made so much money: let us be glad. That is the point I am making, and I beg leave to let it stand on its merits or fall on its demerits. I would say, do not Jet us destroy this creature which has done us so much good. Let us rather revise it, review it; but, above all, do not let us destroy it.
There is another advantage which it has provided for us, and that is in the field of exports. It is not unimportant that we have been able to export, not only receiving apparatus and transmitting apparatus, but also scripts and ideas. It is not unimportant that we have been able to bring into this field a number of bright, young, clever people who would not have entered it but for the high rates of pay which I.T.V. started paying and which the B.B.C. did not think of paying beforehand. All that, surely, is a good thing. It is not unimportant that (the actors and actresses have now two people at least to employ them, instead of only the one. They were much at a disadvantage when they had only the one. All this was in the minds of those who favoured and supported the breaking of the B.B.C.'s monopoly seven years ago, and I was one of them.
Now it is said that, by way of remedying the so-called iniquity of this position, I.T.V. should itself start selling advertisements. My Lords, I do not think that is practicable. The aversion to the selling of advertisements by a public corporation is obvious in the manner and behaviour of the B.B.C. From my own knowledge of their behaviour and working when I was a Governor, and afterwards, I ventured to invite them to sell advertisements years and years ago, but they would not; nor do I think that, if they had, they would have done it successfully. I do not for one moment suppose that I.T.V., with a new term of reference not to be popular but to be only serious, to behave only in a minatory manner, would successfully sell advertisements. Then there would not be the money, and then, my Lords, there would not be I.T.V. in the sense that we have it now—good, widespread, growing, vigorous. It would not be there to take the money, and there is no other way in which money can be had—at least, no other way in which it can be had so easily. I therefore deplore the suggestion that the dealing
686
out of the advertisements and the outlining of the advertising programmes should be invested in the central authority, the I.T.V. I do not think that is the kind of organisation, or that we could create an organisation, that could undertake the task. Indeed, I say it is only the fact of these commercial companies selling this advertising for the highest price they could get to approach the largest number they could reach which made the large sums of money, and obviously we need the large sums of money.
Now when I listened to my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth—and he and I have been political friends for some forty years—and to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, I bethought me of an old soldier's song. I will forbear to quote some of the verses to your Lordships, but one of the verses is perhaps relevant. The theme of the story was that of some parents who lived in the country and whose daughter went to London to earn her living as an actress. It was feared by her parents that some of her activities might have been of a very doubtful character, because she made money so quickly. The verse that I want to call to your Lordships' attention says this:
"But her poor misguided parents, in the village where they live,
Though they drink the wine she sends them, yet they never can forgive."
My Lords, that, as I see it, is exactly where the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and, with respect, the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, stand or sit. They want to take this money and give it to the honest, pure, untainted B.B.C. They do not mind the source from which it comes. At the same time, they say, "Let us make the I.T.V. so dull and so unpopular, and let it appeal to so many minorities, that the great mass of the people stop listening to it, so that there will not be any money." This is both hypocritical and nonsense, it seems to me, and they have not a leg to stand on in this proposal.
Now, my Lords, I venture to declare an interest (not an interest in TV. or in radio, or in radio manufacturing, but in some of the companies which advertise on T.V.; and, in particular, in a pharmaceutical company) because I want to call attention to a recommendation which is made by the Government

687
in paragraph 66 of the White Paper, where they suggest that medical advertisements should be referred to a panel of medical consultants. None of us wishes that the public should be misled about medical advertisements, about invitations to self-medication, but may I take just a minute of your Lordships' time to say that quite an important element in the advertising on I.T.V. is these very advertisements of branded medicines which have a public appeal and which are sold direct to the patient and not through the doctor? I declare an interest as being a director of one of the largest of these manufacturing firms, and the first point I want to make is that if these companies did not provide simple ways of curing a headache or a bellyache, then the doctors' consulting rooms would be so full of people inviting them to give them prescriptions that they could not do their work. They are overworked now, but then they would have 40, 50 or 100 people a day coming in.
It is therefore a public service which is rendered when these well-established, well-known household remedies are brought to people's notice and people are told where they can get them and what they will do. There may be a danger here, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and others, if they are going to speak on this matter now or at any other time, will tell us of it—the danger that you can run into this or that disease which a doctor might have investigated or diagnosed. I am well aware of that; but the fact remains that the great mass of the people must be served or they must go on with their headaches or their bellyaches.
Now this trade is not composed of a small number of irresponsible quacks: it is composed of some very fine and well-known firms. Their names I will not mention for obvious reasons, but they are well-known and well-respected, and their goods are bought by millions of people with respect and with results. They spend hundreds of thousands of pounds a year on research and development, and they have made their own contribution towards both the ethical and the advertised brands of pharma-
688
ceutical products with which we are familiar. Moreover, they have medical men in their employment; and, as a group of employers, they band together and subscribe to an advertising convention, upon which the British code of standards is itself based, which requires a high standard of veracity and accuracy in their advertising. I ask simply that, if it is to be suggested that these advertisements alone are to be subject to some special panel, then a representative of the trade, which is the Proprietary Association of Great Britain, should be joined with this panel—not necessarily more than one of them, but at least one, to sit with the doctors, in order to tell them what is going on in the trade, and to win their confidence, as I am sure he would. I just ask whether that can be taken into account.
Finally on this little subject, I would say that the Pilkington Committee do not pick out, nor has anyone else picked out, so far as I know, these particular advertisements for criticism, and yet they are the ones which are picked out in the White Paper for this special treatment. I have no objection to the treatment, except that it is partial treatment; but if the trade itself was allowed to consult with the Ministry of Health about this, perhaps the Government could accept a P.A.G.B. trade representative on their panel of medical consultants.
Now I come to my praise for some of the practical recommendations in the Pilkington Report. First of all, the proposal to increase the lineage, or the lines in the picture, is an obvious one. That proposal has been made by many of us before, and it is a pity that we did not do it ten years ago, as I ventured to recommend to Lord Beveridge's Committee. Colour: I approve of that. The proposal that the B.B.C. should have the new U.H.F. channel: I approve of that, but I really do not see why the fourth channel should be kept waiting for some years, as the Pilkington Committee suggest, until the I.T.A. has revised and reformed itself. I do not think that the I.T.A. need this revising and reforming, at least, not very much; and if we are going to wait until a new system of running the I.T.A. has been established, we shall have to wait for years for the fourth channel.

689
Why not let us have it now, right away, along with the new B.B.C. channel? It is my guess that we shall find it is the independents who will get their fourth channel going sooner than the Corporation do. At least, there will be strong competition between the two to get it going, and perhaps we shall not have to wait until 1964. I would not suggest that the fourth channel be given to the same operators as the present commercial companies, but to another group, so that we should have yet more competition, which I believe would be a good thing.
I come now to the noble Lord's question about too big profits. As I have said, I think profits axe a good thing, but there are certain cases in which profits can take advantage of a situation, such as a monopoly situation. I do not think anyone is to blame for the fact that this has happened in this case, because, as the Lord President reminded us in his opening speech, when a few people put their money into this thing—and I was not one of them—they might have made a loss, but in fact they made a booming profit. If there is now the opportunity to revise the Charter or the licences, it would be open to Her Majesty's Government to say, "We shall now charge you a substantial rent". There are many precedents for this. There is one at the place where I live, in Regent's Park. There is only one lake there, so it has a monopoly value; and there is only one group of tennis courts. It is the custom for the Office of Works to let out this lake and the tennis courts to an entrepreneur; they let them out on a rental basis, plus a share of the profits. Maybe he pays £1,000 a year rent and pays 10 per cent. of the profits—whatever they may be; but I see no reason why we should not do that, and thereby make this extremely valuable monopoly of advantage to the promoters, and make the enterprising ones pay something to the community as well. Nor, indeed, do I see any reason why the B.B.C. should not have some of it. It could be regarded by the advertisement channels as being a bit of compensation to the B.B.C. themselves for not going in for advertising. There would be some equity about that which I do not think we should ignore.
On the subject of channels and U.H.F., there was a time when we thought that
690
there was no room in Europe for more than two or three hundred middle-range channels and one or two long-range ones. Then the scientists brought us in touch with higher frequencies or shorter wavelengths, and we found that there was more room; and as we went down in the spectrum, we found we could transmit T.V., V.H.F. (very high frequency) and now U.H.F. (ultra high frequency). I am sure the scientists will go on finding more ways in which we can transmit. After all, if you can transmit to "Telstar" or to the moon, it is not a lot to ask that you should transmit a little further in Britain.
Then we are offered pay television. I will not go into this in any detail, except to say, with some little vanity, perhaps, that I also recommended this to the Beveridge Committee in my evidence ten years ago; but they ignored it, as the Pilkington Committee are hedging about it now. My Lords, we ought not to ignore these new channels, these new methods. We ought not to say that this must be a stereotyped public service run by one or two stereotyped corporations. Let us praise God that we have the B.B.C., with its public service tradition and its stereotyped methods, and that we have this other, more venturesome, free enterprise taking advantage of every situation it can, serving the multitude; to some extent, if you like, ignoring the minorities. I do not mind that. I suppose the Daily Mail ignores the minorities and leaves them to The Times. And why not? Do not let us close down on these great technical advances, but let us take every advantage of them. If we do not do so, and if we do not do so by advertising, then we are going to deprive our people of an enormous advantage, which I think they have enjoyed in the last seven years, and which I think they can enjoy in the future. Let us be forward-looking and optimistic, and say that there is great merit in variety, and great merit in letting enterprising people try all sorts of ways of making money, making profits, providing wealth, employment and taxation. That is surely the way to a better time for our people than the way of restriction and control.
7.18 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, in view of the number of speakers still

691
to come, I will try to be very brief. This may make my remarks a little disjointed, but no doubt that will be forgiven in the interests of brevity. My Lords, I am sure that Liberals do not wish to make this important subject a matter of Party controversy. The inter-Party discussions which are promised in the last paragraph of the White Paper on Party Political Broadcasting should help to keep Party considerations out of the other matters to be decided. In my opinion, the Government are wise to take only limited decisions—the limited decisions indicated in the White Paper—and to reserve for longer consideration some of the more difficult matters raised by the Pilkington Report, more especially in the light of current developments which the Pilkington Committee apparently did not foresee. Personally, I see no reason to quarrel with the proposals contained in the White Paper, so far as they go; but I should like to see included in the preliminary decisions a few suggestions which I should like to make.
The first relates to sound broadcasting, dealt with in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the White Paper. I should like to get rid of the widespread inference that the Third Programme is intended for a peculiar set of highbrows and that the light programme is intended for mass appeal. I should like the channels of the B.B.C. renamed I, II and II, and the Third Programme should be II and not III. I should like these three programmes presented as alternatives between which, from day to day, listeners would be invited to make a choice. In order to help this choice I should like to see more detailed information about the programmes published in the daily newspapers, even if the B.B.C. have to pay for the extra space needed to get this.
The second suggestion is designed to emphasise the responsibility of the B.B.C. to licence-holders, whose payments keep them going. I should like the licence holders treated as shareholders, with votes each year for a proportion of governors or directors retiring or standing for election. I should like to see licence-holders receive every year a report from their directors. With the report, voting papers could be delivered by the Posit Office, stamp-free as also the
692
returned voting paper. This is all I would say on the preliminary decisions, and I now turn for a few minutes to the wider questions raised in the Pilkington Report.
I agree with all that is said in the Report on arrogance—the arrogance involved in thinking that anybody knows what is best for others or what others desire. I am prepared to take my stand, as the Committee do, on the simple duty of providing a maximum choice of alternatives for viewers. This would include some more adventurous experiments, I hope. But I would strongly dissent from the method by which the Committee suggest this can be achieved. I think that their proposals for reconstituting the I.T.A. are impracticable, even if they were desirable, which I should question. And, so far, no one except the noble Lord who has just sat down seems to have counted with the possibility of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. After all the Exchequer is the biggest recipient of those profits which are so often mentioned. I would also point out that there are several other bidders for advertising revenue, and it may be that the speech which we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, will give some advertisers cause to think again.
To stress the need for strengthening the influence of I.T.A. is quite another matter. I think that this involves widening the field of competition in available programmes. I am sorry that the Committee relied so much upon "volunteered" evidence, which is purposeful, if not propagandist, apparently without a thorough independent check. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, as a democrat I cannot accept the assumption that because a programme appeals to a majority of listeners it is necessarily bad or trivial.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Who has ever suggested—either in the Pilkington Report or elsewhere—that a programme which appeals to a majority of listeners is necessarily bad?
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I think that is plain in the Pilkington Report.
LORD SHACKLETON: Would the noble Lord then quote the particular passage, because in fact they say exactly the opposite. I should like to know what he is referring to.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, it is quite clear, I think, from the Pilkington Report that they consider that any programme which is based on an appeal to the majority cannot be of the standard or fulfil the purpose which they lay down for good television.
LORD SHACKLETON: Where do they say that.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, nor do I consider that what I or others may term triviality, which, after all, involves personal taste, the greatest of offences. History is full of examples of harm done by the well-meaning and the busybody. I have also learned that we tend to overrate ourselves as guardians of moral standards or the providers of what is good for the young or for the majority. It is better to express simply our personal preferences through our behaviour. I have often been surprised to find that what I thought might have a bad effect either had no effect at all or had quite a different effect from what I anticipated. All the same, I dislike very much some programmes. I find young people to-day eager to know more, and I am sure that much that is useful and educative can be produced in an interesting and attractive way. Nor do I think that all programmes are suitable for general transmission. Some may be suitable for specially interested groups but may be in bad taste in a general programme. In this matter I consider the B.B.C. more guilty than I.T.A. But with a second channel it should be possible to remedy this fault.
I am a little surprised at the vehemence of the attack of the Committee on the I.T.A. and the programme companies. Never having appeared either for the B.B.C. or I.T.A. perhaps I can say this. The programme companies must be judged to some extent by the qualities of the performers they put on. A great deal of attention has been given by them to serious questions, to serious inquiries, and I find among their speakers such upholders of high standards as the directors of a number of county education authorities; educationists in many
694
varied fields; prominent leaders of the Churches; many Members of your Lordships' House, including our noble and teamed Leader and my noble friend Lord Beveridge; many Members of another place, of all three Parties, among them several of those who are the leaders of their Parties. Surely the Committee's condemnation should have been qualified, if only to exempt such dedicated servants of the public from their strictures?
7.30 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, as it is so late, I will, like the last speaker, be brief. I would ask your Lordships' indulgence if I have put together a speech which inevitably has come together as the debate went along. I will begin, as so many Lords have done, by welcoming the Committee's Report. I feel that, whether or not it is pompous, as perhaps it may be, it is certainly not arrogant; and we can I think, say that its integrity is absolutely outstanding, and the matter which it has put before the public is a good subject for your Lordships, as it were, to bite on. The White Paper also gladdened my heart, for reasons which I will mention as I go along. But I do feel, the matter being so complex and important, that it is quite right for the Government
"to avoid precipitate decision"
on matters which can wait. At the same time, everyone welcomes the technical decisions (by which I mean the electrical and mechanical decisions) in regard to wavelengths. In that respect, I agree fully with my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale.
I turn to the White Paper, and my only comment on the early pages is on the matter of the fees for the Chairmen and Governnors or members of the Boards. Particularly with regard to the Chairmen, these fees seem to be on the low side, in the light of the responsibilities and the burdens which are even now laid upon them, and which will be increasingly onerous as broadcasting develops, as I am sure it will. As a Scotsman, I welcome the extension of the powers of the National Broadcasting Council for Scotland in relation to television, and the recommendation regarding an Advisory Committee on Scientific Problems. While the Government

695
reserve their position in regard to other committees, I feel it is fair, as it were, to utter a warning that a multiplicity of committees (I am sure that the noble Lord who is to reply would be the first to appreciate this) may result in executive functions being bogged down.
It is clear to me, as I think it is to all noble Lords, that there is no need for an additional sound broadcasting service. But, at the same time, I welcome the extension of the hours of sound broadcasting. In this respect, I would suggest that consideration be given to the idea of putting on "Yesterday in Parliament", or some such programme, which now comes on at 8.45 a.m., earlier. The time of 8.45 a.m. is too late for the average man or woman who goes out to work. It is worth remembering that this item, the review of Parliament's affairs, which is a duty of the B.B.C., is of increasing interest to listeners the further one gets from the cities with their evening papers and up-to-date morning editions of newspapers. It should also be appreciated that an earlier programme overnight must inevitably be incomplete, yet at 10.45 p.m. many working folk are abed.
To turn now to television, I confess that I do not often look at commercial television. My own set in Scotland does not take it; and in London, frankly, I find that I do not like it. I feel that, compared to the B.B.C., its quality is low, and I hate the interruptions for advertisements, which antagonise me to all the products which they advertise. Nevertheless, it is fair to appreciate what my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale has said: that it does provide a service which is appreciated by many people; and when we come to the matter of triviality and violence, I will mention it again. Other noble Lords have mentioned the fact that we are still on the threshold of television development, and I certainly believe that to be the case. For this reason, no time should be lost in pressing on with the South West Scotland service, so that that area can come within the scope of Scottish television.
As for colour television, what delights lie in store for us when this becomes available on our screens! It is almost difficult to remember what it meant when black and white film was replaced by
696
colour, and colour television is something to which I greatly look forward—roll on the day! Did the noble Viscount wish to say something?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I was only going to say that it is far too expensive for me, at any rate at present.
LORD FERRIER: Presumably, there will be the third channel which I hope will be introduced without delay and will be used as a basis for experimentation. I agree with other noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the fourth channel being pressed forward, so long as the technical difficulties, which I imagine exist, can be overcome; and I also deduce from what has been said that this fourth channel may well be given (and I think wisely) to a commercial organisation.
As for violence and triviality, I must say that I was brought up on the motto:
"Never, never, let your gun
Pointed be at anyone."
It horrifies me to see the extent to which little people in wide hats point their guns to-day. But there is nothing that can be done about this unless some sort of educative influence be brought to bear, so far as the young are concerned. As for triviality, let us not be too ready to make up our minds as to what is trivial. I personally regard "Compact" as rather trivial, although none of my family would miss it for anything; but none of them would join me in listening to "Grand Hotel" on Sunday evenings; and, of course, the young members of the family listen to jazz, which neither my wife nor I can take—I think that is the word.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The correct expression is whether you "dig it" or not.
LORD FERRIER: That is correct: we do not "dig" jazz.
On the subject of advertising, I should like to develop a matter which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale: he told me that he was very sorry he had to go, and I said I would bring it up. I refer to paragraph 266 of the Report, which says:
"The British Medical Association proposed that advertisements on television for drugs, medicinal treatments and preparations should

697
be prohibited. As this ideal was not likely to be achieved soon, the Association advocated, as a second best, the setting up of a committee to preview all such advertisements."
I have some doubt as to whether "ideal" is quite the right word there, as I think my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale would have agreed had he been in the Chamber. I turn from there to the White Paper, where the last sentence of paragraph 66 says:
"In this context the Government has in mind a statutory requirement that all medical advertisements should be referred to a panel of medical consultants to be appointed by the I.T.A. after consultation with professional organisations accepted as appropriate by the Postmaster General."
In view of the fact—and this is little understood, I believe—that no medicine which is prescribable under the National Health Service is ever advertised to the public, either on television or in any other way, it is worth thinking over what the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said. He suggested that self-medication products were medicaments which warranted the introduction of a member of the P.A.G.B. in the panel to which the Government refer in the White Paper. Whether that be wise or not, I am not at the moment able to state.
Your Lordships may not be aware that I am chairman of a group of pharmaceutical companies, but our manufactures are entirely ethical—in other words, they are never advertised to the public. I would repeat that no product which is prescribed on the National Health Service is so advertised. Nevertheless, I feel it would be worth considering Whether certainly a representative of the pharmaceutical industry, perhaps with the addition of the representative to whom the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, referred, should be included in a medical panel. It is worth mentioning that this industry, which is at the moment the subject of a series of what are, in my judgment, quite unreasonable attacks, is the industry which in this country employs a higher percentage of graduates than any other. This matter is of importance, I believe, in considering the value of the products which they place at the disposal of the public.
To turn again to the White Paper, I should like to refer your Lordships to Part III. I am not so happy about this problem of monopolies and of the mono-
698
polistic control which may develop if more and more channels are placed in the hands of the B.B.C.—and in this respect I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. It is not only the possible monopoly of Press and television but also the monopoly even of sound that I dread. I am consequently glad to see that in paragraph 76 the Government have set out their intention
"to take cognisance of public reaction before reaching a decision."
Opposed to sponsorship as one may be, as I am in principle, I would rather have sponsorship to a very great degree in almost any form if that is the price that may have to be paid for avoiding a monopoly.
In this respect, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said in his speech. When one comes to the question of programmes, I also agree with what the noble Lord said about the importance of co-ordinating programmes if they are not to be a monopoly, and I would seek some study of this point which I think was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, in her attractive speech. Monday's "Panorama" programme was a clear indication of how heavily the mighty can fall; nevertheless, I am a staunch supporter of the B.B.C., as I feel everyone must be who has had the experience of listening and viewing in other countries.
I myself believe that, given proper safeguards, local stations might—and I repeat "might"—be a remedy for protection from monopolistic control, which might even extend to indoctrination or widespread sensationalism. I hope that one of the matters to which the Government will give close regard will be this problem of local stations. The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, referred particularly to the problem which I see I have noted here, and I feel that to deny the availability of local stations to the public will be a heavy responsibility as time goes on, particularly in a sparsely populated area, which probably means agricultural areas. Theirs is the chief need for local broadcasting, and I trust that this will come and not be long delayed. So far as pay television is concerned, I also believe that that will come, and that nothing will stop it. Within its own proper sphere it is a

699
proposition which should be taken seriously in hand.
If the coming of the I.T.V. has contributed something of value to television and enlivened the B.B.C., it has in some respects lowered its standards. That is my own view, certainly as regards sensationalism. Imitation is not altogether beneficial. Here again, I would mention the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that this imitation has led to similar programmes being given at similar listening hours. To my mind, as the number of channels increase the need of inter-channel advice of coming programmes needs watching. It is all very well having to scan the newspapers, but this question of giving details of programmes on other channels is something which, in my belief, should be made almost obligatory.
I look forward to the rest of this interesting debate and rejoice that, after making up their mind firmly on the strictly technical decisions about channels, the Government will be wise and take careful soundings as they pick their course forward. But let them travel as fast as they can. I look forward ultimately to advances such as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, envisaged when he sat down.
7.50 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that we have had an extremely interesting debate, and I think all the main broad general recommendations have been fully discussed and no doubt will be further discussed. I do not intend to deal with what might be called the principal points, either in the Pilkington Report or in the White Paper, but with perhaps two of the minor points. Before I go on to that, I would just say, in passing, that my general impression is that the B.B.C. is not quite as good as the Pilkington Report would represent it to be, nor is the I.T.A. quite as bad as the Pilkington Report suggests. On the other hand, I would qualify that by saying that I think that the best of the B.B.C. is better than the best of the I.T.A., and that the worst of the B.B.C. is not as bad as the worst of I.T.A.
Before I go on to the two points with which I want to deal, I feel that I must declare an interest. I am the Chair-
700
man of the Federation of British Film Makers, which was one of the many bodies which submitted evidence to the Pilkington Committee. There is the British Film Producers' Association, which also made representations. I think I could say that, broadly, the positions of the two film producers' associations are almost identical and that although the evidence varied slightly it was substantially in agreement. But, of course, I do not to-night speak either for the Federation or for the Association; I speak only for myself. I hope that when they read in the OFFICIAL REPORT what I have said they will agree with me; but I take the risk that they may not. But I am more hopeful that the writers, actors, technicians and studio workers generally will agree with what I am going to say.
Of the two points about which I want to speak, on one of them the White Paper is silent, but I have not noticed this afternoon that the absence of anything in the White Paper has precluded noble Lords from speaking on such topics, and therefore I do not feel I should be any more restricted. That matter is of a quota for television films. I am not referring here to the generally old cinema films which we see from time to time on television. From my point of view I do not want to see them on television at all; I feel that, in that respect, television is just borrowing from another medium and ought to be producing its own material suited for its own medium. Nor am I referring to the live programmes which, for purposes of convenience in presentation, may be recorded either on tape or on film. What I am referring to are the films which are usually series of 13, 26 or 39 episodes, which are made specifically for television. Noble Lords, even if they have not seen these series, will no doubt recognise them by name—series such as "Wagon Train", "77 Sunset Strip", "Laramie", "Bonanza" and so on, which, I believe, are very popular.
These T.V. film series are mainly, almost exclusively, made in America. As a matter of fact, at present the making of T.V. films in Hollywood is a much more important business than the making of cinema films, much to the regret of cinemas all over the world who are now short of their proper product.

701
With the enormous market for television films in the U.S.A. these films can easily recoup their costs in their domestic market and, as a result of their having recouped their costs, can be sold over here at very low prices. In fact, it could be said that it is a form of dumping so far as this market is concerned. The prices for these T.V. film series are so low that there is no possibility of British producers of T.V. films being able to make films at these prices. I doubt whether the prices which are available for specific T.V. films in the British market would represent much more than about one-sixth of the cost of making these films, and, as noble Lords will recognise, British producers could not hope to recoup the difference between one-sixth and six-sixths of their costs in overseas markets.
The two film producers' associations and, I believe, the film workers' organisations, submitted to the Pilkington Committee proposals for a T.V. film quota. These proposals are set out in paragraphs 332, 333 and 334, of the Pilkington Report, and I will not weary your Lordships by reading what the Pilkington Report says about them. In the subsequent paragraphs, the Committee, while sympathising with the proposal, proceed summarily to reject it. But I am bound to say that I think the Pilkington Committee rejected the proposal for a quota on rather flimsy grounds. For example, the Report says:
"Public criticism of foreign material, as distinct from criticism by professionally interested groups, was not so much addressed to the quantity of it shown, as to its quality."
If that means anything, it surely is that there is no public demand for British T.V. films; but if the viewing public is denied the opportunity of seeing what good entertainment British T.V. films could be and how high their technical quality could be, then how can there be a demand for British T.V. films? There have been no opportunities for seeing how good they can be. In the same paragraph we are treated to the very well-worn cliché that
"in principle, art should have no frontiers".
I do not quarrel with that, but I do suggest to your Lordships that the traffic across the frontier should not be oneway traffic; and it is now exactly that so far as T.V. films are concerned.
Noble Lords, or perhaps I should say
702
noble Lords of my own generation, may recall that the Imperial Conference of 1926 placed on record its view that the maintenance of an effective British film production industry was very important in the Imperial, or, as we should now say, in the Commonwealth interest. As a result of that, the Cinematographic Films Act, 1927, was passed and the quota requirements of that Act have been strengthened and maintained by subsequent legislation until to-day. I am submitting to your Lordships that the position of British T.V. film production to-day is strictly comparable with that of cinema films in 1927 and needs the same kind of help. Imported material shown on television in this country accounts for somewhere about 14 per cent. so far as the B.B.C. is concerned, and I believe the Commercial T.V. proportion is about the same. It may well be said that if foreign material is limited to about 14 per cent. there is nothing seriously wrong with that. But from the point of view of the British producers, writers, technicians, and others, who want to be making T.V. films, it is very serious that the bulk of the 14 per cent. of foreign material is made up of foreign T.V. films. I believe that of the 14 per cent. about 10 per cent. comprises in effect American T.V. films. As a result of that, obviously British producers of T.V. films or would-be producers of T.V. films are subjected to a fiercer competition than are the producers of any other type of T.V. material.
For those reasons, and one that I shall come to later, I believe that a quota for British T.V. films is necessary and justified and that that quota might well be the same as for British cinema films: of the order of 30 per cent. To that I would add just one qualification. I think that if the Government on reconsideration were to agree that there should be such a quota, that quota should apply equally to peak hours and off-peak hours. If we do not have that, then we would have an encouragement to the production of quota "quickies" to be shown in the off-peak hours.
I said I had an additional reason, and that is in relation to exports. Since the end of the war the export of British cinema films has enormously developed and revenues from the overseas markets have become substantial and important. I do not regard this as being important

703
from the point of view of revenue only but also from the point of view that a British product is being shown on the cinema screens throughout the world, and I think that is very well worth while. Now television is expanding all over the world, and I should have thought that this House and Her Majesty's Government would regard it as important that British T.V. films should also be shown on the world's T.V. screens as British cinema films are being shown on the world's cinema screens, and not least of all on the screens, television and cinema of the Commonwealth countries. Let us show the world by this means the art and skill of British producers, writers, actors and technicians. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will give proper thought to the proposals for a British T.V. film quota, and not accept the abrupt rejection by the Pilkington Committee.
I would add just one point on that, that the proposal for a quota for British T.V. films in relation to T.V. films in general need not necessarily be a matter for legislation. It could be a matter for administrative action; it could be a matter for agreement between the Government and the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. I am not suggesting that future legislation should be cluttered up with such detailed proposals. It could be done, I think, quite simply by agreement with the B.B.C. and I.T.A.
The second point with which I want to deal is with regard to subscription T.V. or, as it is more commonly known, pay T.V. On this I am glad to see in the White Paper that the Government reserve their decision. But I am sorry to see that they seem to think that a service provided by wire would be more likely to be possible. I personally am not interested in, nor do I hold a brief for, any particular system of transmission. But I fear that a wire service would be confined to the heavily populated areas of the country, and that the more remote and thinly populated areas, where in fact it would possibly be of the greatest value, would be denied such a service. I think the Pilkington Committee is wrong on its two main points on this subject: first, on its view, in paragraph 1001 on page 27:
"If it were commercially successful, it would certainly and significantly reduce the value to viewers of the present services."
704
Surely that is a terribly unimaginative approach. I should think there is not a noble Lord in this House who could not suggest types of programme which would be suitable for pay T.V. and which are not shown either by the B.B.C. or commercial television. It may be they are not shown because they are too expensive, or it may be because they are too long and would not fit into the pattern of the programmes, or for some other reason; but I am sure we could all suggest many types of programme which would be possible on pay T.V. and certainly have not in the past been shown on either B.B.C. or commercial T.V.
In the field that I know most about I know that there are many film producers who would welcome an opportunity of making big films for pay T.V. When I say "big films" I mean, for this country, films in the region of, say, £200,000 to £250,000 cost. Those are obviously quite out of range of free T.V. until they become so old they are almost museum pieces. If new films made specially for T.V. were put on you would have this position: if only one million sets were tuned in to them at, let us say, 5s. a time (which is a very small price for a family, as against the price they would pay in going to the cinema or theatre) it would produce £250,000. From the Pilkington Report I see that for some T.V. programmes the audiences number as much as 18 million, and 12 million is relatively common. On that basis there is no reason to believe that paying audiences for a sufficiently good programme would not be available at the rate of well over one million for specially made films and many other types of programme.
I should say at this stage that I am not unmindful of the bad effect that that might well have on the cinemas of this country. But we must keep in mind that very many cinemas have closed in recent years and that closures are, unfortunately, still going on. In fact, it is prophesied by some of the experts that within a few years there will be only 1,000 to 1,500 cinemas functioning in this country. Obviously, in view of that, film producers must look forward and seek out an alternative outlet for their product, and pay T.V. is possibly the one outlet which they could find. It offers the producers the possibility of

705
getting back their lost patrons and showing them films in their homes instead of in the cinemas.
Leaving films aside for the moment, let us look at other alternative programmes. I am sure we all welcome recent announcements which indicate that we are going to have a National Theatre. That National Theatre, of course, will be situated in London. Could it not be made more truly national if, for example, its first nights were transmitted by pay T.V. throughout the country so that those who cannot come to London would have the opportunity of enjoying them? And the revenues would provide a great opportunity for the National Theatre to put on greater and more ambitious programmes and to relieve those who otherwise would have to subsidise the National Theatre. Similarly, one can go on and multiply examples: gala performances at Covent Garden, important new productions at Stratford-on-Avon, and so on. That is why I said earlier that I thought that the Pilkington Committee's suggestion that pay T.V. would rob the existing programmes of important material, is so wrong. There are so many types of programme which would be available for pay-T.V. but which are not now available that it could be a new and exciting service to the Community.
I should, however, like to make two qualifications about pay-T.V. I think it is important that the most stringent precautions should be taken to avoid the creation of a monopoly. As I said earlier, I have no interest in any particular system of transmission; but whatever system may eventually be decided on, I would suggest that the owners of that system should not be the programme contractors but should be paid simply—I do not mind if they are paid generously—for providing the system of transmission.
I think that the programme authority should be a public corporation like the B.B.C., charged with selecting from the material offered to it, or the material which it may seek out, or the material which it may commission, a balanced programme and a good programme for the viewers. When I say "a balanced programme and a good programme", I mean that there would be some pro-
706
grammes which would have a majority appeal and some which would naturally and properly have a minority appeal. I think that the financial basis should be that from the fees paid by the viewers the owners of the transmission system should be paid their proper remuneration; the programme authority (which I envisage as a non-profit-making authority) would have a percentage to cover its costs and any development work that it might want to do, and the net remaining receipts should go to the provider, the producer of the programme. In other words, I want to see it set up so that the creative people get the benefits, and not the middlemen or the owners of the machinery. With safeguards such as that, I see no reason why pay-T.V. should not be a valuable addition to television, and at least I think, despite the Pilkington rejection of it, that it should be given a trial, possibly only on a small geographical basis.
8.13 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, few Royal Commissions, at least in recent years, have caused such controversy as the Commission on Broadcasting and Television, whose Report is the subject of to-day's important debate. One thing is quite certain—and having listened for some hours to most of the speeches I have been pleased to see it—that this is no matter for political controversy. The Report is most comprehensive. The members of the Commission travelled far and wide; they went to Canada and the United States, and collected a great deal of evidence. Of course criticism of a Report such as this is unavoidable; indeed, any Royal Commission can be criticised. But I feel that we should look at the Report and the Government White Paper dealing with it, from a much broader angle.
I am a television viewer. I watch television fairly frequently, and I enjoy watching it. I enjoy watching B.B.C. Television, and at times I enjoy watching the Independent Television Authority, or Channel 9, or whatever is the appropriate channel. Programmes such as "Panorama", "No Hiding Place", "Music in Camera", "Probation Officer"—I have been quite impartial in the programmes which I have quoted—attract a wide audience, and I think rightly so; because in my opinion

707
at any rate, they are good programmes in their varying spheres. I think that the standard of light variety and comedy programmes on both channels is, on the whole, not high. There are exceptions. Moreover, of course, this is a matter of personal taste. The Commission were appointed by the Government presumably because of the large amount of criticism received from numerous bodies regarding television in this country. The members of the Commission spent two years, or just about two years, on their job. I should now like to examine some of the criticisms which have been made against the Pilkington Report.
One criticism heard is that the man in the street was not represented on the Commission, and that there was nobody from the world of light entertainment. To some extent that is a valid criticism. But, of course, the man in the street has a job of work to do, and few ordinary television viewers can spare two years to sit on a Royal Commission. One fine artiste in the world of serious and light entertainment, Miss Joyce Grenfell, sat on the Commission; and so did a footballer of world-wide repute, Mr. Billy Wright. I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination one could call those worthy people highbrow.
Nevertheless, a curious article appeared in the Sunday Times dated July 1, written by a Mr. Maurice Wiggin, who is the television critic of that paper. I should like to quote briefly one or two extracts from this article. The first says this:
"But I honestly doubt if the members of that bizarre tribunal really noticed how insufferably arrogant their conclusions were. The dual nature of the co-opted committee men is something to wonder at. Put three easygoing Englishmen round a table and call them a committee and they instantly start putting on the committee face and start behaving like different people."
Just what that means I am honestly at a loss to know. I do not quite see that the tribunal which was set up is in any way bizarre or, to give it a more simple translation, peculiar. All the members of this Commission are, in their own sphere, brilliant people. They are not Greek scholars; they are not what one might call working men, employed in industry, or in the coal mines, or something like that. That is typical of the sort of criticism which has been made
708
against this Report from what I would describe as many uninformed centres.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is saying some very valuable things, and I am sure I agree with him about the merits of the Committee. But is it not rather hard on Miss Joyce Grenfell to say she cannot in any circumstances be regarded as highbrow? Is not the noble Lord himself falling into the error of using "highbrow" as a bad word?
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, Miss Joyce Grenfell, so far as I am aware, is a most talented artiste in the serious theatre and in what one might call the revue type of show. So she is what I would call versatile, and, for that reason, was a very valuable member of this Committee.
My Lords, the TV Times of about ten days ago went still further. It was, of course, natural that they should criticise this Report: they are entitled so to do; and it is hardly surprising that they had some hard things to say. But the editor of this magazine—which is a very good magazine, with some very interesting articles, quite apart from its catalogue of the programmes—said, and I quote:
"What the Pilkington Committee wants is the nationalisation of I.T.V."
He went on:
"The Report is automaticaly suspect because common sense alone dictates that nothing could be as perfect as Pilkington says the B.B.C. is, and nothing could be as imperfect as Pilkington says I.T.V. is."
With respect to the editor of this magazine I can only presume that he has not read the Report fully, because, having read it as fully as I have been able to do in the time allotted to me, I saw no mention of the word "nationalisation" and no mention of the fact that I.T.V. should be put into any form of shackles. Certain recommendations have been made as to the future of the Authority, and whether or not these are acceptable is a matter of opinion. Since I myself have no business or financial interest in either channel, I should be the last person to delve, at this late hour, into the structure of the Independent Television Authority.
If I may now turn to one or two specific points in the Government White Paper, I would say at the outset that I think it is an extremely good White

709
Paper, produced, as it was, in such a shout time after the publication of the Report. First of all, in regard to advertising, I was rather sorry to see that the White Paper recommends the ending of the advertising magazines. Presumably, they mean programmes such as "Jim's Inn", and I think another is called "Shoppers' Guide". My Lords, I would far rather see a drastic cutting of those most aggravating advertisements which appear during the programmes themselves. For example, in a programme such as "No Hiding Place", Which lasts for, I think, 45 minutes, there are three "natural breaks", as they are called. I personally find, as do a lot of other people, that these breaks completely destroy the continuity of the programme. I should have thought that it would be much better to have these short advertising magazines, such as "Jim's Inn", Which are in far better taste than these very trivial (and I think the word is used there in its correct sense) advertisements for certain brands of toothpaste, washing powders and other commodities. In any case, as has already been said, many of these washing powders are made by the same firm.
There may be administrative difficulties in this matter, but it does seem that these could be considered and any decrease in the time allotted to these "natural breaks" would be welcomed by many people in this country. A leader in this morning's Daily Mail urged us in this House not to attack advertising. I am the last person to attack it if it is carried on in the proper manner, and I am the last person to attack the Independent Television Authority for putting on advertising. Some of it is quite sound; but some of it is also trite in the extreme.
One point which I see is not mentioned in the White Paper is this question of quiz games. It seems to me an intolerable situation that in a programme such as "Beat the Clock" somebody can earn £500 for diving through some hoops, or something of the sort. I am not saying that the things which people are called upon to do are always easy, but it is interesting to note that the compere of the show often helps these people, or tries to help them, to that end. My Lords, I consider that the Government ought to make it a directive to the Authority to have an inquiry into
710
these quiz programmes. I am not saying that no prizes should be given, but in these days many young people, in particular, do not realise the value of money when they see these very large sums of money being "dished out" week by week in these various programmes.
My Lords, I am glad to see colour television is mentioned in the White Paper, and I think that its introduction will be very much welcomed. But the cost, as I understand it, will be high, and I hope that the Government will lose no time in looking at the future financial construction of the B.B.C. when a third channel is allocated. I think that the allocation of a third channel to the B.B.C. should be made without delay, if that can possibly be done. I personally see no reason why the Independent Television Authority should not have another channel in due course, but I feel that the B.B.C., which is an old-established Corporation and has given service now for many years, should be given priority.
My Lords, it is interesting to note that criticism of the Pilkington Report is now dying down. More and more people are, I think, realising that the Report is worth while. Not everybody agrees with it. There are items in it with which I disagree, and I would be the last person to criticise those who run the Independent Television Authority, whether it is the central body or the regions; they put on some very good programmes. But I think it important that it should be realised that the Report has been carefully prepared, it has been comprehensively prepared, and the very last thing it seeks to do is to attack either the B.B.C. or Independent Television out of hand. The White Paper largely vindicates the Report, and I hope that this House will accept it.
8.32 p.m.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, I should like to say right away how happy I am to be able to take part in this debate on a subject that interests me greatly. If I may, I would for a few moments tell your Lordships about my own personal connection in the past with the entertainment industry, the television and radio industries. This is not from any desire to try to impress your Lordships that I

711
am an expert on this particular subject. On the contrary, it is to justify to myself my intervention in this debate.
In 1953 I had a company producing commercial radio programmes for Radio Luxembourg. This was a very interesting experience for me—it lasted some four years until the advent of commercial television, when of necessity many of one's clients deserted and used their, advertising allowance for commercial television—'because it enabled me to study closely the problems connected with the production of radio programmes, the question of the integration of radio programmes and advertising as such, and the needs of big public companies who wished to advertise their goods in the best possible way through the medium of radio. Subsequently, I went to America, where I appeared personally as a performer playing the piano and speaking on American television; and I also was able to watch American television quite a lot. So in this respect I feel I have some small advantage.
I think it is very important that we realise we are all after the same thing. Every Member of your Lordships' House, myself included, the Pilkington Committee, and, indeed, everyone else, only wants us in this country to have the best possible television service. It is purely on the way this should be achieved that we perhaps differ. I think we cannot proceed satisfactorily along these lines, unless we do so in a spirit of constructive criticism—not destructive criticism, but constructive criticism. In other words, I think it is useless for the purpose of this debate to say how well the B.B.C. or how well the I.T.V. have done. We take it for granted that they have done very well. We know there are men of immense talent in both camps. But I think there is need of improvement in our television programmes.
There seems to me to be too much violence, too much lack of planning, and certain other undesirable elements, which have been touched on so heavily by your Lordships this afternoon that it is not for me in any way to continue to enlarge these points at this late hour. But against that, of course, the best programmes of both I.T.V. and B.B.C. are, I think, very fine indeed. None of your
712
Lordships, I feel sure, who watched Wimbledon or the Open Golf Championships, as I did last week, can fail to realise what a magnificent entertainment television in its best form can provide. It is quite wonderful to bring into the lives of elderly people, invalids, perhaps people recovering from accidents, this marvellous entertainment. I am sure it is vitally important that we see that television grows and progresses in the best possible way.
As I said, the Pilkington Committee obviously had this very much in mind, and it is only on the way that this can best be done that I differ from them: and I do differ from them, because I have always been a great protagonist of commercial television. I was a vice-president of an association called the Popular Television Association, which, as your Lordships well know, was a pressure group, so-called, formed to try to have commercial television accepted in this House. I well remember taking the chair at some very amusing and entertaining public meetings in various parts of the country. At that time I had certain views, which I did, in fact, express in your Lordships' House, and nothing that has happened since that time has caused me to alter those views.
I believe that when commercial television was introduced into this country a great opportunity was lost, because I feel, as I have always felt, that we should have had fully-sponsored television in this country, as in America, and I believe so to this day. This is really where I think the trouble has arisen: not from going too far but from not going far enough. It works in a different way. A company wishes to advertise its goods. To-day one feels that that company is not really terribly interested in the standard of a programme, because it has no say about where its commercial is going to come. They could not care less, so long as their commercial appears on the screen. But in America, where big companies spend vast sums, taking great care over their programmes so that the image of their company shall in no way be tarnished, the standard seems to me to be far higher.
One noble Lord said—and I think it was an interesting remark—that the best commercial television was not as good

713
as the best of the B.B.C., and the worst of commercial television was worse than the worst of the B.B.C. I must, unhesitatingly though rather reluctantly, unhappily though in no way unpatriotically, state that, having watched television both here and in the United States of America, the best of American television is far superior to either. I feel that this is possibly because American television is sponsored, and companies have the right to identify themselves and to take a personal interest in the programmes with which their product is associated.
At the risk of detaining your Lordships—I know it is a late hour—I should like for a moment to go over the major reason why this particular idea was shelved by Her Majesty's Government at the time. I think it was felt very strongly in this House, and in another place, as well as in many other quarters, that if this were to take place companies would tend to lean towards a very undesirable type of programme. They would go for the programme that was most commercial, and they would tend always to plump for the programme that would pull in the greatest number of listeners, which would be wrong. But I do not think it would have worked in that way. I do not think it works in that way in America; in fact, I am sure it does not. I feel that the sort of companies who would have the amount of money available to spend on commercial television—and, remember, they would be responsible for the cost of the programme as well—would certainly not wish to be associated with anything which would in any way lower the tone of their own particular company. I do not think it works that way in America. I think that this is where we in this country have gone wrong, and I think that this is where we have gone wrong from the point of view of the profit question.
It seems to me that in this country to-day we have given to certain people a licence to print money (as the saying goes) owing to a technical situation presented to them on a plate. They can hardly fail to go wrong. I may be naïve enough to believe that it is very fine to make big profits provided they are made by the people who have the talent and the ability and are prepared to work hard in order to make them, but I am not so sure that that can really be said
714
about the big television companies in this country to-day. Certainly in the highly competitive jungle of American fully-sponsored television the greatest profits are made by those who have the greatest ability. When a company goes to an advertising agency in America, there may be six or seven programme companies all competing to provide the programme, and the one who produces the best will finally be allowed to produce the programme associated with that company's goods. I think this is a very good thing.
My Lords, I am aware that this is a very unpopular point of view. I feel that I am very much swimming against the stream. This is a view which, I know, is not held either by Her Majesty's Government or, indeed, by the Opposition. I feel that, although Her Majesty's Government are wrong in this, the Opposition are even more wrong, because I feel that they really do not want commercial television in any form. It is hard to state these views, swimming so very much against the tide. I feel rather like the gentleman of the famous saying, "Everyone is out of step except our Willie". Nevertheless, I think it is only right and fair that someone who feels something strongly, even though it may be contrary to public feeling and even though it is unpopular, should get up and say it, provided he feels it really strongly and from a point of view which is in no way insincere.
I am also very sorry, my Lords, not to see any possibility of introducing commercial radio in this country. I do not think it would have been a bad thing: it would have been a very good thing. It would have induced a new force, a new life, into the entertainment industry. After all, up to the time of the advent of commercial television an enormous number of people listened to Radio Luxembourg. The figures were quite startling; and it must be borne in mind that this was despite the fact that, owing to the allocation of wavelengths years ago, the reception of Radio Luxembourg in the southern part of England was extremely poor. Yet, notwithstanding that, many hundreds of thousands of people listened to Radio Luxembourg, and thus took, away from the B.B.C. a very great part of its listening figures. I feel that great attention should be given to sound radio: it is coming back

715
in a big way in America. There, you can listen to the wireless in a motor car or while you are working, and you can listen without the strain associated with television, which by its very medium requires far greater concentration. I repeat, my Lords, that I know these views are probably unpopular, and they have been decided against, anyway; but it is secure in the knowledge, in my own mind, that perhaps I am right and everybody else is wrong that I have ventured to detain your Lordships to-night.
8.45 p.m.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the Government on this White Paper, as much for the recommendations which they have accepted as for those which have been wisely reserved for further consideration following public debate. Most welcome is the decision contained in paragraph 39, authorising the B.B.C. to put out a second programme in the London area by mid-1954, such programme to be extended as soon as possible to the rest of the country. Here is a great chance for the B.B.C. to exploit to the full the educational and informative possibilities of the medium, and to provide features of interest to a wider variety of viewer.
In this connection, may I quote an extract from a letter from Sir Robert Matthew, President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, in The Times of July 11, which stated:
"A good deal of the public and private vandalism from which we now suffer is the direct result of our failure to educate or interest children and adults alike in the appearance and efficiency of our physical surroundings, yet neither the B.B.C. nor the I.T.A. has any advisory committees or councils concerned with the visual arts, architecture or the environment".
Sir Robert Matthew goes on to recommend that the additional channel gives an opportunity to remedy this situation. If the B.B.C. uses the new programme to cater for minority interests, it will fulfil a real need, but it is to be hoped that it will not be tempted to use the new programme to compete with the existing Independent Television service.
Also particularly welcome is the decision contained in paragraph 37 of Part II, authorising additional hours for the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. for the purpose
716
of adult education. Furthermore, I am sure there are many noble Lords who would agree with the observations in paragraph 75 of Part III, in relation to local sound broadcasting, that as yet there has been little evidence of any general public demand for this. It seems good sense that the development of local sound broadcasting should be delayed until some of the more pressing commitments of the B.B.C. have been fulfilled.
Although a strong supporter of the Pilkington Report I am not blind to its defects: for instance, the too great disregard shown in the Report for the factor of public appreciation, together with the inadequacy of statistical information as to the contents of the two programmes, as was noted in yesterday's letter to The Times from the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. On the other hand, I cannot agree with the view that the Committee had leaned too heavily on the views of such representative bodies as the T.U.C. and the Workers' Educational Association. The list of organisations and individuals which gave evidence is most impressive, covering as it does almost every aspect of our national life.
Another criticism of the Report is that although the question of competition is dealt with and the fact that the B.B.C. have lowered their standards in some measure in order to compete with I.T.V. is clearly brought out, not nearly enough is said about the beneficial effect on the B.B.C.'s serious programmes of the competition from I.T.V. And yet, when ail is said that can be said against the paternalistic attitude of the Committee, the fact remains that the Committee's analysis of the purposes of broadcastng is lucid and penetrating, and there are many thoughtful people who can agree with their verdict, expressed on page 68, that the service of I.T.V. falls well short of what a good public service of broadcasting should be. Clearly, it might be difficult for the Government, in the face of the Report, to authorise a second I.T.V. programme unless and until the organic weakness detected by the Committee in the constitution of Independent Television is corrected. To launch a second I.T.A. programme of the same mixture as before might well endanger development of television in this country by lowering unduly the average

717
standard of programmes. Fortunately, paragraph 81 indicates that no second I.T.A. service will be launched until a decision has been made on the proposed reform of the I.T.A.
The Committee have though out and recommended a careful scheme for the reform of the I.T.A. which, if implemented, would go a long way to removing the defects of the present system. One would imagine that a properly reorganised I.T.A. would make substantial profits from the sale of advertising time, especially as the profits made by the programme companies now are said to be phenomenal. Obviously the scheme will need intensive examination by Government experts, and in the meantime there would appear to be no great hurry to come to a decision. I hope the Government will find it possible to implement the proposals which have been put forward by the Committee as to the structural and financial reorganisation of the I.T.A., but if it is found not to be practicable, to devise some other system of control which will meet the criticisms of the Committee.
8.53 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, it is only to be expected that most speakers in your Lordships' House this afternoon have dealt with the question of television. I should like to concentrate for a few moments on the question of the future of sound broadcasting. One disappointment that I found in the Pilkington Report was the fact that there was little realisation of the tremendous and dramatic change the whole emphasis on sound broadcasting has taken since television came upon us. There also seems to be very little looking forward as to what the future of sound broadcasting will be in the next ten years or so. The situation Which we all knew before the war has dramatically vanished, and I think a great deal of hard thinking has to go into what the pattern of sound broadcasting is to be in the future.
Sound radio has still extremely important functions to perform, but I feel that as time goes on it will inevitably became more specialised. Entertainment in the general sense, sport, even politics and current affairs, must inevitably go, most importantly, to television. But sound radio will always
718
remain supreme in one thing; and that is music. I do not think any of us get very much "kick" out of looking at a symphony orchestra on television; our eyes wander and we just listen to the sound.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Well, anyway, music is one of the best things that sound radio can provide. Also there are talks for minority interests, and there are the reports from your Lordships' House.
I am delighted to see the suggestion in the Pilkington Report that B.B.C.'s Network Three should now operate all day, and should concentrate mostly on classical music. I feel that the ideal situation would be if one could turn on the radio at any time of the day and hear music on one station or another. It would not matter whether it was light or classical music, but it would be an excellent thing if one could be sure of getting music. At the moment one cannot. These music stations in America, which were pioneered there many years ago, have been a tremendous success. They were sponsored in the first degree not by commercial radio, but by universities and the New York Times. Therefore, I welcome this suggestion, and I hope that the B.B.C. will push ahead and set up a really good music station. They might, indeed, recapture some of their audience from Radio Luxembourg.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Foley about commercial sound radio. Although I was a supporter of commercial television, I must say that my experience of commercial radio is one which leads me never to want commercial radio in this country. In fact, if commercial radio is to come to this country, it should have come many years ago when sound radio was at its peak; but now I think it is far too late. The B.B.C., it has always been accepted, are in fact doing a very good job.
I must disagree with the Pilkington Commission on the fact that they turned down the suggestion for a special Director-General for sound radio. I feel that if sound radio is really to develop and progress, it will need its own Director-General. It had its own Director-General in the days when sound

719
radio was not very big, and now, with the enormous responsibilities of television as well, it would seem that having somebody fairly high-powered in charge of sound radio would be a good idea.
My second point, a brief one, is just to refer to the evidence given by the Automobile Association with regard to special broadcasting for motorists. If ever there was a perfect job for sound radio to do, surely it is to broadcast information about the roads in this country. It seems to be a recognised fact that we need weather broadcasts, and that shipping needs its own forecasts. But what about the eight million vehicles going about on our roads to-day? I see that the Pilkington Committee have urged experiments to be carried out, but I would ask Her Majesty's Government, if possible, to say that they recognise the need, and that the experiment is merely to find out the best means. It would seem that until V.H.F. coverage is complete, and, most important, we have V.H.F. radios in our cars, this would have to be done on the medium wavelength. This information must go out over wavelengths on which motorists are usually listening. It would seem to be very easy to do it in the same way as regional weather forecasts, which come in at the end of the National weather forecast, at certain times.
In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to summarise these two points: that I feel we badly need good music stations in this country, and that the B.B.C. are the best people to provide them; and I would urge the B.B.C. to carry out experiments with regard to co-operating with the motoring organisations to give proper information about the roads of this country.
8.59 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, looking round the House I am reminded of that rather lovely old hymn:
"Oh happy band of warriors, marching through the night".
As it is a question of how many of the "happy pilgrims" are really happy, I will keep my remarks very short. I speak as a viewer who has no financial interest in any television company. There can be no doubt that a third channel is needed to widen the range of tele-720
vision, which is one of the most powerful media in this country and very soon may be in the world's communication system. This world is a very complex place to the man in the street, and especially to youth, who, by lack of knowledge and a great deal of frustration, feel that the future is so uncertain that they must live for the present, even if that present is a violent and delinquent one. Surely a knowledge of the world at large and its problems can be explained by television, since the eye is far more receptive than the ear. If more time were given to interesting and instructive programmes than to the Westerns, violent crime and outworn plays, which in many cases have no message and no ending, a great deal of good would ensue. It is to this purpose that I would devote a third channel.
We have so many fascinating things happening in the world to-day—the story of Laos, the struggle between India and China, the history of Formosa and Malaysia, the Common Prayer Book; and the problems of the future, the Common Market, the new Africa and Telstar. I feel convinced that the young want to understand the problems of the world. They are becoming far more discriminating in their choice of programmes. I am not asking that a third channel should be solely devoted to education, but I am asking that discussions on topics of international and national interest should be allocated more time. I think that we shall all agree that it is exasperating when a fascinating discussion is terminated by the words "That is all we have time for. We will now return you to the studio". A third channel would assist the planning of these discussions to a very great degree and also the provision of concerts and music of all kinds. There would always be two other programmes to turn to, if a viewer was not happy with the one which he had tuned into. This channel should also facilitate the extension of religious history, and for this reason I would endorse the recommendation of the White Paper that each channel should have its own religious advisory committee.
I could range far more widely over the possibilities of television, but I must now turn to the third channel and to whom it should be allotted. As my noble Leader to-day has indicated, the

721
Government intend to give the third channel to the B.B.C., and I fully endorse this decision. A great deal of money has flowed into commercial television, and I, for one, feel that this has not been reflected in the excellence of the programmes. The Pilkington Report was undoubtedly too critical of commercial television, and there is certainly room for improvement, both in B.B.C. and in I.T.V.; but in my opinion the B.B.C. has proved itself to be more responsible and should hence be entrusted with the third channel.
It has been canvassed in some places that this channel should be the joint responsibility of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. I am convinced that this would not work. The enmity between the two which now exists would make it impossible to plan successfully a new channel of the standard which we all want. I cannot see how the two can remain in competition on two channels and at the same time work in harness acceptably on a third channel.
If the allocation of the third channel is agreed to, as I hope it will be, we must now consider how it should be paid for, as it would be impossible to finance the new programme on the existing revenue. To my mind it would be disastrous if any Government subsidy were given directly to the B.B.C. as this would be to a degree nationalising broadcasting. This would be a dangerous precedent. Independence of speech on the air is of vital importance, and any financial or other link with the Government of the day would undoubtedly be resented by the people of this country. I feel sure that neither the B.B.C. nor the public would consider financing a third channel by an extension of advertising, and this leaves the two recommendations of the Pilkington Report; namely, an increase of licence fee and a right to borrow with the approval of the Postmaster General.
The White Paper makes the rather nebulous statement that the Government accept responsibility to see that the B.B.C. can secure sufficient income to finance adequate services, but I understand that they do not accept fully that the licence fee of £6 wild be appropriate at this time. At the present time, the B.B.C. get £3 of the £4 licence fee, the
722
other £1 going to the Government. I realise that £6 a year, although a very reasonable sum for so much entertainment, would hit some people rather hard; and, if this fee of £6 is unacceptable, I would suggest that the licence should be increased by 10s., and that the whole amount of £4 10s. should be given to the B.B.C. which, with the borrowing power indicated, would tide them over for the time being. Then maybe, at a later stage, it might be found possible to raise this figure to £6, which would be by far the more satisfactory method, since it would ensure a definite income, independently of any Government influence, sufficient to finance the third Channel.
We must move with the times and bring colour into our television, as it has been introduced into photography. It will be expensive at the start, but I believe that methods will be found to bring down the price of the new sets. We must also move to 625 lines in our new field, if only for the reason that the export of sets must meet the demand. I am a little worried about the future of pay television. It appears to me that if this were a great success, it might involve cornering the market in some programmes of national interest. I doubt whether anyone would pay 10s to see an exclusive of a world title fight, but they might do to watch the Grand National, to the exclusion of all others. I know that Her Majesty's Government have not made any decision on this question. So far as the future is concerned, I trust that any extension will be left in the hands of the B.B.C. who have handled the two services so ably, and I hope that any new local services will go to them.
Finally, there is at the moment a great deal of futility in both B.B.C. and I.T.V., but I think that, on the whole, with the new channel, with colour and with careful discrimination in programmes, we shall have a first-class television in future. As I have already stated, I believe that the B.B.C. have proved that they should have the third channel. I urge that it should be financed by income from licences, as opposed to Government subsidy or profits from I.T.A., and I believe that this channel should be introduced, together with colour, at the earliest possible moment.
9.9 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, nobody can say that we do not cater for minority audiences in this House, but perhaps unfortunately we do not have an alternative programme. I should like to begin my few remarks by declaring a personal though not a financial interest, as a member of the B.B.C.'s General Advisory Council. The B.B.C. have been treated extremely generously in this Report and I am delighted that the Government have acted so swiftly and accepted so many of the Pilkington Committee's recommendations, so far as the B.B.C. are concerned, and particularly the recommendation that a second television channel should be allocated to the B.B.C.
As a Welshman, I should also like to say how pleased I am that the Government have seen fit to authorise the B.B.C. to go ahead as soon as possible with the provision of a new transmitter, using the hitherto unallocated frequencies in Band III to enable a distinctively Welsh service to be provided for South Wales. We in Wales have rankled for a long time at being coupled with the West of England, and it will be satisfactory to all of us to know that we shall eventually have our own service. I think it is also highly satisfactory that the National Broadcasting Council for Wales will exercise the same powers in relation to television as they do at present for sound broadcasting.
Like my noble friend Lord Grenfell, who has just spoken, I should like to draw particular attention to paragraph 59 of the White Paper, in which the Government accept responsibility to see that the B.B.C. receive sufficient income to finance their future services. Like my noble friend, I believe it is quite vital to the future development of the B.B.C, if they are to remain as effective as they have always been in the past, to be completely independent of Government finance. It has been one of their great strengths in the past, and I see no reason to suppose that it would not pay to retain this system of licence-fee finance in the future. I think it is unfortunate, when costs are going up and programmes are being increased, that maybe this licence fee will have to be increased also, but I feel it is vital if we are to maintain a really indepen-724
dent B.B.C. It is not only vital for our own domestic services, but also particularly important for the B.B.C.'s external services because, although these are financed by grant in aid, yet the very fact that the B.B.C.'s programme side is independent of Government finance in this country gives them an independent viewpoint which is most valuable. Also of recent years, the B.B.C. have made considerable progress in the selling of their television programmes to the United States, and I feel that, were there to be Government finance involved, these programmes might not be so readily saleable.
In the further remarks that I have to make I should like to devote myself to the Pilkington Committee's recommendation No. 43, the most controversial one, on the constitution and organisation of Independent Television; and I would stress that anything I say now is in no way the policy of the B.B.C., or in fact any concern of theirs, but is purely my personal opinion. I personally feel that this recommendation has a great deal to commend it, and I hope that the Government will give it the most serious consideration before they come to any final conclusion on the future of Independent Television. The issue has been clouded somewhat by the fact that the Committee's Report in general has perhaps been a little too kind to the B.B.C and a little too critical of commercial television. This has caused some violent reactions, which perhaps have done the B.B.C.'s case no particular good. I feel that there have been faults on both sides, and there have also been significant achievements on both sides.
I should certainly be the last to criticise some of Independent Television's excellent programmes. But what I am critical of is the present organisation of Independent Television and the consequences that this has on the planning of programmes. It has been said that a broadcasting system controlled by a public authority tends to give audiences what it thinks is good for them, while the commercial system gives them what they want. I do not really believe this to be so; and I do not believe that anybody who carefully considers the B.B.C.'s sound services can really maintain that they are directed at giving the listener what is good for him. There are

725
many examples of programmes, such as "Housewives' Choice", "Music While You Work", "Workers' Playtime", "The Dales", "The Archers", and others, which are directed at a majority audience and are put on for the pleasure of those who like to listen to them.
But even at peak hours other programmes are broadcast which cater for the interests of so-called minorities—although these minorities may often number several millions of people. I believe that under this system there is a great deal more freedom to experiment, freedom to appeal to the better tastes among the mass audience and to develop new qualities in broadcasting. The B.B.C. maintain a highly organised and efficient audience research organisation, which provides figures not only of the number of people who listen to programmes, but also of their reactions to the quality of the programmes; and a programme that is not successful from an audience research point of view is very soon taken off the air.
The B.B.C. have benefited in certain respects from the competition of commercial television, and I should certainly never suggest that they should be allowed again to enjoy a position of monopoly in television. But I feel that that competition would be fairer and more nearly competition between like and like, and would therefore lead to a higher quality of programme, if the I.T.A. were reorganised, as suggested by the Pilkington Committee. The very fact that a newly constituted I.T.A. as suggested by them would depend for their finance on advertisers would ensure that, although they were a statutory authority, they would still have to keep a keen eye on the popularity of their programmes. But at the same time they would not have to seek a maximum profit for their shareholders, as the independent companies have to do at the present moment.
My noble and learned friend the Leader of the House posed certain questions which had to be answered before he could finally accept the Pilkington Committee's suggestion for the reorganisation of I.T.A., the first of which was: could the I.T.A. undertake these new responsibilities, in view of the fact that they had been fairly heavily criticised for their rôle in the past in the Com-
726
mittee's Report? I feel that the answer to this particular question—or, if not the answer, at least a gloss on the answer—is that, as constituted at present, they have really had a pretty impossible task to perform. They have had to be a kind of censor and a negative force, and, at the same time, to work through the good will of the programme companies, and I think they have had almost too difficult a task to accomplish satisfactorily.
It is really for this reason that I do not think it is sufficient merely to strengthen the hand of the I.T.A. What is required is positive planning by a new I.T.A. for high quality programmes, with the programme companies concentrating on what I consider should be their proper function—namely, the production of programmes. I believe that this reorganisation would have practical benefits when the time comes to allocate the second commercial channel, as the I.T.A. would then be in a position to plan two complementary programmes, just as the B.B.C. will be in a position to do when they have their second channel. The companies themselves would be left with the task of producing programmes for the I.T.A. Why should this worry them if, indeed, their primary objective is to produce good television programmes? They would have no less opportunity than they have at present, and all the popular programmes that they produce now could continue. If, in fact, they are moire (interested in the sale of advertising space and the maximising of profit from advertising, then I can understand their violent reactions.
It would seem to me that under a re-organised system there would be very little practical difficulty from their point of view. They would exist somewhat as independent film companies exist at the present moment with the I.T.A., in the position of the cinema owner. I believe that this would be a development much to be welcomed by a great many creative producers and writers at present working in Independent Television, who would have far greater freedom to produce programmes of the highest possible quality, without being inhibited by the need to appeal always to the maximum audience at peak viewing times.
To sum up, I believe that a network providing competition for the B.B.C. in television is an excellent thing. It seems

727
to me only practical that it should be financed by advertising and, indeed, it thereby gives a valuable additional outlet, of which I entirely approve, to the advertising industry. It also seems to me right, as it seemed right to the Government in their original conception of I.T.V., to separate the advertisement content of the service from the programme content. Up to a point this has been accomplished, but not fully, as the companies are still sufficiently sensitive to advertising requirements, and plan their programmes basically from this standpoint. The Pilkington Committee's recommendation takes the principle of the separation of programme planning and advertising to its logical conclusion: one central controlling body, the I.T.A., should handle the programme planning and advertising, and the independent companies should produce the programmes. That seems to me a right, logical and fair basis for the future of commercial television, and I would urge that this particular recommendation of the Committee is given the most careful consideration before any final decision is arrived at.
9.22 p.m.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, I well remember a year or two back in Boston being taken by the editor of the Christian Science Monitor to see a wonderful globe of the world which they had just erected in their front hall. It was, they said, the biggest globe in the world, much bigger than anything the New York Times had. Unfortunately, it was so big that you could not stand back and look at it, so they had to cut a sort of bridge through it, through which you walked to see the world. It was wonderful in conception and design, but only notionally resembled the real world. The editor said to me: "Do you not think it is wonderful? It was made for us by Pilkingtons." I am bound to say that, as I read the Pilkington Report, I again and again felt that, although admirable in design, it was often sadly out of touch with the geography of real life.
I always find it very difficult to disagree with my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, although we have disagreed from time to time. On this, I find myself a little in disagreement with him, in that I believe this Report
728
puts far too much weight on secondhand evidence, and has made too little attempt to try to find out what the ordinary viewer wants, what the ordinary viewer thinks of what he is getting, and what kind of programme he ought to be able to have when he turns his switch. On the basis of this largely second-hand evidence, they have built up a picture of television, and particularly, of course, of commercial television, compounded of, to too great an extent altogether, violence, triviality, and what it calls callous behaviour to others. It sounds rather like a quiet week-end at Admiralty House.
I myself have been broadcasting in sound for about 35 years, and appearing upon the screens of the perhaps unfortunate people of this country fairly regularly for a period of about 15 years. Occasionally in the past I have been invited to stay with the Leader of your Lordships' House, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and very pleasant indeed it was. As your Lordships will understand from the company I kept, in the main the kind of programmes I have appeared in have been those the Pilkington Committee say they like. Indeed, I think I could almost say, with my hand on my heart, that never, at any rate on television, have I ever done anything of which the Pilkington Committee would not approve. But I am bound to say that although I suppose I can regard myself in these terms as one of the "good boys", I felt a certain shiver running down my spine as I read the Report.
It so happened that on the night the Report came out I was going down to Lime Grove. I rather expected to find the lights blazing, the champagne flowing, and all the staff trying on their glass halos. But, on the contrary, I found, particularly among some of the brighter, more creative producers and the younger people on the B.B.C., an air of despondency and gloom. And understandably so, I think, because in some measure, although not entirely so, the Pilkington Report has fastened upon the B.B.C. an image of smug goodness, of being the perfect establishment organisation which does only what the right people think right, which it is desirable it should break away from and which, indeed, I think, under its latest Director General,

729
it has been breaking away from. But I found many of the younger producers in the B.B.C. very conscious that this picture which was being created would inevitably tend to strengthen those elements of inertia which exist in all large organisations, and make it more difficult, perhaps, for them to make that breakthrough through top echelons of administration which are necessary if creative television is to prosper.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would allow me to interrupt? I thought he said that the depression among the producers in the B.B.C. when he went down to broadcast that night was the night the Pilkington Report was published. I wonder how they had had time to read the Report and get so depressed.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: I am sure my noble friend is well aware that those who are concerned in public affairs and in journalism have developed over the years the habit of very quick reading of documents and of getting out the main parts of them.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Sometimes wrongly.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: Let me say at once that I believe that in the main the Government White Paper is right at this stage: that it does propose the things that are necessary and immediate, and that in that range of things on the whole, with perhaps some reservations, it takes the right decisions; and certainly in my view it is entirely right that the B.B.C. should have the third channel, because the B.B.C., with all its defects—and it has defects, as all human institutions have—is undoubtedly a broadcasting organisation in many ways, indeed in most ways, without parallel anywhere else in the world, and an institution of which not only those within the B.B.C. but the country as a whole has a right to be proud. It is therefore right that it should be given this new channel in order to enable it to expand and develop new ideas and new techniques and break through a little from the restrictions which sheer lack of space in trying to produce programmes which will appeal to many elements in a diverse population have imposed upon it in the past.
730
But, of course, many of the most controversial issues which are raised by the Pilkington Report remain, and quite properly remain, for further consideration and for further decision in a later White Paper. In considering those, we have to consider, and as the Pilkington Committee do consider, what are the purposes of broadcasting. The Pilkington Committee themselves say, although they admit there is no real evidence to support this, that the presumption must be that television is, and will be, a main factor in influencing the values and moral standards of our society. Is that entirely true? And is the complementary of the principle which they lay down the belief that in many ways so far television, and particularly Independent Television, is having a deleterious effect on the moral fibre of the nation? Is that true? And is it true that there is disquiet and dissatisfaction—to use their own phrase—in the public about it? They have quoted a great many valuable and important authorities for this belief. They did not, unfortunately—and I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, on this point—seek to get and to examine as many first-hand sources as perhaps they ought to have done.
It is interesting that the Sunday Times— and I may well understand that your Lordships will tend to think that this is a suspect witness in such a matter, since it is a member of the Thomson Group, which is very heavily involved in Scottish television—made a survey, and although, as I say, it might on the face of it be regarded as a suspect witness, that survey made by their scientific survey organisation does, in fact, measure up to all the requirements that are normally called for in those opinion surveys which have become so regular a feature of our life. It is a small sample of a thousand—as your Lordships will know, samples often are as small—but a sample weighted to give, so far as possible, an accurate cross section of the society.
They specifically asked this question:
"Are you yourself worried and dissatisfied with television programmes as a whole?"
The result was that 81 per cent. said

731
they were not and only 18 per cent. said they were. They also asked:
"Do you think that television has any effect, either good or bad, on the morals of people like yourself?"
In this case the answer was that 85 per cent. said, "No, it has no effect", and only 14 per cent. said it had. Of course, it may well be the case that the British public are being demoralised without appreciating it; but I must say that in my own experience so far, I have grown to develop a very healthy respect for the common sense of the ordinary people of this country and for their ability to withstand influences of all kinds and from all sorts of sources to try to demoralise them.
As I said earlier, I have spent a good deal of the last fifteen years on television screens, and one the results of appearing on a television screen is, as your Lordships may know, that it leads to all sorts of people regularly coming up to you in the street, in bars, in restaurants, on trains or wherever you may be. They come up and hail you by your Christian name; and if, as I am, you are not very good on faces, it is often a little awkward because you are not quite sure whether it is an old school friend whom you ought to ask home for dinner or somebody who does not like the way you smoke your pipe on a certain television programme. The result is that over the course of the years an immense number of perfectly ordinary viewers have come up and talked to me and have told me what they think about television; not only about my programmes—and I would not dream of boring your Lordships with them—but about television as a whole.
I believe that, although obviously television, like a great many of the social forces and entertainment forces of modern life, is bound to have an effect in creating a general pattern of attitudes, it is a great and in many ways a fundamental error to believe that television has the kind of effect and influence that makes people believe that what it says and the standards which it establishes are right and must be accepted because they come to them in this particular way. On the contrary, I believe that one of the interesting and fascinating things about
732
television is that it has much less of that kind of influence, that kind of determining, imposing itself upon the minds and character and emotions of its viewers, than has radio or a speech on a public platform; because those who appear on television, and the scenes that appear on television, are taken in and become a part of the ordinary family circle. I have again and again been conscious, as television viewers have come up and talked to me, that the attitude in which I am regarded as somebody who appears on that screen is very much the same as that in which they regard a neighbour who drops in and sometimes talks sense and sometimes talks nonsense, and Whom they take for what he is without putting him up on any pinnacle or regarding anything that he says and does as necessarily having an impact or having to be taken with an exceptional seriousness.
Does this belief lead, therefore, to the view that there is nothing wrong with television at all? Certainly not, in my view. I believe that there is a good deal wrong with television, but in many ways for different reasons (although some of them are the same) from those given by the Pilkington Committee. I believe that the failures of television are not that it is setting before the people moral standards which are leading them in the wrong direction, but that it is too often failing to take the opportunity to do what should be the real function of television: that is, to open all kinds of new windows on the world; to stimulate imagination and mind, and to give people a sense of a widening relationship with the people of their own country and of other countries in the world.
Of course there is a good deal wrong with television. Mr. Roy Thomson, that Canadian who so often speaks profound truths, often without apparently always realising what he is saying, is quoted in a recent book as saying, "There must be something very wrong with this country if I can make money in it so easily". And certainly I think it is the case that there has been something wrong with commercial television that so many people have been able to make money in it so very easily.
But what I suggest has in many ways been wrong with those who have organised and controlled commercial television

733
is not their cupidity, which on the whole one would have expected, but their sheer lack, in many instances, of ordinary common sense, even by their own commercial standards. They have made their profits out of advertising. Let us be quite plain about advertising. There is nothing wrong with advertising, kept within proper bounds. The whole history of the freedom of the Press in this country began to be possible when the newspapers were able to draw on advertising revenue and break free from the patronage and bribery of Governments and great interested groups. But surely the whole lesson of the development of advertising in the Press—the commercial lesson which commercial television has completely ignored—is that there is not one public, one mass public, but a great number of publics. What is probably the most prosperous newspaper in this country, the Daily Telegraph, has built up its prosperity by a recognition, not only the editorial but the advertising recognition, of the existence of a public which, on the whole, commercial television has ignored.
I think that what one needs to appreciate is that what is sometimes regarded as the commercial case against programmes of a fairly minority interest, in this period of time, when the breakdown of publics and of the buying habite of publics has been put on so scientific a level, is complete nonsense. I was recently having dinner with one of the heads of the commercial companies who was trying to interest me in appearing in certain programmes which he had in mind filling some "prestige slots" as he described it. But what did not seem to occur to him was that those "prestige slots", which he regarded as something that had to be done, that you had to pay to do in order to keep your face clean, could be perfectly commercially viable if the television companies would break away from this old-fashioned habit of thinking that only one public exists.
In this situation are the Pilkington answers the right ones? Is their proposal that the I.T.A. should plan programmes, and to some extent produce them, the correct answer? I am bound to say that, while this idea is obviously worth considering, there seem to me to be grave practical difficulties about it. I do not believe it is possible to produce
734
good television programmes if those Who plan them are divorced from those who are busy on the actual creative work of producing them. I believe that good programmes arise from the constant clash and interchange of ideas between administrators and the producers, and often from the conflict between them. But clearly, I believe, it is desirable that the I.T.A. should on past experience be given much more power to lay down the general pattern of programmes, the general balance of programmes, and some sanctions to see that that is carried out.
Is the Committee's second proposal, that the I.T.A. should become responsible for the selling of advertising, the existing commercial companies becoming merely production contractors to it, also feasible? Manifestly there are very strong grounds for liking the idea, if possible, of removing from the actual business of thinking and creating programmes the direct incentive to produce those that will bring in the largest advertisement revenue, even if there could be some shifting, because it would enable the companies to understand that they need not always produce a main programme to get a reasonable advertising revenue. I think that has to be considered. I think again that it may be found very difficult indeed. It envisages so complete a change and reorganisation in the structure of the I.T.A., which is not only to become a producing and planning organisation but also a commercial organisation for the selling of advertising, that I doubt whether that organisation as it is could be transformed to do that.
However, what I think we ought to bear in mind is that the commercial companies are operating in air which does not belong to them, from transmitters which also do not belong to them, and which have been provided by public money; that it might be worth while considering whether they ought not to be regarded as agents rather than as principals; whether it might not be possible to consider leaving to them the actual selling of advertising space, but letting them do so only as agents, taking a commission on what they do; and that the I.T.A. should have behind it the sanction that if the programme

735
companies, in order to sell more advertising and therefore increase their commissions, upset the balance of the programmes laid down by the Authority, then their commission would toe withheld from them on those programmes which overstepped the mark and ran contrary to the balance. By some such development one might be able to secure the necessary balance between the incentive upon which commercial television, rightly or wrongly, has been built up and which now exists, and the need for a national publicly-controlled Authority, with the necessary sanctions to ensure that what it says is carried out.
Certainly my complaints, in so far as they are complaints, against the Pilkington Report are that its approach and its remedies are too often negative rather than positive. I believe it to be far too negative in its approach to pay television. I believe that there is quite a possibility that an experiment with pay television would show that it could become an instrument not for providing mass programmes (because I do not believe it to be the case that a mass public which is used to getting its television free, would ever want to put money in it), but for providing programmes for a minority, although often a substantial minority, audience. Certainly, in all our approach to this problem, what we need to do is to search over the period which remains before the final decisions have to be taken, for methods and means Which will free the enormous creative energy which I believe exists among television producers and television people of all kinds, and to ensure that the people of this country are offered the greatest possible variety of programmes, and then leave them to judge those programmes for themselves.
9.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: My Lords, it must have been a foregone conclusion, before the Pilkington Report ever came to light, that it was bound to be immensely controversial; past history of the subject, both sound and television, made that a certainty. And when it was published, in that respect one was not disappointed. But whatever one's view may be—whether there is controversy, one agreeing with something and others disagreeing; clearly this is
736
so from reading the Press and from listening to the many interesting speeches in your Lordships' House today—it seems to me that there are certain points of more or less general agreement.
I think it is as well to bear this in mind in considering the more controversial matters. First, it seems to me that there is complete agreement that, Whatever their faults or their good points, the Pilkington Committee have done a remarkable job. They tackled an extremely difficult problem and they have provided us with something really worth while to get hold of and to consider. I join with other noble Lords who express extreme gratitude to Sir Harry Pilkington and the members of his Committee for the immense amount of work they put in. The second point that I think is rather interesting is that there seems to have been almost complete agreement, if only by lack of reference to them, on the more technical points included in the Committee's Report. Not much has been said today about this, but such references as there have been seem to have been almost entirely fully in agreement.
There follows a further point. I think I am right in saying—it is my inference—that the Report certainly suggests that the B.B.C. should continue as what one might call the leading partner in the broadcasting field. Looking at the Government White Paper, although it does not say as much in so many words, I infer from it that it really supports that view itself. It may be that when the Government spokesmen come to wind up they will be able to be a little more categorical on that point. But that seems to me to be the case, bearing in mind particularly that in the White Paper, while deferring certain recommendations, gives the B.B.C. certain additional responsibilities to carry out.
That brings me to the question that many noble Lords, and the noble Baroness opposite also, raised—namely, that of how these additional responsibilities are going to be financed. I want to say a few words about that. I do so conscious of the fact that it is late and that many other noble Lords have referred to this subject. But to my mind it is so important—and it is sometimes not realised how fundamental it is—that

737
I want to add one or two words in regard to it. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, introduced it first of all. I was glad that he did so because for five years I had the privilege of serving as a colleague of his on the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. and I came to recognise his wise and great qualities.
From paragraph 59 of the White Paper it is clear that the Government accept responsibility for seeing that the B.B.C. can secure sufficient income to finance adequate services. As other noble Lords have said, it does not go further than that. It does not go on to say how the money is to be provided: whether it is to be by the existing method of licences, or whether it is to be supplemented to a greater or less extent by some other method.
My Lords, the point I want to make is that this is no minor matter. It is not just a matter of how the money is to be found: it goes far deeper than that. The Committee discuss this point at considerable length in their Report. In paragraph 492 and subsequent paragraphs they discuss the various ways in which money could be raised for the B.B.C. They mention the licence fees; they mention some form of advertisement; they mention a measure of Government subvention out of public funds. It is not merely a matter of administrative convenience or neatness whether one way or another should be used. The Committee argue this matter at considerable length and while I do not want to take up your Lordships' time in going through their various arguments, there are one or two points that I should like to underline. I say "underline" because I know that one or two other noble Lords have dealt with these points. However, it may be useful if my noble friends on the front bench know that a number of us have raised these points, and I hope that they will realise how important they are.
If it is agreed that the responsibility of the B.B.C. is to do the best they can for as wide a cross-section of the population as possible, then, to my mind, certain essentials stand out. The first is that the B.B.C. must be entirely independent to pursue that objective without being beholden in any way to any outside influences—influences which, in one way
738
or other, either might be prejudiced, or might be thought to be so. The second is that if the first essential is true, then the B.B.C. must also be in a position to be able to plan ahead, not merely one year ahead but many years ahead, and to be absolutely sure of the exact income it is going to get each year—at any rate, to be in a position to make a reasonable calculation as to what income it can rely upon. It is in the light of those two criteria that I think this question of income must be judged.
I personally do not see how the Corporation could be sure of preserving its real independence if it were to be dependent upon the Government of the day for any part of its money; and that would be even more true if it derived any of its money from advertising and had to consider whether it was keeping its advertising clients happy. It may be that some of my friends who are connected with Independent Television will say that I am wrong in this, and that the influence from advertising clients is much less than one thinks. However, I am unconverted to that point of view. It seems to me that any form of Government subvention to make up the funds of the B.B.C. to what they should be if the licence income does not reach the right level would be dangerous in the extreme. It is true, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned, that the overseas services are financed by grant in aid; but I am sure he would agree with me that in this context, if we are considering the home programmes, that argument, if it were to be used as an argument (my noble friend did not use it as such) would be completely irrelevant.
I should like in this context to quote from the Committee's Report as to the conclusion which they reached. In paragraph 526 they were very pronounced on this point. They said:
"We reiterate our conviction that it is an essential feature of the constitution of the B.B.C. that it is financed solely from licence revenue, and we recommend that this be continued."
They go on to say:
"We believe that the public services of broadcasting in this country would suffer if the B.B.C. were financed, in whole or in part, by any other means."
That could not have been put more clearly, and I very much hope that at

739
some stage before the end of this debate the Front Bench speakers will be able to tell us whether or not they agree with that point of view, because it is fundamental.
Before I leave this subject of finance, I should like to say a word about the size of the licence fee. In paragraph 497 of the Report there is a most interesting little table of the comparative sizes of licence fees of other European broadcasting companies. I find this table most interesting because it shows that, even including the £1 Excise licence, the £4 we have to pay for the combined licence in this country is right at the bottom of the list. In other words, the British viewer and listener is getting extraordinarily good value. I think it is something on which the B.B.C. deserves a certain amount of congratulation, although I readily admit there are probably more reasons than one, such as, among others, density of population, that may contribute to this good position.
The Report suggests, of course, that there might be an increase to £6. Various noble Lords have mentioned this proposal, and in some cases suggested that £6 would be unreasonably high for a licence. But, my Lords, would it be unreasonably high? Having regard to the 1960–61 comparative table of European licences, it would still be substantially below the middle section of the table of licences. Fourpence a day, as noble Lords have mentioned, is less than the cost of two cigarettes a day; it does not seem very much. Whatever the figure is—and no one, I suppose, speaking in a debate like this, can judge what the right figure should be, because it is a matter needing careful calculation—I should very much hope that the precedent (though I admit that it is not being used at the present time) of allowing Treasury retentions from the licence fee will not be returned to, because this seems to me a dangerous precedent. The last retention was in 1960–61, when it was 5 per cent.; but only a few years before that the amount was substantially more. The reason I object to the Treasury retention is not merely that I want it to be reasonable for the B.B.C. to have that money, but because here is a sum of money which is rather like a Government subvention.
740
It is at the will of the Government of the day whether or not that retention is paid over. There again the same argument applies as I put forward when I was objecting to Government subventions at all.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, I am very interested in his argument. I should like to ask him whether he has looked at the totals the Government have taken in this way. According to the figures I have, they came to £95 million over the last fourteen years, and in fact £13 million in the last year. I was wondering whether he was aware of the size of these figures.
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: Yes, indeed. I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning the figures. They emphasise the point I am making, because they are very substantial. I did say, I admit, that it was not merely for the sake of getting more money. That is important. But where there are these very large sums of money which can be withheld by the Government of the day, if they do not like what the B.B.C. is doing, it adds strongly to the argument that I have just been making. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
The last point I want to make, on the question of the licence, is about the excise duty, because I am quite sure that the average person who buys a combined licence thinks he is buying a £4 licence; he does not recognise that he is buying a £3 licence and paying £1 tax. While that is a minor point, and while I admit that the position is dearly laid out on the licence itself, yet the overall figure influences the thinking of people when they buy their licence as to the value they receive from the broadcasting services. So I would say that if the new licence is to be £6 (or whatever it is) when the time comes to put it up I hope the Government will not automatically make it £7 by adding £1 excise duty. If it is necessary, as I realise it may be, to raise the £14 million revenue which is collected from this excise duty, I hope some other way will be found to raise it. I would merely comment on that, and I am not arguing that broadcasting is not a suitable subject for taxation; that is quite a different matter. I am

741
merely arguing that I do not like the excise duty on the licence.
Very briefly, I now want to turn to one completely different subject altogether, which I do not think has been mentioned at all in the debate to-day. Reference to it begins at paragraph 276 of the Report, where the Committee discuss religious broadcasting and the Central Religious Advisory Committee. It is quite clear from that particular chapter that, although the Committee recognise that the decision as to which churches should be included in the "main stream" (as it is referred to in the Report) of the Christian tradition of the country must remain a matter, not for the Government of the day but for the corporations, they go on quite specifically to say that they hope this concept of the main stream will be interpreted as liberally as possible. I was a little disappointed, therefore, that in the White Paper—the subject is raised in paragraph 16—the Government do not deal with it at all, except to say that the Committee recommended that more lay members should be included on the Advisory Committee.
They do not say whether or not they agreed with that recommendation, and I very much hope that, perhaps during the debate, they will be able to say whether they agree with this suggestion for greater liberalisation in the subject of the main stream. One realises that this is rather difficult, delicate ground, because it may be asking quite a lot of any Government to express a view which might be expressing religious opinion. Nevertheless it is the responsibility of the broadcasting corporation to cater for all shades of religious opinion, just as it is the responsibility of the corporation to cater for all shades of secular opinion.
Before I leave that point I should like merely to quote from paragraph 283 of the Report. I think it is interesting that the Committee says that:
"It is inherent in the 'main stream' concept that the stream can be widened: the development of religious thought in the United Kingdom shows that some churches which are to-day among those which 'represent the main stream of the Christian tradition in the country' were not so long ago barely tolerated, if not actually proscribed."
I come to my final point, my Lords, and I shall take only a moment. When
742
I last addressed your Lordships on the subject of broadcasting I was urging that colour television should be introduced very much sooner, but I got no change then. I should, therefore, like to say how very glad I am that at long last those who have been working tremendously hard, in research and other fields, to perfect a system of colour television will in the comparatively near future have an opportunity of showing the public what they have achieved.
10.16 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for allowing me to intervene for a few moments before he replies for the Opposition. I will seek to repay him for his courtesy, and your Lordships for your indulgence, if you will give it to me, by being as brief as I possibly can. I think I can honestly say that, like any other responsible citizen, I have a genuine interest in the quality of broadcasting programmes, and I realise the immense potentiality, for good or ill, of broadcasting and television. But I must now disclose not one interest but two separate and private commercial interests in the matters which we are discussing today. In the first place, I am a shareholder in a programme company. I hope the noble Earl will think less ill of me when I tell him that, so far, it has not made any profits; I cannot see any reason why it should make any profits; I hope that it will make profits, and that, even if it should make those excessive profits of which we have heard so much this evening, I should bear even that with such fortitude as I could command.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why he has decided to invest in this extraordinary company?
LORD COLERAINE: Just a belief in the profit-making system, my Lords.
My second interest, which is directly conflicting with the first, is that in another capacity I am an advertiser on television in a fairly considerable way. As a shareholder, I should like the advertising rates to be as high as possible. As an advertiser I want them to be as low as possible. I do quite honestly believe that television advertising is effective. I can never quite see why, but I

743
am sure it is effective. I think that, in general, it is beneficial to the national economy, but it is extremely expensive, and I hold that it is unnecessarily expensive.
The noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, in his speech just now, said that there must be something wrong with commercial television that allowed it to make so much money so easily. I think he is right; there is something wrong with it. But I think it is easy enough to see what it is that is wrong. It is that commercial television is a monopoly. If competition were introduced, then profits would not be excessive, and advertising rates would tend to come down, instead of all the time going up. Therefore, I should hope that the fourth television channel, the second commercial television channel, would come into effect sooner rather than later. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh who made what I thought was such a fascinating speech this afternoon, will not agree with that. But I think he can console himself with the fact that neither he nor I would have to watch this extra television programme unless we wanted to do so.
There is another way in which competition could be introduced and these excessive profits reduced—that is, if the B.B.C would itself take advertisements. I know that the B.B.C. is very shy of this. It is not shy of advertising: a good deal of time of the B.B.C, both on television and on radio, is taken up with advertising the B.B.C. It is not shy of advertising; and, after all, there is nothing particularly disreputable in advertising. The Times is respectable, and it takes advertisements; the Guardian is respectable, and it takes advertisements; the Dail Herald, too, I think, takes advertisements when it can get them. I really cannot see why the B.B.C. is so very mealy-mouthed about advertisements; and if it did have advertisements it would do a very great deal to break down this monopoly and reduce these excessive profits, of which there is so much complaint.
The second point I want to raise, my Lords, is that which was raised by my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale in relation to paragraph 66 of the White Paper, where it is said:
744
"… the Government has in mind a statutory requirement that all medical advertisements should be referred to a panel of medical consultants …"
I have, not exactly the same but similar interests to my noble friend in this matter, and what I should like to put to the Government is this: that they should be very careful before they give effect to this proposal, and that, if they do give effect to it, they should consider, as my noble friend Lord Ferrier said earlier, making some appointments to this Committee of people who are familiar with the industries concerned.
My noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale pointed out that the Pilkington Committee had not in fact made this recommendation, but I think it is worth looking at what the Committee actually said on this subject. In paragraph 266 the Committee said:
"The British Medical Association proposed that advertisements on television for drugs, medicinal treatments and preparations should be prohibited. As this ideal was not likely to be achieved soon, the Association advocated, as a second best, the setting up of a Committee to preview all such advertisements."
I would suggest to the Government that to establish a Committee which is, presumably, to take a fair and objective view, the members of which are serving on the Committee only because they believe there is no such thing as an objective view and that there should be no advertisements at all, is not likely to produce a very fair or a very satisfactory result.
What I find difficult to understand is why the Government have in this matter gone beyond their attitude at the end of last year, because Mr. Niall Macpherson, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, speaking in another place on December 15, 1961, explained that there were statutory prohibitions on advertising matter. He explained that there were certain gaps in those prohibitions but he went on to say [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons) vol. 651, col. 876]:
"The manufacturers, together with the newspaper, periodical and advertising interests, have subscribed to a voluntary code of standards by which they can regulate advertisements outside the statutory limitations."
He went on:
"The code is such that its observance already eliminates all but the occasional unsuitable advertisement."

745
My Lords, if that was Government policy last December, I do not see why it should not be Government policy in July; and if that was a reasonable approach then I would humbly suggest to the Government that it is still a reasonable approach today. I therefore hope that they will go very carefully into this question of a medical panel, and that they will take the industries concerned into consultation before they make up their minds finally.
10.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sure that the time will never come when an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, even after 10 o'clock, will not be welcome in your Lordships' House. I was seeking to find a point of agreement with him, and I can at least agree that the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, made a fascinating speech—so there at least we are at one. A friend said to me a little earlier (it may have been some hours earlier; I have lost track of time; but someone said to me a little while ago) that a bell ought to be rung if anybody made a new point in this debate. I do not think many bells will be rung during my oration: the ground has been very fully covered.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, if I may say so, was at his best. Of course, we do not know what kind of battle is being waged in the Cabinet. Obviously, the situation there is pretty fluid. He may have knocked out some opponents last week, and he may have to deal with a different lot today. But we understand that he is fighting the good fight for the B.B.C., and will continue to do so. Some years ago, at the end of that great debate of November, 1953, he concluded as follows: [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 184, col. 525]:
"In the B.B.C., and in television, above all things, we have an instrument which will enable democracy to win that race in a canter. Must we abandon that weapon, or at least half of it, to the shifting chances and changes of commercial advantage?"
He says today that he stands where he stood, and I only hope that he will prevail. I should have thought his task would grow weaker if he becomes, with the passage of time, the most senior member of the Administration. But, at
746
any rate, I wish him all the luck in his adventures.
I know that for the most part the 23 speakers or so will not wish me to comment on their speeches. There were many speeches (if I may put it in this way) from the Benches opposite which were very acceptable to us, and we on this side felt strongly and powerfully represented, as always, by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, supplemented by the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. I hope that I shall not be thought to be patronising if I say to the noble Baroness that I felt that her speech was a model. If any visitors were to be brought in to hear a speech in the House of Lords during the course of a long debate, I should hope they would hear a speech of that kind. The noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, has set me rather a task by way of comment. It would be impossible to regard his performance as representing the views of his colleagues. But it was once said of Keynes by Sir Winston Churchill that he was a man of clairvoyant intelligence not overburdened by undue bias. I hope the noble Lord will accept the total compliment, or any part of it which he finds appropriate.
My Lords, this has been a formidable debate, and I am glad to think that we are to hear two more Ministers, both of whom have recently received, and earned, promotion, besides, of course, our own champion, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and others. We all feel (and I feel as strongly as any) that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has thoroughly earned his position in this House by his great courtesy and by great energy, and quite as much eloquence as most of us can command—indeed, more than most of us have at our disposal. We wish him all success, tonight and always.
It is for me a special privilege, if I may be allowed to do so, to welcome the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. Of course, we all have a feeling, a quite unusual feeling, of warmth for his predecessor, but if he had to leave the Woolsack then who better to take his place than my old friend, the eldest friend I possess in this House except for

747
the noble Lord, Lord Moyne—and, with his many gifts, including his eleven children, I do not believe that he would be a competitor for the position of Lord Chancellor. So I am very glad that the office should have fallen to the noble and learned Lord. I am glad, too, that someone in what I would call the prime of life should have received promotion, someone in the middle or even late fifties. There is a sort of cult being made now of men of 45. The idea is that any big job should be given to a man of 45. You cannot get anything after you are 45 until you are 90. Some of us will never see 45, or even 50, again; some will have to wait a few years before we reach the Russell level or become octogenarians. It is the middle phase which seems to be denuding us, these days, of that sort of position. I was hoping to sec someone of my own particular period receiving such an elevation. My Lords, I must curtail my remarks.
I agree with the main conclusions of the Pilkington Report, the two main practical conclusions. One is that the next channel should go to the B.B.C., and that has already been accepted. I also agree that the I.T.A. should be fundamentally reorganised on the lines suggested in the Pilkington Report. I agree with that without reservations. But I am aware that it is possible to criticise this Report in a way that is cogent. One cannot ignore letters, such as that of Baroness Wootton of Abinger to The Times. I do not want to seem to argue that there is something infallible about the Pilkington Report. For example—and this was a point mentioned delicately, but I think clearly, by the right reverend Prelate—the Report hardly gives credit to the I.T.A. or to the Independent Television for what they have accomplished in the field of religion. There is no doubt, in my opinion, that there is far more religion today on television, and there is a much more imaginative presentation of it, than there would be if the B.B.C. monopoly had continued. That, I think, is really beyond argument.
If one compares the two, I think one must admit that the I.T.A. have achieved more in this direction in the last few years than the B.B.C. It would be
748
wrong to say that the Pilkington Report altogether obscures this fact. On page 88 of the Report, for example, it is pointed out that the B.B.C. allot to religion about one and a half hours per week, and Independent Television about two and a half hours. Both figures seem to have been increased recently, but it was mentioned very much in passing. It has not, I think, been referred to to-day, for example. Again, the Report says that the religious programmes put on by some of the programmes on Independent Television are to be particularly commended. One can read into that an admission (if that is the right word) that Independent Television has achieved certain things in that direction which have been beyond the powers of the B.B.C. But one's superiority has not been stressed, as I think the right reverend Prelate will agree; and the fact that it has not been stressed and the fact that it exists without being stressed creates, I think, a rather painful impression.
I must take one other example of seeming unfairness. I refer to the treatment of the evidence of Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, and it may be others will feel that the same can be said of other evidence. Those of us who admire that great public servant may feel a certain counter-bias in Sir Ivone's favour and I think we must discount that. But if we have read The Times of last Thursday—and this was mentioned by the noble Viscount in his opening—we shall be aware that Sir Ivone considers that the position taken up by the I.T.A. is seriously misrepresented in the Report. I, and perhaps most of us here, am not in a position to judge that matter, except to say that we should suppose that Sir Ivone would hardly written in that way if it were incorrect. But would it not have been much better, either to have refrained from quoting so selectively from a famous public servant or to have published all the evidence?—and I will raise that one point with the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, when he replies. When will all the evidence be available? I cannot feel that this is a satisfactory precedent, that one should select certain passages from the testimony of a great public servant, and then without, presumably, showing it to him announce that that represents his view. I cannot

749
recollect a case of that kind where the evidence as a whole was not published, though others may think of such a case.
There is, to my mind, a more serious argumentative weakness in the Report to which I must allude. The Pilkington Committee clearly imagine that they have given a lucid account of the purposes that a television service should perform. For example, they say on page 46 that
"the B.B.C.'s stated views on the purposes which the service should fulfil accord with those we have formulated earlier in the Report."
Some of your Lordships may have undergone my experience. When I got to that point I thought I must have missed something in the Report, and I turned back to see what the formulation was. Well, I defy anybody to discover in the Report a clear formulation of the purposes of broadcasting. I think that the Committee explain merely that one must not simply give the public what it wants, and equally one must not simply give the public what one thinks is good for it. The answer lies somewhere between. But if anyone can tell me where you will find a clear statement of the purposes of broadcasting, then my education will have been improved. Perhaps the nearest one can come to that is an assertion that television does affect, and must inevitably affect, our moral and cultural standards very considerably, and therefore must aim, partly at least, at a deliberate improvement of those standards. Now those are my words, and not the words of the Report; but that, I take it, to be in fact the meaning, and, if so, I certainly agree with it.
I cannot pretend that I am altogether surprised at a certain "wooziness" in these crucial sections. In an earlier debate in this House I once ventured to accuse the B.B.C. of rather ludicrous ambiguities in their use of the words "Christian values", and I was a little surprised to find that on this occasion the matter had not been much more clarified. I am afraid the explanation is fairly obvious: that the Committee as a whole—and I am afraid this may be true of the B.B.C.—While, of course, people of impeccable virtue, have not found it possible to propound a consistent moral philosophy. That may be in inevitable difficulty. Perhaps one should not expect a moral philosophy from a Com-
750
mittee which is a collective body. On the other hand, I have a shrewd suspicion, though without much proof to justify it, that if Sir Harry Pilkington, a deacon of his Church, which does not happen to be mine, had stated his own views——
LORD COLERAINE: Who is?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: He is a deacon. I am not quite sure what that signifies, but I read in the paper that he was a deacon, and I derive great consolation from the fact. I feel sure that if he had stated his views, speaking as a deacon, we should have got something a great deal clearer and healthier. Yet, when all is said and done, and one has played a few dialectical tricks—and a bit of that sort of thing is inevitable—there is a sentence on page 46 which goes to the heart of the matter. They say this:
"The Corporation's traditional idea of public service remains an essential consideration in the formulation of policy."
I know that is the cardinal thought in the mind of the noble Baroness. It seems to me that, whether we are to think of the service provided as finally one of entertainment, or of information, or of education, or of elevation—which surely comes into it—the Corporation set out to aim directly at the public good. That is their accepted purpose, even if they are not very clear in working that purpose out. That is their object: to aim at the public good. The Pilkington Report therefore sides with them, perhaps not always fairly in every part of the argumentation, but it sides with the B.B.C. rightly, as I think. It puts them on a higher plane than the programme campaniles because the B.B.C. are aiming directly at the public good. That is my own understanding of the Report, and that is why I am, in spite of any little criticisms, a Pilkington man.
What about I.T.A., the Authority as distinct from the companies? Certainly no one who knows the gentleman concerned would treat the Board of the I.T.A. as less public-spirited in a personal way than the Governor of the B.B.C. It has been said that the teams could be changed without anyone on the staff knowing that there had been an alteration. I am not sure whether that is a compliment to either body, but

751
that has been said. There may be some truth in it or may not; I do not know. But one can understand what is intended.
But let us clear away any misunderstanding that may have arisen between Sir Harry and Sir Ivone and ignore any differences of opinion about the actual effect—and it can only be estimated—of television on public morals, and we are left with a stark contrast of principles. The primary urge behind the companies producing the programmes is clearly that of making profits. Now I am in business. We have beard the profit motive glorified today and I am not saying anything against it. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, approaches companies with certain higher considerations in mind and treats any profits as a bonus, hardly to be expected in this world of woe. At any rate, that is what the companies are there for.
I do not want to seem to argue that entertainment or culture which aims directly at the public good is always better than that in which the profit motive is powerful. I think that would be taking up a very extreme Socialist position, certainly further to the Left than any position I should assume; but I am submitting—and this in a sense is my main point—that in the case of television, with children and young people comprising so large a portion of the audience, the functions of entertainment and, in the broad sense, education are inextricably mixed up (I include moral education under this heading) and one cannot separate the two. Therefore the requirement of the public service element is immensely strengthened by that simple and ineluctable fact.
If one accepts this principle, it could apply in a 100 or 200 different ways, but I side myself overwhelmingly with the Pilkington Report in what seems to me to be the fundamental conclusion. I mean the conclusion that the whole of our television, and not just the B.B.C., must be governed far more than it has been in the last few years by those who have at once the will and the constitutional position to enforce an underlying standard of a conscious search for the public good. That certainly seems to be in line with what is said by others,
752
but that, as I see it, is the fundamental Pilkington point of view. One either accepts it or one does not. It is a free country and of course one can do either.
In a speech on television last year in your Lordships' House I went at great length into an attempted comparison between the times allotted to so-called serious programmes by the B.B.C. and by the I.T.A. respectively. I concluded, and I submitted to your Lordships, that, roughly speaking, the B.B.C. gave three times as many hours as did the I.T.A. to serious programmes during the crucial periods, though I realise that that kind of conclusion must be subject to many qualifications and some uncertainties. That, in effect, is the conclusion which the House may or may not accept, of the Pilkington Report:
"It is evident that the time devoted by independent television to serious programmes is much less than that devoted to them by the B.B.C., both throughout the day and during the peak viewing period."
In the tables shown, they suggest that the B.B.C. are giving about two and a half times as much to serious programmes as the I.T.A.
In an interesting document published by the Independent Television on June 29, of which we have not heard much today and Which perhaps will quickly become forgotten, an attempt is made to portray a very different relationship. On this up-to-date Independent Television showing, the B.B.C. is represented as still ahead, but the difference is much less than it was When I spoke last year and very much less than the difference portrayed in the Pilkington Report. The B.B.C., on their side, have hit back, as one might say, and perhaps my noble friend Lord Shackleton may say a word about that tomorrow. According to this latest figure, the B.B.C. appear to be giving about twice as much time to serious programmes during the crucial hours. I know that there can be some argument as to what are the crucial hours.
I cannot resist the conclusion that Independent Television have probably improved the amount of time that they are giving and, if so, I would only express my pleasure and offer congratulations. But I still conclude, although all these things are undoubtedly subject to argument, that, judged by this all important

753
yardstick, the general record of the B.B.C. has been much superior; and there I side once again with the Piikington Report. I agree with my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth that one cannot set aside the evidence which was offered to the Pilkington Committee in favour of the B.B.C., but I wonder What television would have been like without the I.T.A. I myself welcome the fact that an element of competition has been introduced, but if we admit that a heavy responsibility for the future moral impact of television falls on those responsible, they in their turn must be given a position sufficiently strong to enable the public interest to prevail.
The particular method adopted by the Pilkington Committee is not, of course, the only one conceivable—I mean, the suggestion that the Authority should sell advertisements and plan programmes. We could go further if you like in the direction, of making it a public service, as they have done in Ireland. I know that they are getting on well there, although the service is still very young. There the public authority actually collect advertisements and either produce programmes or buy them from outside. I am not suggesting that we do that here. I myself favour the Pilkington solution. We are left finally with the question of whether the application of their principles is a workable one. I would end with a quotation from the Sunday Telegraph, which no one will doubt is a first-class Conservative paper. We are told by my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams that the Daily Telegraph—and presumably the Sunday Telegraph—know many things which are hidden from others. Mr. Philip Purser, their esteemed television correspondent, wrote in an article on July 1
"I do not see why the Pilkington proposal should not eventually prove perfectly feasible. It seems to me, for all its priggish tone"—
those are his words, of course—
"that the Pilkington proposal might at last elevate the creative people above the moneybags and, by encouraging competition to produce better television rather than sell more advertising time, might usher in a genuine contest of talents."
That is an expert view. I am not keeping the House longer. I realise that noble Lords feel deeply about this question
754
and have taken great trouble to prepare their speeches, and now we are looking to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, to wind up for the Government.
10.48 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, in the course of this debate, in which I have heard every speech, and very nearly every word, the Pilkington Committee's Report has been both praised and disparaged with considerable spirit. The study of that praise and disparagement will vastly assist the Government to reach decisions, accelerated decisions, which could not fairly and wisely be made at this precise stage. To say that is not to undervalue the work of the Committee. Even the unstinted efforts of eleven thoughtful people condensed into 340 pages could hardly be expected to provide the absolute and infallible answer to all the questions involved: questions and answers which matter deeply to millions of individuals, many of them still unborn.
The Committee have been widely and deservedly praised for their courage—there has been nothing equivocal in their strictures or their conclusions. They have provided something for Parliament and public opinion to bite on, to masticate and to digest. Neither smirking nor gnashing of teeth will help to prove its nutritional value. Some of the recommendations are simple enough to agree upon and to accept at the outset. They include extended hours in the B.B.C.'s Third Programme and Network Three and the Light Programme. They include also the introduction of the 625-line standard and colour television. And since a number of noble Lords have put questions on the White Paper, I will do my best to answer them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, asked me about the timing of the B.B.C.'s second programme and a possible second I.T.A. programme. I am advised that the actual timing is now being studied by the Post Office, in consultation with the broadcasting authorities. The ultra-high-frequency network to be set up must be an integrated one which will cater for all

755
the programmes likely to be needed, and it will make use of both the existing B.B.C. and I.T.A. stations, whichever are best sited for its requirements. The Government agree that the radio industry will need to know quickly about the possibilities, and the industry will be invited to join the various Working Parties to be set up on these technical matters.
The noble Baroness also asked me about confusing reports in the Press, and I will try to explain the position quite briefly. The present Television Act and the present I.T.V. set-up do not expire before July, 1964. Clearly, no second programme could start before then. No one can say at present what the timetable would be. But it may be that the Press were thinking of the setting up of the ultra high frequency network which might well be a combined B.B.C.-I.T.A. effort. The I.T.A. first programme may need to go out on ultra high frequency on 625 lines, and this may be about when the first B.B.C. programmes goes out on ultra high frequency on 625 lines. This will not necessarily be at the same time as the B.B.C. second programme. But since we are assuming that whatever new organisation for I.T.V. is to be adopted will be brought into being by means of the new Act, there would seem to be no overriding reason why a second I.T.A. programme should not start at any time after the new Act has come into force, always assuming, as I repeat, that we then have an I.T.A. set-up which Parliament has agreed as being a satisfactory one.
The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, asked me about stereophonic sound. Nothing in the Government's proposals prejudices future development of stereophony, but this is a long-term development, and a regular service must await the development of internationally agreed standards as a first step. Meanwhile, the B.B.C. will continue to experiment with the system, but it will not be a workable proposition until it is possible to put out a stereophonic service using one frequency or wavelength and not two, as is necessary at present for such a development.
What has been emphasised frequently in this Report and echoed in the White
756
Paper is the public's right to choose, so far as possible, what they want to watch at any given hour. This was stressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, in her closing words when she used the phrase "the greatest possible choice". There is one possible contribution to that end, which I think I should mention. Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Archibald and also the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, have already pressed the advantages of a pay-television service. It has already been explained in the White Paper, in paragraph 85, that if an I.T.A. as well as a B.B.C. second service is authorised, and if provision is to be made for a changeover to 625 lines, there will be no room for pay-television over the air on any general scale for some time to come. There is, however, pay-television by wire. Some have visualised many programme channels in such a grid giving a great variety of services.
So far as a national wire grid is concerned, the cost of connecting up every home looks at the moment to be prohibitively expensive. It would, of course, become progressively more so as one needed to wire up smaller towns and villages, and it would in any case remain necessary to maintain a nation-wide broadcast system to cater for non-wired households. I am informed that wave-guide techniques are in the very early stage of development and that their use in long-distance links will not be a proposition for the next ten years, at the very least. Technically pay-television presents no insurmountable problems. But there is the question of economic viability which can only be tested in practice. The Pilkington Committee cite various disadvantages which they think would flow from it, such as impoverishment of the existing broadcasting services, or a pay-television service dominated by commercial ideas and limited to those who can afford it. But, upon this point, I think that few would wish to stop the selling of fur coats and refrigerators merely because some cannot afford them. Pay-television could naturally be visualised only as an extra service, not as a basic service; but everyone will also get the B.B.C. and I.T.A.
As to the type of service pay-televisiion might give, there might be, as

757
the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, said, a large number of films specially produced for pay-television, and that would seem a good thing for the film industry; and the B.B.C. and I.T.A. do not put out any new films. As to taking material away from the broadcasting authorities, I should have thought there must be a controlling authority to supervise any pay-television operation and say what material could be put out. It has been suggested to me that one benefit might be the uninterrupted viewing of a particular football match, or of some other spectacle, such as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, giving his political views, which under present limited television time has to be interrupted in order to show a different feature or figure that somebody else is waiting to see. It would, in fact, enlarge the choice which is what we are after. I find it a little hard to equate the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, on that particular score with his opposition to the fourth channel. No doubt I am rather obtuse, but he was complaining that there was not enough space on the air, so to speak, and he also objected to the idea of, or, at any rate, said there was no need for, a fourth channel. I personally think there are possibilities—tantalising possibilities—in pay-television as an extra service, but as yet the Government have taken no decision.
Several of your Lordships have, understandably, dwelt on the Committee's charge of unnatural violence in television programmes, and especially the effect on children. This seems to me so far the gravest of the charges affecting the decisions we make, not for our own generation but for the generation which follows that I ask to be forgiven if I, in turn, dwell on it at some small length and question the accuracy of some of the more overwhelming implications in this context.
The doubts in my own mind have been planted not from any consistent viewing of my own, as even during the weeks that I have had to prepare myself for this debate I have found it distressingly hard to set aside enough time to watch the screen for long periods. Indeed I was filled with envy at the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and my noble friend Lord Auckland to
758
reel off whole catalogues of television features with which they were familiar. I am only happy to find that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and I share a delight in Maigret and Perry Mason, though it is several months since I have seen either programme. The members of the Pilkington Committee suffered from the same handicap, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, pointed out in her letter to The Times, which has been mentioned. Being busy people they had to depend upon bodies and individuals who, in most cases at least, had made a more methodical study of television programmes with their own aching eyes.
Last week-end I sat for two hours in a working men's club among some of my Yorkshire neighbours and questioned them on this matter of television's effect on their children. Most of them, I found, answered rather as the questionnaire of the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, was answered. They were able to report very little violently wrong with television programmes; in fact they unanimously resented the suggestion that they would allow their children to watch programmes, which, to quote the Report:
"encouraged anti-social, callous and even vicious attitudes of behaviour among children."
So vehement were they that I studied more carefully the wording of the Report. In fact, they were a good deal more vehement than the noble Earl, Lord Derby, in his critical but, I thought, reasonably restrained maiden speech, in which he gave us an inside view of the way in which the programme companies approach their task and something of their efforts to maintain programme standards.
To return to the Report, disquiet at the portrayal of violence has been expressed in the Report on three main grounds. The first was that scenes of violence frightened small children, that small children were disturbed by any programmes which suggested a threat to the world which they knew and in which they felt secure: and that the most cruel threat was violence. Rightly, I hope, I take this to be restricted, by its reference to "a world which they knew and in which they felt secure" to one category of programme dealing with the everyday life of a British family or

759
community in which children play a part and where that familiar life is distorted or undermined by unnatural and violent events. This was the first ground, and suffering, as I do, from the same occupational handicap as the Pilkington Committee, I had no experience whatever of such programmes in my limited viewing, but I sought first-hand evidence from those of my neighbours who, together with their children, do watch with some regularity. None of them could produce an example, or at any rate recognise an example falling within this category, so I had drawn blank here.
The second ground was that such programmes might lead children to dangerous and even disastrous experiment. Naturally we should do anything to avoid this, but research so far has not established any such cause-and-effect sequence in any instance. I find it very hard to comprehend how the code of behaviour in a Western, watched by English children, can suggest a threat to the world which they know and in which they feel secure. I should have thought that in so far as it was able to frighten them at all, it might have made them very grateful to be living in Bishop's Stortford in 1962 instead of Dodge City in the roaring sixties of a century before!
The third ground for anxiety among those who criticised violence in their evidence to the Committee was that it encouraged anti-social, callous and even vicious attitudes of behaviour among children. These are stern and disturbing strictures, passed upon an industry, and a Government Authority, by thoughtful bodies, interviewed by a Committee of distinguished ladies and gentlemen who in turn have passed them on to us.
They are bound to command attention. But it is not enough that they should impress your Lordships' House, they must impress the country, and the people who spend more time viewing than most of your Lordships have time to spend. And I feel that those people will demand more specific foundations for those strictures than there has been space for, even in this long Report.
By questions in both Houses, articles in the Press and submissions to the
760
Pilkington Committee, it has been made clear that anxiety does exist but to what extent it may be a fear of the unknown (that is to say the unknown effect) rather than the observed, is something which must be carefully gauged before drastic action is taken.
I think we must accept that we in Parliament, are liable to offend a great number of parents if we try to tell them, without quoting chapter and verse, that they have been allowing their children to watch programmes which will encourage anti-social, callous and vicious attitudes of behaviour among them. I think we are liable to offend a number of children as well.
I think it is perhaps only right to rebut the implication that the Independent Television Authority itself would have permitted programmes of this damaging nature to go out repeatedly and unchecked. While recognising that the danger may exist, it is serving no useful purpose that I can see to exaggerate it in our minds, and act upon an exaggeration, if it exists, however conscientious that exaggeration may be. However exhaustive and tireless the researches of this Committee have been, other thinkers of equal humanity have come up with different answers as to what is likely to frighten a child. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, quoted the remark made in an interview by Mr. Hugh Carleton Greene, the Director-General of the B.B.C. in which he said that, generally speaking, he did not think television had anything like the effect it was said to have even on children—and that comes from a very authoritative source. I can quote with equal confidence a passage which might have been made as an answer to some of the charges against television in our day.
"All this kind of talk is based on that complete forgetting of what a child is like which has been the firm foundation of so many educational schemes. If you kept bogies and goblins away from children, they would make them up for themselves. One small child in the dark can invent more hells than Swedenborg. One small child can imagine monsters too big and black to get into any picture, and give them names too unearthly and cacophonous to have occurred in the cries of any lunatic. The child, to begin with, commonly likes horrors, and he continues to indulge in them even when he does not like them. The fear does not come from fairy tales: the fear comes from the universe of the soul".

761
Those wards were not written as a defence of television programmes either B.B.C. or I.T.V. They were written by G. K. Chesterton fan 1906. I was a child when I read them for the first time, and I remember congratulating him, mentally, on being so fight. And I believe that if he were writing in the 1960s instead of in 1906 he might well say "The fear does not come from the television screen: the fear comes from the universe of the soul".
In any case I doubt if he could have found anything on any television screen, at whatever hour of viewing, so testing to the imagination as the Grimm's fairy tale of "The Boy Who could not Shudder" with its detail of the man's legs which fell down the chimney by themselves and walked about the room until they were rejoined by the severed head and body which fell down the chimney after them. That is the reading that we were reared on, my Lords, and if it encouraged anti-social, callous and Vicious attitudes of behaviour among us, most of us, at least, have managed to overcome those attitudes in course of time.
I agree with those who argue that the content of television programmes is not the main problem. What must be decided, in the light of the Report and its reception, is whether improvement in balance and treatment can be best ensured by a statutory code replacing that drawn up already by the B.B.C. for themselves, and the planning practice and checks of I.T.V., or whether these two existing methods can be sufficiently strengthened. Noble Lords will remember that the O'Conor Report on Children and Television did not support the proposals for a written code of television conduct by itself. It preferred to rely upon the development within the television organisation of a climate of opinion in which it would become inevitable, in producing programmes, to consider the special needs of the family audience. It considered that this new attitude must be established by unequivocal directive from the top in each case; that is to say, the top of each authority. Of one thing I am completely persuaded—that is, it is very hard indeed to identify what is good for the public and what the public would like if they could get it. This is a very
762
elusive element, and if the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, with all his experience of this medium, finds it difficult to recognise, then I think we need have no shyness in admitting a similar inability.
I will touch shortly upon a few of the other matters raised in debate. The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, asked me about television film quotas. That is really a question which the broadcasters must ask themselves. They must ask themselves what programmes they want to show. Television films are part of the material on offer. The Government would think that, as suggested by Lord Archibald, discussion between the B.B.C. and I.T.A. and the film producers would be the best course to take. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland asked about quiz games, and this is one of the matters of detail which the Government will discuss with the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. Various noble Lords, Lord Lloyd, Lord Grenfell and Lord Rochdale, asked about the provisions for financing the new B.B.C. channel, and I fear that, despite Lord Rochdale's thoughtful cogitations, all I can say is that this matter is still under consideration. At this point there is absolutely nothing more to say. The noble Lord, Lord Foley spoke up very fully in favour of sponsored programmes, and although, as he said, he was swimming against the general stream, his argument will be studied as carefully as any, as will the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Croft for an advisory council for the visual arts.
Other noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, have urged that the Pilkington Committee's recommendation for a change in the structure of Independent Television should be adopted. My noble Leader, Lord Hailsham, has discussed this matter. I would only repeat that the Government do not think the Committee have demonstrated convincingly reasons for such a drastic change of structure or that it would leave intact all that was good in the distinctive personality of television. It is for this reason that the Government have decided to postpone judgment until they have had the opportunity to consider the matter

763
further in the light of all the various opinions expressed and suggestions made.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, made a plea that the B.B.C. National Governor for Wales should be Welsh-speaking. This is a matter which has been discussed before, and paragraph 9 of the White Paper says that the Government do not propose to make it an absolute requirement. Her Majesty's Government cannot go beyond that paragraph 9. In case it is of any comfort to the noble Lord, I can tell him that Mrs. Rachel Jones, the present B.B.C. Governor for Wales, who was not a Welsh speaker when appointed, although she had some knowledge of Welsh, has since improved that knowledge of the language to the point where she is able to make public speeches in Welsh.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, also asked me about the wording of paragraph 13 of the White Paper. My Lords, I can give him comfort on that. The reference was certainly intended to indicate that the National Broadcasting Councils should have the same rights and duties in television as in sound. There was no intention to qualify the matter. The passage in the Charter will, in fact, state that the National Broadcasting Councils will exercise control
"with full regard to the distinctive culture, language interests and tastes of our people in that country."
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, asked about medical advertisements. Paragraph 66 of the White Paper makes it clear that the panel of medical consultants will be appointed after consultation with the professional organisations concerned. So there is no fear that it will not have knowledge of the industries concerned. In any event, all medical advertisements are now referred by Independent Television to such a panel. The Government suggestion is that this practice should be given statutory recognition.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, do I understand him to say there is a special professional medical panel that passes all medical advertisements?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am not certain of the actual form of the panel, but there is a panel of some kind which is consulted now as a matter of course, and the Government's proposal is to make that consultation statutory.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked me about the publication of the evidence, and I have to tell him that it is not the intention to publish the oral evidence. Some of the written evidence will be published, probably at the end of this month. There is, in fact, I understand, too much to publish it all, and about the same proportion will be published as was published in the case of the Beveridge Report. It will include all the main I.T.A. submissions.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Does that mean that none of the oral evidence will be published?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I understand so. I will look into it, if the noble Earl wishes, but that is my understanding at the moment: that only part of the written evidence, and none of the oral evidence, will be published.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the two rival sets of figures for programmes, and certainly there will be no Judgment of Solomon by me on that subject this evening. Perhaps I should say to him simply that the Pilkington Committee was set up in 1960 and it was therefore reasonable that it should examine the performance of the two broadcasting organisations before and around that time. If there has been any improvement in either the balance or the amount of crime and violence in programmes since that time, whether due to the advent of the Committee or not, I am sure that all concerned, and in particular the noble Lord himself, will welcome it and hope that the improvement will be sustained.
My Lords, we have reached half-time; two-thirds of the way through this debate. By the size and tone of the debate I feel that your Lordships have, in fact, paid a considerable compliment to the Pilkington Report. Without such a Report there could not be such a debate. Both are essential stages in seeking the answer to which we are exerting our minds and consciences, and for which we shall all carry a share of responsi-

765
bility, when our eyes are too dim to watch the screen with any comfort. While they are still reasonably bright we must use them to look ahead and find the right answer for others to enjoy and, I hope, to commend.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Shepherd, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
Second Report from the Select Committee, made, and to be printed.
  WORK AT WESTMINSTER UNDERGROUND STATION
  WORK AT WESTMINSTER UNDERGROUND STATION