Sitting of 24 June 1963

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

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

    Advertising Agencies
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister without Portfolio how many advertising firms he uses in the information services; and how they are chosen.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister without Portfolio how he selects advertising firms for use by British Information Services; how he invites applications; what advice, evidence and assistance he has available in deciding between the applicants; and on how many occasions he has taken decisions in these matters.
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister without Portfolio if he will state the criteria used in the selection of advertising firms for use by the information services.
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. W. F. Deedes): Advertising agencies are selected by the Central Office of Information on the advice of an independent Committee, which recommends an agency for each Government campaign. Engagements are on an annual basis. At present there are 20 agencies in contract with the Central Office of Information as well as six with the National Savings Committee.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these are in Scotland, and, additionally, can he give me an assurance that the presentation of the facts will be more honest than recent Government propaganda in relation to the provision of university places, for there was a distortion of at least 800 per cent.?
    Mr. Deedes: To answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary
    916
    question first, the hon. Gentleman is aware that the exercise which Benson's have been asked to undertake is to increase Scottish advertising of its own resources, and improve them, we hope. Second, there is at least one Scottish agency on the list, which is used whenever it is appropriate for it to be employed.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this presents a very useful way whereby trade, industry, commerce and employment can be assisted in areas which really need them, and can he say what constructive steps he takes to assist such areas—such as, for instance, Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland?
    Mr. Deedes: I do not think this arises on the appointment of the firm, but the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that the object of appointing this firm to advise professionally is that we may be able to assist Scotland and other areas to advertise the resources they have to offer more widely here and overseas.

  HOSPITALS

    New Hospital, Wexham
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Health if, in view of its siting under the air path of west routed jet aeroplanes from Heathrow, he will include soundproof constructions in the new hospital at Wexham.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): No, Sir. The hospital is not so sited.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is only one mile north of the very thin flight line from which these planes depart and, in view of the fact that we are likely in future to have even faster aeroplanes, will not he do something for those in hospital whose sleep is disturbed by the noise of jet aircraft?
    Mr. Braine: I have made very careful inquiry about this. I am advised that the site of the new Wexham Park District General Hospital is some seven miles north-west of London Airport mid-point and that it does not lie under the flight path of the jet planes from Heathrow routed either to the west or north-west.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only last Friday I was at the airport and saw officials about this route and that the route goes just south of the hospital, which is not more than one mile or so distant from the line of route, from which the planes very frequently diverge?
    Mr. Braine: I think it is true that Wexham is in line with the north-west, south-east subsidiary runway. Aircraft bound for the north-east, which constitute some 8 per cent. of the total, after a westerly take-off will normally pass well clear of Wexham, but occasionally under radar control they may be turned so as to pass over its vicinity. Then, however, they will be at 3,000 ft., at which height aircraft are not normally found to cause disturbance. I do not think this a question which is susceptible to exchanges across the Table. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to let me have any additional evidence he may have which is causing him and his constituents anxiety.
    Mr. Brockway: Certainly.

    Nurses
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health what will be the hourly rate of pay for third-year student nurses when the pay award is implemented; and what is the average number of hours spent by each nurse in attending lectures additional to nursing duties.
    Mr. Braine: About 3s. 2d. general and 3s. 8d. psychiatric. Working hours include between 180 and 270 hours of formal instruction per annum.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is it not an appalling situation when a girl of 22 or 23 is getting 3s. 2d. an hour for about a 90-hour week? Is it not time, through the Whitley Council or some other machinery, that more adequate payment for these nurses was arranged?
    Mr. Braine: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the recent industrial court award gave substantial increases to qualified staff, and thus improved the future rewards for the student nurse who successfully completed her training. I must emphasise that the time for formal instruction is included in the working hours.

    Pharmacists
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to stimulate the recruitment of hospital pharmacists.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): Hospital authorities are responsible for recruitment. No special action by me seems called for.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that four advertisements for pharmacists for anew hospital in the home counties, to be opened next month, have produced no response and that in consequence that hospital will have to be opened without any pharmaceutical services? Does he not think that this discloses a very serious situation which requires some action by him?
    Mr. Powell: My information about that hospital is that applications have been received for the vacancies. The total number of pharmacists in the hospital service is increasing and is higher than it has ever been.

    Psychiatric Social Workers
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Health how many student psychiatric social workers and student psychologists are now being employed in the hospital service; and how these figures compare with those of 1960.
    Mr. Braine: I regret this information is not available.
    Mr. Boyden: According to the Ministry's last annual report, there was a very serious deficiency of student psychiatric social workers and psychologists. What is the hon. Gentleman's Ministry doing about it?
    Mr. Braine: There are shortages. The students are not members of the hospital service, but are attached to hospitals for practical experience at periods during their course, which is why I cannot give figures now. The number of students starting vocational training at universities in England and Wales has risen year by year and several more universities are now providing training facilities.

    Occupational Therapists
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Health how many full-time and student

    919
    occupational therapists, respectively, are now employed in the hospital service.
    Mr. Braine: 1,714 whole-time equivalents last September. The number of students attached to hospitals is not known.
    Mr. Boyden: According to the Ministry's last annual report, the number of students was only 2 per cent. of the total number of full-time therapists. Is this adequate even to make up the wastages? What is the Ministry of Health doing about this form of recruitment?
    Mr. Braine: The figures which the hon. Gentleman has given are no indication of the numbers. The numbers in post have doubled since the appointed day. The hon. Member asked me what is being done, and I am glad to be able to tell him that a new school in the National Health Service is to be opened at York this autumn.
    Dr. King: Is not the real trouble that there is dissatisfaction among all the auxiliary services in the hospitals about their salaries? Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend whether the time has not come to set up a committee to examine the scales of salaries paid to the various medical auxiliaries in hospitals?
    Mr. Braine: That goes a bit wide of the Question. There was dissatisfaction, but the hon. Member will recall that increases of 7½ per cent. or more were agreed in January 1963, the highest increases going to some staffs with long service.

    New Hospital, Lindley
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieuasked the Minister of Health when he expects that the new general hospital at Lindley, to which top priority was accorded six years ago, will be completed.
    Mr. Braine: Early in 1966.
    Mr. Mallalieu: What is the reason for the slow progress? Does not the Minister realise that conditions in the existing old hospital are rapidly becoming intolerable? Will he kindly tell everybody concerned to get a move on?
    Mr. Braine: This has been under consideration. I understand that there would be practical difficulties in opening
    920
    part of the new hospital before the main construction work was finished, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the regional hospital board will keep under review the possibility of the early use of part of the new premises.

    Maternity Beds, Greater London
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Health what proportion of mothers confined in hospital in the Greater London area in the past year had to use the emergency bed service.
    Mr. Braine: About 3 per cent. in 1962.
    Mrs. Butler: Is it not unsatisfactory that a mother should have to use this emergency bed service, with the nervous strain involved, because a shortage of maternity beds has made a hospital booking impossible? Can the Minister say when he expects the demand and supply to be more nearly related than it is at present in the Greater London area?
    Mr. Braine: As I think the hon. Lady knows, in the County of London provision for confinement in hospital is well above the national average and, indeed, above the recommended level in the Cranbrook Report. But I take the hon. Lady's point, and she might like to know that investigations as to the special reasons which are resulting in the emergency bed service being increasingly used are under way.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Doctors (Deputising Arrangements)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health if he will introduce regulations to govern the deputising arrangements of general practitioners.
    Mr. Powell: There are such regulations already.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that these regulations are totally inadequate? Does he recall that, out of 2,391 general practitioners in London, 1,211 are contracting out? Is he aware that recently there were only five patrolling doctors in charge of London for the whole of one night? In view of these facts, is it not time that he reorganised the system of

    921
    payment to general practitioners so that we could do away with this fiction of their being paid for 24 hours when many of them are not?
    Mr. Powell: Under the existing regulations, executive councils have to be satisfied that the deputising services are adequate, and I have no doubt that executive councils are discharging their duties.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister have a further look at this matter and consult his working parties? Is it not time for a complete overhaul of these regulations?
    Mr. Powell: The regulations were made last October, but I am always ready to learn from executive councils how they are working.

    Foreign Visitors (Treatment)
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many doctors in general practice experience difficulty from time to time when dealing with foreign visitors wishing to make use of the National Health Service, having regard to the uncertainty which exists as to whether or not hospitals are prepared to admit such visitors to public wards; and whether he will issue some guidance in the matter.
    Mr. Powell: Hospitals already have guidance on this. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Is it not a fact that so long as a visitor get past the immigration authorities hospitals will accept him under the National Health Service as a bona fide visitor to this country?
    Mr. Powell: A visitor to this country, whether bona fide or not, has no entitlement to treatment for a non-urgent condition. Of course, emergency treatment is given, but hospitals realise that a visitor has no right to treatment for a non-urgent condition.

    Medical Officers of Health
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to ensure an adequate supply of medical officers of health to staff the new posts which will be created under
    922
    the new health and welfare plan, having regard to the financial disadvantages at present suffered by medical officers of health in comparison with other branches of the profession.
    Mr. Powell: I have no reason to expect that local authorities will be unable to fill these posts.

    Oral Contraceptives
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Health what study is being made by his Department of the long-term social and physiological effects of oral contraceptives; and if he is satisfied that it is safe for these contraceptives to be freely available before the study has been completed.
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Health what study is now being made in regard to the long-term effects on health of oral contraceptives.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health what study has been made of the side-effects of contraceptive pills now made generally available; if written instructions and warning of possible side-effects are required to be distributed with each sale of those products; and under what specific circumstances they can be had without charge by poor persons.
    Mr. Powell: I understand the Medical Research Council has in hand studies on the effects of these drugs. They can only be bought on prescription. I am not aware of arrangements for supply without charge.
    Mr. Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an oral contraceptive for use by males is now being successfully developed, that too little appears to be known of the long-term effects on male fertility and the female reproductive system, that, so far as one can judge, very little thought has been given to the social consequences which might follow from the use of these contraceptives, and, above all, that little thought has been given to the effect on the balance of the world population if these contraceptives prove to be much more acceptable in Western countries than in the countries of the greatest population growths, in Africa and Asia? Would he not agree that it would be a little unwise to allow

    923
    these contraceptives to be freely marketed until these consequences have been fully studied?
    Mr. Powell: Some of the questions asked by my hon. Friend go beyond my Departmental responsibility, but certainly the new Committee on Safety of Drugs will be in a position to collect all the evidence on the observed effects of these drugs, and I am sure that that will be taken into account by the medical profession which alone can prescribe them.
    Mrs. Butler: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is considerable concern that these pills, which there is reason to believe may be cancer-producing in later life, appear to be fairly freely available at family planning clinics, which may give an impression of safety which is completely unjustified? Can he assure the House that whenever the pills are issued the recipients are made aware of the possible dangers? Does he not agree that there should be a greater restriction on the issue until we know more about them?
    Mr. Powell: The limitation on the issue is the same as that on the issue of any other drug available only on prescription, that is to say, it is made available only on the knowledge and responsibility and judgment of a doctor.
    Mr. Sorensen: While I personally welcome the availability of these contraceptive pills, may I also emphasise what has been said before regarding the possible danger and the side-effects, in particular? Would the right hon. Gentleman give me a reply to the suggestion implicit in my Question—that with the distribution of these contraceptive pills some leaflet should be given to the recipient indicating the possible side-effects? Would he also reply to the Question about the charge for poor persons? May I further ask him whether prescriptions can be asked for, presumably from doctors, and whether doctors are then entitled to refuse to give them on moral or religious grounds?
    Mr. Powell: I have not been able to trace the specific circumstances, to which the hon. Gentleman refers in the last part of his Question, in which there are arrangements for supply without charge.
    924
    When a drug is supplied only on prescription, it is for the doctor to give the patient what indications in his discretion he thinks are necessary for the proper use of that drug.
    Mrs. Butler: Does not the Minister have a responsibility for making sure that instructions are issued, through doctors, to recipients that there may be a danger in later life?
    Mr. Powell: There are many drugs which are constantly prescribed by doctors which have or may have serious side-effects, and it is the responsibility of the doctor in the individual case and in his judgment to give the necessary indications for their use. But, in general, as regards side-effects which are observed, I would refer to the function which the Committee on Safety of Drugs will have, of collecting precisely that type of material.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Would the Minister confirm that so far there is no scientific evidence that these oral contraceptives are in any way carcinogenic?
    Mr. Powell: Not without notice.

    Dentists
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Health what are his plans to increase the number of dental surgeons and dental assistants of all grades, with special reference to their salaries and emoluments.
    Mr. Powell: The Review Body's recent recommendations for the revision of dentists' pay are being implemented.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister get his teeth into this problem and realise that the facilities offered to dental students, particularly in Scotland and in the Scottish dental schools, are not sufficiently attractive to meet the public need? Will the Minister take steps to see that they are made sufficiently attractive to meet that need?
    Mr. Powell: I cannot on this matter answer for Scotland, but in England and Wales the number of places in dental schools is increasing year by year—25 additional places this year, and 55 more next year.

    Dental Technicians
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Health how many dental technicians were prosecuted during the year ended 31st December 1962, for work in connection with dentures contrary to the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1957; and what evidence is available to show the prevalence of this type of practice by technicians.
    Mr. Braine: I understand there were six; I have no other evidence.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is not this an indication that members of the public are finding that denture work by dental technicians is satisfactory, in spite of the fact that they have not had the services of dentists in providing them? Is not this a reason for considering whether dental technicians should be enabled to undertake dental work, provided that they are suitably qualified, on a legal basis?
    Mr. Braine: I do not disagree with the first part of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I think that there are wider considerations in relation to the latter half of his supplementary question. In regard to any evidence of abuse, the General Dental Council will consider all evidence submitted to it about such practices.

    Drugs
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health what response he has had from general practitioners to his last request that they should not prescribe proprietary drugs where British Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary equivalents are available; and what annual savings he estimates will accrue.
    Mr. Powell: It is too soon to judge the effect of my Chief Medical Officer's recent letter about the comparative prices of certain proprietary drugs and their standard equivalents.
    Mr. Robinson: Would not the Minister agree that there are millions of £s to be saved here if only doctors can be persuaded to prescribe the equivalents? If the right hon. Gentleman's present approach is not successful, will he consider taking further steps to persuade doctors to do this?
    Mr. Powell: In the case of exact equivalents to which this advice related, I am advised that the maximum saving
    926
    is about £1 million. But where the equivalents are not exact there may be further sums involved. This is something to which continuous attention is given by my Department, and the latest letter from my chief medical officer is evidence of that.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the effect of the change that has been made in converting Prescription Notes to the Prescribes' Journal, arising from the Hinchliffe Report. What assessment of its effects is being made? What results have been obtained? What kind of examination is the right hon. Gentleman making of this journal?
    Mr. Powell: I have good evidence that the Prescribers' Journal is widely used by doctors, and this leads me to assume that they may be finding it helpful and are to some extent being guided by it in their actions. But, in the nature of things, it is impossible to relate precisely prescribing costs to any particular measure which is adopted to guide practitioners.
    Mr. Rankin: While encouraging doctors to prescribe B.P. and N.F. drugs, should not it be made widely known to the general public that these drugs are as good as any others?
    Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir, though the initiative rests with the doctor, because we are dealing with prescriptions.

    Obesity
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health if he will promote research into the problem of obesity, with a view to publicising its danger and remedy; and if he will take steps to prevent the exploitation of this affliction through the sale of dubious medicines or methods of cure.
    Mr. Powell: I am informed that research into some aspects is being promoted by the Medical Research Council; I am not aware that these remedies call for special action.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently it was emphatically stated that obesity is more dangerous than cigarette smoking? In view of the campaign undertaken to reduce cigarette smoking, surely this is just as necessary as the objective of the campaign which may be promoted by the

    927
    Ministry of Health, particularly in view of the evidence of the need for it in some parts of the House?
    Mr. Powell: I am sure that doctors do not fail to advise their patients on the dangers of obesity and the steps to be taken.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Profits, Dividends and Capital Gains
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Labour if he will publish in the Gazette a monthly return of profits, dividends and capital and land-selling gains to supplement the monthly return of earned incomes.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): No, sir. My right hon. Friend understands that there are no official monthly statistics of profits, dividends and capital and land-selling gains. Such figures as are available are already to be found in various Government publications such as the Monthly Digest of Statistics, and the Ministry of Labour's Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics on Incomes, Prices, Employment and Production.
    Mr. Brockway: But, if there are no statistics, is it not the duty of the hon. Gentleman's Department to get them? How can he possibly prepare a national incomes policy unless he knows the proportion of the income which goes in unearned incomes and the proportion which goes in exorbitant capital gains, particularly in the increase for land value charges? Will the hon. Gentleman do something about it if he is to get the proper balance in this question?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I think the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that there is a wide variety of statistics on which those who are considering a national incomes policy can draw. I think that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion goes somewhat wider than the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.

    School-leavers
    Mr. McBrideasked the Minister of Labour what proposals he has for the employment of school-leavers in Swansea; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Out of 522 boys and girls who left school after the Easter term, 14 (or 2.7 per cent.) were still registered for employment on 10th June. The comparable percentage for Great Britain on that date was 3.0. The Youth Employment Service is doing all it can to find suitable jobs for the unemployed young people.
    Mr. McBride: Is the Minister aware of the serious position that will arise in Swansea at the next school leaving date when 1,900 pupils, mainly in the 15 to 16 age group, will leave school? Is he further aware of the high proportion of unemployed under 18, which emphasises the danger of young people taking dead-end jobs instead of obtaining apprenticeships? Has the hon. Gentleman any positive message to give the young people of this great Welsh borough?
    Mr. Whitelaw: As regards positive measures, I think that they are very clear in the Government's White Paper on Industrial Training and in the Industrial Training Bill which will follow it. I am aware of the position with regard to school-leavers at the end of the summer term. What I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, and what gives some modest reason for hope, is that there were 522 school-leavers at Easter, and that of these only 14 have not yet been placed in first employment.
    Mr. McBride: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the seriousness of the situation in relation to the future potential in Swansea for young people who, denied opportunity, will leave for Birmingham? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in the last full year's report of the Youth Employment Officer only a minute proportion of boys secured apprenticeships and that the situation for girls was exceedingly worse? Can the hon. Gentleman say anything that will give some hope to the young people of Swansea?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a considerable diversity of commercial and industrial employment there. As regards apprenticeships, anything that anyone in this House or elsewhere can do to encourage employers to take more apprentices, pending the introduction of the Industrial Training Bill, will be appreciated.
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour how many school-leavers

    929
    were unemployed in Fife at the latest convenient date; and how many pupils are expected to leave school at the next school leaving date.
    Mr. Whitelaw: 114 school-leavers were unemployed on 10th June. About 2,300 boys and girls are expected to leave school this summer.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us where these young people are to get work when they leave school? Is he aware that, despite the fact that the West Fife area in particular was scheduled as a development district, in the last three years of the operation of the Local Employment Act we have lost 2,000 jobs and gained 450? If this trend continues, the prospects for these young people are extremely grim. Can he tell us what urgent and immediate steps the Government are taking to give them hope?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I think the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the considerable energy that the Government have put into trying to get more jobs and more firms to Fife in view of what is certainly accepted to be a difficult employment situation there. The question of youth employment is certainly far from satisfactory. Nevertheless, there were 1,131 school-leavers during and at the end of Easter term, and of these 80 are still registered for first employment. This shows that quite considerable numbers have obtained employment.
    Mr. Millanasked the Minister of Labour how many school-leavers were unemployed in Glasgow at the latest convenient date; and how many pupils are expected to leave school at the next school leaving date.
    Mr. Whitelaw: In the City of Glasgow, 104 school-leavers were unemployed on 10th June. Between 7,500 and 8,000 boys and girls are expected to leave school this summer.
    Mr. Millan: Is the Minister aware that there is a good deal of apprehension about employment opportunities for these young people, particularly for boys, in apprenticeship? Is the Ministry making any special effort to ask employers to take on apprentices this year when the numbers leaving school are so very high?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been an appeal from the chairman of the Industrial Training Council. My right hon. Friend has appealed, and again today, in answer to the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), I made a similar point, that the more any of us in this House can do to encourage employers to take on more apprentices the better. Concerning the position in Glasgow, there were nearly 3,400 Easter term leavers, and one has to look at the figures of those still unemployed against that background.
    Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman has reiterated the statement that we should encourage firms to take on more apprentices, but is he aware that for some time some apprentices in Scotland have been working on short time—an extraordinary phenomenon—and that there is great difficulty in recruiting apprentices in many sections of Scottish industries which, under Tory administration, are in decline?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept that last sentence for a moment. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that there are clear signs of the economy expanding again. Here is an opportunity for employers to take on more apprentices. That is why it is well worth while encouraging them to do so.
    Mr. J. Robertsonasked the Minister of Labour how many school-leavers were unemployed in Renfrewshire at the latest convenient date; and how many pupils are expected to leave school at the next school-leaving date.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Forty-six school-leavers were unemployed on 10th June. About 1,870 boys and girls are expected to leave school this summer.
    Mr. Robertson: Is the Minister aware that but for the considerable pressure brought to bear upon Government Departments it was the intention to reduce the intake of apprentices into the Royal Ordnance Factory at Bishopton? Will he bring to the attention of the other Government Departments the need to increase the number of apprenticeships there? Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the Youth Employment Service is overworked and understaffed and is hardly able to do the job

    931
    for which it was designed? Will he look into the question?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to say that the attention of all Government Departments has been drawn to the need to increase the number of apprentices, and that they are doing their best. As for the second part of the supplementary question, I do not think that I could accept such a general statement as that; but I will consider what the hon. Member has said.
    Mr. Prentice: With regard to this Question and other recent ones, does the hon. Member agree that this is a particularly serious situation, in view of the fact that we are still within the bulge of school-leavers which will affect Scottish areas this year? Will he specially look into the question of the staffing of the Youth Employment Service in the coming months, and also consider whether the Industrial Training Council could have more training development officers in Scotland, bearing in mind that when I last asked about it I was told that there was only one full-time officer in Scotland? Will he look into the matter to see whether, between now and the school-leaving date, some further help can be provided for these areas?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly consider what the hon. Member has said.

    Apprenticeships
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour how many school-leavers began apprenticeships in the first four months of this year; and how many did so in the same period last year.
    Mr. Whitelaw: 29,000 boys and 5,600 girls in January to April, 1963, compared with 39,200 boys and 7,700 girls in the first four months of 1962.
    Mr. Prentice: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that this is a very serious decline compared with the figures of the previous two years which follows on the publication of the Government's White Paper in December? Will the hon. Gentleman comment on two points? First, on the statement made recently by the chairman of the Industrial Training Council that he feels that employers are hanging back waiting for the Industrial Training Bill, and if so, what are
    932
    the Government doing to discourage them from doing this? Secondly, is this not one more unfortunate result of the economic stagnation of the country during the last 12 months due to the Government's policy?
    Mr. Whitelaw: On the last point, I think it is perfectly clear that the economy is expanding again now and that this is a excellent opportunity for employers to take on more apprentices. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think it is clear that the position in 1962 was encouraging and that employers were taking on more apprentices. It may be that some have decided to sit back waiting for the Industrial Training Bill and the White Paper. If that is so, they are very unwise. So far from relaxing their efforts, there can be no doubt that it will pay them to do everything possible to extend and improve their training arrangements in preparation for the time when the proposals in the White Paper on Industrial Training are implemented.
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the prospects of apprenticeships for school-leavers in Scotland; and what steps the Government will take to improve these prospects.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Whilst in the early months of this year the proportion of boys obtaining apprenticeships in Scotland showed a decline as compared with 1962, the position has recently changed. In May 35·6 per cent. entered apprenticeships compared with 34·0 per cent. in May 1962. I hope that this reversal of the trend will continue.
    Mr. Willis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered the second part of the Question? Is he satisfied with these figures? Surely the Government ought to be doing something to try to see that they are improved.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly it would be quite wrong to be satisfied with the figures of apprenticeships because we all want to see more of them. As I said to the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), we have the Government's proposal on industrial training and we want to do everything we can to encourage employers to take on more

    933
    apprentices and not to wait for the Industrial Training Bill to be enacted. The hon. Gentleman can do much in Scotland to help us in this. I know that the hon. Gentleman likes comparisons with England, particularly when the comparison with England is a good one from Scotland's point of view. In the first five months of 1963, 35·2 per cent. of boys obtained apprenticeships in Scotland compared with 28·1 per cent. in Great Britain.
    Mr. Rankin: Percentages are sometimes deceptive. Could the hon. Gentleman turn the percentages that he referred to in the first instance for Scotland into actual numbers?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, I can do that. The figures of new entrants for employment in apprenticeships from January to May, 1963, for Scotland are as follows: boys 4,657; girls 513.

    Pottery Industry
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour what evidence he has of the observation of Regulation 32 of the Pottery (Health and Welfare) Special Regulations, 1950, in the pottery industry; and what change has taken place since the Factory Department reviewed the situation in 1959.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Since 1959 action has been taken by the Joint Standing Committee on the Pottery Industry to provide training and other assistance to help the works' inspectors appointed under Regulation 32. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that this action, together with regular inspection by the Factory Inspectorate, is bringing about an improvement in the general standard of compliance with Regulation 32.
    Dr. Stross: Is it not a fact that there are many factories where there are still no internal inspectors, and can the Parliamentary Secretary say what percentage of factories still have no internal inspectors?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I could not say without notice, but I will certainly find out and let the hon. Gentleman know.
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour whether he will alter Regulation 32 of the Pottery (Health and Welfare) Special Regulations, 1950, so
    934
    that the representatives appointed by the employers to supervise safety shall in future be elected by the workers in the factory.
    Mr. Whitelaw: It is important to avoid action which would detract, or appear to detract, from the responsibility of the occupier for securing observance of the Regulations, whether by means of internal inspection or otherwise. For this reason my right hon. Friend is not in favour of altering the Regulation in the manner suggested.
    Dr. Stross: If this Regulation were altered so as to conform with the technique used in Sweden, it would mean that the internal inspector would be elected and not appointed by the employer. Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the essential weakness of the Regulations has always been the fact that it is an appointed inspector, usually an under-manager or even a lodge man, and that is why it has not worked? Will he consider this afresh, if only for the more dangerous part of the industry?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the main problem is to secure really competent people as inspectors. Our Joint Standing Committee has recommended the careful selection and training of persons appointed under this Regulation. I shall certainly look at this matter.

    Juveniles, Wales
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour which of the juvenile employment committees in Wales have made representations to him or to his regional controller expressing concern at the number of juveniles for whom no employment is available in their area; and what replies he has made to them.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Since last September, the committees in Cardiganshire, Glamorgan and Swansea. The replies from the Department have called attention to the measures which the Government have taken to stimulate the economy and to steer industrial development into the areas where more employment is needed.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Parliamentary Secretary realise that these young people who have no work available to them

    935
    have to seek work elsewhere, and that unless we get new industries very soon there will be no young boys or girls left for these new industries? Will he consult with the President of the Board of Trade and call his attention to these representations?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, Sir. I will certainly do that. I should say to the right hon. Gentleman that the number of unemployed young persons in Wales is certainly somewhat higher than a year ago; nevertheless, it has fallen from 5,748 in January to 2,658 in June. This, I agree, is an improvement from a bad position, but it is an improvement.
    Mr. Griffiths: The Minister will be aware that in four or five weeks we shall be having the end of the academic school year and that this will add to the seriousness of this problem.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly accept what the right hon. Gentleman says.

  DISARMAMENT (GENEVA CONFERENCE)
  Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Lord Privy Seal what new proposals Her Majesty's delegate has laid before the Committee of Eighteen Nations for breaking the present deadlock in the discussions on the United States and Russian draft treaties for general and complete disarmament; and whether he will make a statement.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 29th April. The United Kingdom's policy remains to seek to draw the Soviet Union into serious and detailed discussion of the plans already on the table and to try to reach areas of common agreement.
  Mr. Nod-Baker: Am I right in understanding that Answer to mean that there have been no new British proposals to bridge the gap between the Soviet and the Western proposals? Would I also be right in endorsing the view expressed by the non-aligned members of the Committee—in the minutes that I have been able to see—that on the subject of general disarmament the Committee is in total deadlock?
  Mr. Godber: I do not think that it would be right to say that the Committee is in total deadlock. The difficulty is to get serious and detailed consideration of most of these proposals. I recently tried to lead the Committee into a discussion of fresh aspects of the problem in order to get fresh thought on the matter. The difficulty has been that almost all the thought, energy and effort have been devoted to the question of nuclear tests.

  NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will distinguish between the matters on which the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation takes decisions and those on which it makes recommendations.
  Mr. Godber: The North Atlantic Council draws no distinction in its procedure between decisions and recommendations.
  Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is very important that the House should know what are the matters in which this country retains its sovereign right of decision and what are those in which it has abandoned its sovereignty to N.A.T.O.? Specifically, can the 'right hon. Gentleman say whether or not Her Majesty's Government still have the right to veto such a project as the proposed multilateral force?
  Mr. Godber: N.A.T.O. has no rules of procedure. N.A.T.O. is a group of sovereign States of equal status, and its practice has been to operate by unanimity on all matters which come before it.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: How does one tell the difference between decisions and recommendations, as, for instance, in the case of the export of steel pipe and things like that, where everything turns on whether it is a decision or a recommendation?
  Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend explained exactly what the United Kingdom's position was on the question of steel pipe when he answered a Question on the subject on 28th May. On the occasion when this matter came up the

  937
  United Kingdom representative expressly reserved the United Kingdom's freedom of action but agreed not to oppose a formal decision.
  Mr. Warbey: Surely that means that the so-called decision was only a recommendation, and therefore that the statement of the German Foreign Minister that it was binding on all member States of N.A.T.O. was incorrect.
  Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has previously stated precisely what the United Kingdom position was in relation to this steel pipe. I do not think that there is any point in my adding further to it.

  UNITED NATIONS (FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal what arrangements exist to enable individuals to make direct financial contributions to the peace-keeping activities of the United Nations.
  Mr. Godber: There are no special arrangements for this purpose, I know of no reason, however, why individuals who so wish should not send voluntary contributions direct to the Secretary-General.
  Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have made inquiries, following the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State in the Adjournment debate before the Recess, and find that there is no way in which individuals can contribute directly to the funds of the United Nations, and certainly not to a special peace-keeping fund? In view of the wide support among all parties in this House for the establishment of such a fund to enable people in this country and throughout the world to make individual contributions, will Her Majesty's Government now give support to this proposal, which has the support of Commonwealth and other countries in the United Nations?
  Mr. Godber: A proposal has now been tabled in the form of a resolution in the United Nations in relation to this matter, and Her Majesty's Government will certainly give it sympathetic consideration. We do not wish in any way to detract from the value of voluntary contributions, but we wish to make it
  938
  clear that the real responsibility for financing the United Nations is a matter for member States, and nothing must be done to derogate from that responsibility.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the present position in the General Assembly, and how far we are succeeding in establishing the duty of members to contribute?
  Mr. Godber: If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I should prefer it. I would rather give him a considered Answer. There have been a number of discussions in the resumed Assembly, and a number of resolutions have been tabled, but I should like to give the right hon. Gentleman a full Answer, if he will put down a Question.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Fowl Plague
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recent outbreak of fowl plague in Norfolk which necessitated the slaughter of 29,000 turkeys; and what are the most effective ways of preventing the spread of this disease.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): This outbreak was the first recorded here for over thirty years and our veterinary staff are making urgent inquiries into its origins. Fowl plague has effects similar to those of the per-acute form of Newcastle disease, but is caused by a different virus. Since there is no satisfactory vaccine for fowl plague, we have retained a policy of slaughter with compensation, which is the most effective way of controlling the disease.
    Mr. Hilton: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this is the same firm which, during three years recently, as a result of fowl pest, was paid about £600,000 in compensation? Will he say how much compensation is likely to be paid in this case and, what is more important, take every step possible to ensure that there is no further outbreak of this new plague disease on land in the ownership of this firm?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: We are doing everything we can to stop the spread of this form of disease by our slaughter policy. As for the first part of the supplementary question, it is not our practice to disclose the amount paid to, and the private affairs of, the people concerned.
    Mr. Hilton: Surely it is in the interests of the taxpayers that the amount paid in compensation resulting from an outbreak such as this should be revealed? On similar occasions I have tabled Questions and received the information. If the Parliamentary Secretary wishes me to table a further Question in order to get the information I will certainly do so, but surely if he has information he should give it to the House.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: We have not finished estimating the actual amount to be paid in respect of the present outlay. The hon. Gentleman knows that he can find the full amount which is paid during the year by looking at the Appropriation Account.

    French Early Potatoes
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will investigate the extent to which French early potatoes marketed in Great Britain are subsidised.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Such inquiries have already been made. I understand that the export subsidy arrangements for French new potatoes do not apply to exports to this country. The French Government have also announced arrangements for giving assistance in respect of potatoes sold on the domestic market, but these should not affect exports to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary examine the information which I have sent to his Department, that it is suggested that the net return to the French growers in the markets this year and the prices realised would be somewhere about £5 or £6 a ton? Does not that indicate some kind of subsidy being available to the French growers? Will the hon. Gentleman look into this further?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I will certainly examine whatever evidence the hon. Gentleman has sent or will send. May I point out that French prices are no lower than those of many other overseas suppliers?
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he extended the import period for French early potatoes until 30th June, in view of the effect this is having on the Cornish crop.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Orders imposing closing dates on imports of new potatoes are made under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts as a safeguard against the introduction of Colorado beetle. Our International obligations require us to operate such restrictions on plant health considerations alone. The question of an extension of 15 days for French potatoes was considered, as it had to be, solely on these grounds, and in the absence of any plant health objections, the date was postponed accordingly.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that in view of infestation by the Colorado beetle in Jersey and Guernsey last month, or even earlier this month, Cornish growers are concerned and reluctant to accept the suggestion of this Department that there is no danger of the Colorado beetle being found in this country? Will he examine the matter again?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The arrangements taken by the French to safeguard against the Colorado beetle coming to this country are extensive. The potatoes are riddled and washed and packed in new bags before they are sent here. The beetle which reached Jersey seems to have come from the Cotentim Peninsula, which is not an area from which potatoes are exported to this country.

  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    Concord Aircraft
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation, if he will make a statement on the conditions attached to the Pan-American order for six Concord airliners.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Neil Marten): No. Sir. This is a commercial agreement between the airline and the manufacturers and its terms are confidential.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when news of this order was first released it was presented as a firm offer to buy six Concords and that later that was qualified by the statement that there were release conditions attached to the contract? In view of the fact that millions of public money are invested in the building of the supersonic plane, ought not the public to have more accurate information about this suggested contract?
    Mr. Marten: Certain details have been released about this contract, but others remain confidential because they are of a commercial nature. There would have to be agreement between the two companies, Sud Aviation and the British Aircraft Corporation, the two Governments, and Pan-American Airways: it would take the agreement of all five before anything could be released which is not already agreed.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: In view of the large sum of taxpayers' money which is involved, will my hon. Friend satisfy himself that what happened between Boeings and de Havillands will not happen again? On that occasion they went along with the negotiations and backed down at the last minute. Will he satisfy himself that on this occasion Pan-American will not get all the information and then back out at the last minute?
    Mr. Marten: We have done our best. There has been speculation about what has, I think, been referred to as an "escape clause". It is only natural that Pan-American should wish to safeguard themselves when ordering an airliner so long before entry into the airlines service. Nevertheless the order is a real one and they will pay a substantial penalty if they change their mind.
    Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman recognises that Pan-American is entitled to safeguard itself. Is not he, in turn, entitled to safeguard the interests of the British taxpayer who is providing the money for our part in the building of this machine?
    Mr. Marten: Yes, Sir. That is the object of the penalty clause.

  LORD CHANCELLOR (ADVISORY SOLICITORS)
  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Attorney-General, by what criteria the Lord Chancellor selected the team of advisory solicitors assisting him in his inquiry into the Profumo affair; and if he will publish their names.
  The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): There was no such team.
  Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it was reported in the Press that a very prominent and active Conservative Party worker who was a councillor and was raised to the peerage for his political services to the Conservative Party—Lord Chelmer—was one of the advisers, and that before the report was delivered to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Chelmer, as one of the joint chairmen of the Conservative Party, was leading a deputation to the Prime Minister? In view of the fact that this was an inspired report from Lord Chelmer, will he publish the names or give a denial that Lord Chelmer was one of the solicitors called in?
  The Attorney-General: As I said, no solicitor was called in to act on behalf of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor conducted the inquiry with the assistance only of his permanent staff. I will certainly draw the attention of my noble Friend to what has just been said.

  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (REPRESENTATIONS)
  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Attorney-General what action was taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions as a result of representations made to him on 4th February by a solicitor, Mr. Clogg, and counsel, Mr. Mark Littman, in regard to the formulation of criminal charges.
  The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions advised Mr. Clogg and Mr. Littman that the evidence submitted to him by them would not justify a prosecution.
  Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Attorney-General when that information was given, because during the debate last week the

  943
  right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), who was also one of the great legal luminaries, including the two mentioned, thought there was sufficient evidence and he knew nothing about this information as recently as last Monday? May we know when the decision was taken?
  The Attorney-General: The decision was taken on 5th February when Mr. Clogg and Mr. Littman saw the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  MISS MARILYN RICE-DAVIES
  Mr. Grimondasked the Attorney-General what charge has now been made against Miss Marilyn Rice-Davies; and under what authority she was prevented from leaving the country.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I have been asked to reply.
  No charge has been made against her. When about to leave the country she was taken into custody because the police were pursuing inquiries about her activities which might eventually justify bringing charges against her. To give time for these inquiries to be completed she has been allowed bail under Section 38(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, on a condition to attend at the Marylebone Police Station on 28th June, unless in the meantime she is informed that her attendance is not required.
  Mr. Grimond: Will the Home Secretary accept that I realise that the Attorney-General, speaking off the cuff during the debate, did mistake the situation; that that might happen to anyone and that this is not a vendetta upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman? But can the Home Secretary be a little more explicit about exactly what has happened? Section 38 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, under which she was detained, speaks of taking someone into custody "for an offence". On Thursday last the Home Secretary said that she was taken into custody as a wanted witness. That does not appear to be the same. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House for what offence she was taken into custody?
  Mr. Brooke: I never said that she was taken into custody as a witness. Nor
  944
  can I say anything about possible charges that may be brought against her. It would not be in the public interest for me to do so while the matter is under further consideration.
  Mr. Lipton: Does not the Home Secretary realise that in fact the Attorney-General was telling the truth and not the Home Secretary, that this lady was taken into custody for an offence without a warrant? Does not the Home Secretary appreciate that under Section 38(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, the only circumstance in which anyone can be held up in the way that Miss Marilyn Rice-Davies was held up is under that particular Section, taken into custody for an offence without a warrant? What was the offence and, if there was an offence, why was there not a warrant issued?
  Mr. Brooke: I cannot add anything to my statement. I have made perfectly clear what the facts are. They are as I have stated. It was in reply to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who accepted the reasons why at this stage I could say nothing more.
  Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Home Secretary to look at his answer, as reported in HANSARD at column 629, in which he said:
  "The position is that she is not on a charge. My right hon. and learned Friend was answering a question at short notice. She is not on a charge. She actually has entered into recognisance to appear at St. Marylebone police station on 28th June."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 629.]
  Is this to answer a charge or to give evidence as a witness?
  Mr. Brooke: Consideration is being given to the question whether a charge should be brought against her. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] That is precisely what I have said, and this is an entirely separate matter from a different question which was put to me about her being brought back from Marjorca on a different occasion.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Can the Home Secretary say under what legal authority the police acted?
  Mr. Brooke: I said that in my original Answer.
  Mr. Fletcher: Can the Home Secretary say under what authority he is entitled to keep people in this country against their will, and for how long, while he is making up his mind whether there is to be a charge against them or not?
  Mr. Brooke: I have already said that the police were acting under Section 38 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952.

THE YEMEN (BRITISH SERVICE PERSONNEL)
Mr. Healey Mr. Healey (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on incidents inside the territory of the Yemen Republic involving 45 military personnel of the British Army, Air Force and Royal Marines.
The Minister of Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): At 3 p.m. local time on Saturday, 22nd June, a party of 44 Service men and Service women, officers and other ranks, all from H.Q. Middle East Command, set out in the State of Lahej, which is part of the Aden Federation, for an exercise forming part of the normal programme of adventure training.
Their planned route, if it had been followed, would have kept them well away from the frontier with the Yemen. Unfortunately, while moving along desert tracks during the night, they took the wrong turning. This brought them into Yemeni territory at about 9 p.m. where they were fired upon by tribesmen. The party split up and 18 members, including four women, escaped. The remainder were pinned down by fire and later surrendered. One Royal Marine and three soldiers were killed and two others were slightly wounded.
The four women captured and the bodies of those killed have now been returned, leaving 18 male prisoners in Yemeni hands. Negotiations for the return of these are continuing.
I have asked the Commander-in-Chief Middle East, to carry out a full inquiry into this incident. Meantime, I know that the House will wish to join me in extending sympathy to the families concerned.
Mr. Healey: First, may I say that all of us on this side of the House would certainly wish to express our sympathy
946
to all those concerned, the relatives of those who lost their lives?
May I say that many of us are disturbed that in a territory larger than the United Kingdom it should have been thought necessary and proper to carry out an exercise of this nature, involving feminine members of Her Majesty's Forces, close to the frontier of a State with which we have no diplomatic relations and with which political relations are not good at the present time?
In view of the fact that the local commander is now instituting an inquiry, may I ask whether the results of the inquiry will be presented by the Minister to the House as soon as possible?
Mr. Thorneycroft: I can assure the hon. Member that I am as concerned as he is about the incident, which, plainly, was of a very serious character. It is not the practice to publish reports of military courts of inquiry, but I recognise the House's interest in this matter and will certainly give it all the information I can as soon as it is available to me.
Mr. W. Yates: Will the Minister consider asking his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to communicate with the Government of the Republic through the United States and to ask for the help of the Italian Consul-General in Ta'izz so that the arrangements for the release of the soldiers can be conducted by the diplomatic services and by our allies?
Mr. Thorneycroft: The United States Government, who represent British interests in the Yemen, have been asked to ask their chargés ďaffaires in Ta'izz to request the Yemeni authorities to return the missing men. I have no further information on this point at this stage.
Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on both sides of the House we regret very much this sad accident? Will he have consultations with the Foreign Secretary to try to clean up this position between the Yemeni Republic and Britain? The United States recognises the Yemen. After our withdrawal of the legation at Taiba on 26th February—10 days later—we were attacking it with 300 U.A.R. troops under British officers. Because of this problem, is it not time that U Thant's proposal for a demilitarised buffer zone in this area was accepted?
Mr. Thorneycroft: That question raises wider points. Whatever the position about recognition, I think that the House will agree this is not the kind of frontier which, under any circumstances, one can run any risks about crossing. It is about this that the inquiry will take place.

PRESS COUNCIL (CONSTITUTION)
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. W. F. Deedes): With permission, I should like to make a short statement.
Last week, the Press Council adopted a revision of its constitution along the lines proposed by the Royal Commission on the Press of 1961–62.
As the Press Council announced in its statement on 19th June, it will in future have an independent and salaried chairman and a further lay element not exceeding 20 per cent, of its voting membership.
The Government welcome the implementation by the Press Council of these recommendations of the Royal Commission.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who appoints the independent chairman? Is it the newspapers proprietors, and is he in that sense altogether independent? Who pays his salary? Who appoints the lay members? If it is the newspaper proprietors, may I say that, although this is a very welcome further step, there will be widespread doubts whether it has gone far enough to create public confidence in the complete independence of the Press Council.
Mr. Deedes: The appointment of the lay members is done in conjunction between the chairman and the members of the Council. The Council will meet early next month when the next step will be considered. The appointment of the chairman is a matter which the Council has still to consider and it will be seeking the name of a suitable public individual, independent of newspapers, on the lines which the Council has already mentioned.
The finances of the Council have already been arrived at by proportionate contributions by the different constituent bodies of the Council. The arrangements will continue. Although the proprietors
948
pay a large share it is by no means all the revenue of the Council, and I hope that, for reasons which the right hon. Member has in mind, the proportions will be maintained in future.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that this new, reformed Press Council will be welcome if it achieves anything, because the present Press Council has achieved precisely nothing? Will it be able to look at those restrictive practices which put up the costs of the newspaper industry and make it almost impossible for anyone to start a new newspaper?
Mr. Deedes: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Council is now reconstituted voluntarily on the lines which the Shawcross Commission recommended. That is the first step. It has also extended the scope of its work, again in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The point raised by myhon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) will be covered by the new constitution.
Mr. Grimond: While welcoming this change of the Council, am I right in thinking that the Minister said that the new chairman will be appointed by the Council? While this certainly is a step in the right direction, will the Minister suggest that the Council might consider having trustees to appoint the chairman as many newspapers have trustees to appoint their editors? Also, is the Council taking steps on the other recommendations of the Shawcross Report, particularly for purposes other than the appointment of the chairman and increased powers to ask for information?
Mr. Deedes: It will be found in the new constitution which the Council has published—and the right hon. Member may have knowledge of the fact—that nearly every point recommended by the Royal Commission has been met.
The question of trustees will, I am sure, be borne in mind. I stress that at the moment all this is being achieved on voluntary lines. I am sure that it would be the wish of the right hon. Member that it should continue on voluntary lines.
The appointment of the chairman is something which I know the Council will consider at an early meeting, which, I think, will take place next month.
Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Council will appoint the lay members. May we have an assurance that these lay members will not be associated with the Press in any form and that they will be of an independent turn of mind? If not, what purpose will there be in appointing them?
Mr. Deedes: The appointment of the lay members will be considered by the new chairman and the reconstituted Council at an early stage and the chairman's view on this will no doubt be extremely important. I think that I can assure the right hon. Member, in the light of what has been done so far, that the lay members will be truly lay members.
Mr. Shepherd: As the all-important issue here is the quality and independence of the chairman, can my hon. Friend do anything to see that a man of suitable calibre is appointed?
Mr. Deedes: I assure my hon. Friend that the point which he has made is well in the minds of those who are most concerned about it. I have every reason to believe that they will make a wise selection.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. M. Foot: I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, at the first available opportunity, a matter which may involve an issue of the privileges of the House of Commons.
The passage to which I refer appeared in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday, 23rd June, and read as follows:
"Lord Hailsham's personal statement in the Lords on Thursday was not, I am told, his first counter-charge to the attacks made on him in the Commons on Monday. Earlier in the week he had written a private letter to the Speaker. It was apparently on failing to receive a satisfactory answer that he determined to follow a precedent going back to 1922. For a Member of one House to make his displeasure felt to the Speaker of another is, I imagine, unique."
To relate the passage in the newspaper to the general statement about privileges of the House which appears on page 45 of Erskine May, I will quote from Erskine May:
"Speaker's Petition.—At the commencement of every Parliament it has been the custom for the Speaker, 'in the name, and on behalf
950
of the Commons, to lay claim by humble petition to their ancient and undoubted rights and privileges: particularly that their persons (their estates and servants) may be free from arrests and all molestations; that they may enjoy liberty of speech in all their debates;' "
If the statement which appeared in the passage which I have read from the Sunday Telegraph is untrue, and if no such letter was ever despatched, then it seems to me that an early opportunity should be taken of making that fact generally known, and my raising the matter in this way may give a convenient opportunity for that to be done. But if, on the other hand, the statement which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph is true, and if a letter were sent to you in terms even approximating to those described here, then it seems to me that a very serious issue arises. For the only judge of how the liberties of speech in this House shall be exercised is you, Sir, and the only people who are entitled to express displeasure about it are Members of this House. As the House knows, that is done only on the very rarest of occasions, and when it is done it has to be done in the open by means of a substantive Motion. There is no other way in which a criticism could be made.
But if someone outside this House were to express displeasure with a Ruling in this House, or the way in which liberty of speech has been exercised, if it were to be done by anybody it would be serious enough, but if it is done by a person of some eminence in another place, then it seems to me that the matter is all the more serious; and if the person is not only of some eminence, but is also a Minister of the Government, that adds further still to the offence which might have to be considered.
Personally, I am always in favour of being very sparing in invoking questions of Privilege, but if this House were to let pass a statement of this nature it might set a most dangerous precedent because it might be supposed that anybody could write to Mr. Speaker from another place or elsewhere criticising the conduct of business in this House. I therefore submit to you that a prima facie issue of Privilege arises.
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) be good enough to bring me the newspaper which I have to have?
Copy of newspaper handed in.
Mr. Speaker: I will consider the hon. Member's complaint and rule upon it tomorrow.
Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. When you give your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, if such letters have been written would you be kind enough to make them available to the House? Will you make available the letter which was written to you and your reply so that the House, which may have to form an opinion on this, may form an opinion in the full knowledge of the facts?
Mr. Speaker: I realise the difficulty here. I have no wish to do anything but share all my information with my fellow Members. The noble Lord did write to me, and I wrote to him, and he wrote to me. Those three letters were each of them private and personal. I hope that I may say this clearly. As far as I am concerned, let us not have any imagined mysteries about it. I am utterly content that all the world should know the contents of them save on one point—that if we cannot, in public life, write private and personal letters to one another, then very serious inconvenience must arise.
No one is to say that by labelling one's correspondence in some way one may perpetrate an abuse, but it is necessary to think how much private and personal letters should be made public property in the interests of us all.
Mr. Wigg: I am the last person to wish to interfere in any private correspondence you may have with Lord Hailsham, Mr. Speaker, but, if it were private and confidential, the question arises, who told the Press? Surely that must involve a different matter. If you, Sir, are involved in private correspondence with the Leader of another place, and some person reveals it—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member asked me about the existence of letters, and I have dealt with that. For the rest, I should like to consider the matter and to give my Ruling.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Thorpe: May I raise, Mr. Speaker, a further point of Privilege of a more minor matter but one which, in my respectful submission, affects the rights of Members?
I have just received a letter from Messrs. Sharpe Prichard & Co., Palace Chambers, Bridge Street, with reference to the Clywedog Reservoir Joint Authority Bill. The letter reads:
"We are instructed to inform you that the Committee of the Promoters of the Bill this morning considered the Amendments standing in your name to be moved on consideration. The Committee are prepared to agree to these Amendments subject to you and the other Members who put their names to the Amendments refraining from further opposition to the Bill. In the circumstances we are informing the Chairman of Ways and Means that the Promoters agree these Amendments and we assume that you or one of the other Members will formally move them tomorrow."
I submit that not only is it improper to ask an hon. Member to refrain from opposition to any Measure which will come before the House, or is before the House, but that it constitutes an attack on the privileges of this House.
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member please let me have the letter?
Letter handed in.
Mr. Speaker: My reading matter is now complete. I will consider the hon. Member's complaint and rule upon it tomorrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TELEVISION BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 7, page 7, line 8, column 1, line 12, column 1, line 13, column 2, line 16, column 1, line 17, column 2, and page 10, line 1, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Reginald Bevins.—[Mr. Bevins.]
  Question amended, by adding, at the end:
  "and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 7, page 7, lines 13, 17, 20, and 30, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Ian Gilmour.—[Mr. Ian Gilmour.]
  and, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  Clause 7.—(RENTAL PAYMENTS BY PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS.)
  3.51 p.m.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, column 1, to leave out "one-and-a-quarter" and to insert "one-and-a-half".
  The Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we discussed the Amendments in page 7, line 12, column 1, leave out "eight" and insert "six".
  In line 13, column 1, at end insert "but subject to paragraph 2 below)".
  In column 2, leave out "22½"and insert "25".
  In line 16, column 1, leave out "one-and-a-quarter million and eight" and insert "one-and-a-half million and six".
  In line 17, column 2, leave out "40" and insert "45".
  In line 17, at end insert:
  2. If the advertising receipts for the 12-month accounting period do not exceed two-and-a-half million pounds no payments shall be due from the programme contractor for the accounting period; and where those advertising receipts exceed two-and-a-half million pounds, the amount of the additional pay-
  954
  ments for the 12-month accounting period shall not exceed 100 per cent of the excess.
  In line 20, after "1", insert:
  "and for the sum mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Table".
  In line 30, after "applies", insert:
  "or the sum mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Table".
  Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir William. I am grateful to you for suggesting that we deal with all the Amendments to Clause 7 together. I do not propose at this stage to make any observations on the Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour). I should prefer—so, too, would my hon. Friend—to hear the case for those Amendments deployed before addressing the Committee upon them.
  I do not think that I need detain the Committee with a long history of what has become the best-known Clause in the Bill, best known presumably because, unlike most of the other Clauses, it deals primarily not with television, but with money. Already, very many words—far too many, in all probability—have been expended on this Clause—on Second Reading, in the Standing Committee, in the Press, forecasts, letters and a spate of hand-outs of all conceivable kinds.
  There is, therefore, no reason why there should be any dubiety in any hon. Member's mind as to what the Government are seeking to do. We are seeking to correct a weakness in the 1954 Act, a weakness which manifested itself only some years after the event. This was the absence of any provision for economic rentals bearing a proper relationship to the value of the public concession enjoyed by the programme contractors.
  The first point I should like to emphasise is that there is no dispute about this on either side of the Committee. We are all agreed—certainly, so far I have not heard a single dissentient—that the new contracts which are to be let as from July, 1964, must provide for rentals which will enable the taxpayer rightly to share in the prosperity of independent television.
  What all the fuss has been about is the way in which this ought to be done. I have tabled these Amendments in deference to what the Government consider were well-founded arguments and views expressed in Standing Committee B. This is not the occasion for me to explain

  955
  why the basis of the levy was changed from profits to advertising revenue. That has already been thrashed out very exhaustively upstairs, and I hope that the change in the basis is now at least generally accepted as being right.
  That aside, the only changes that I am proposing in Clause 7 are those now contained in these Amendments, both of which I foreshadowed during consideration of the Bill in Standing Committee. The first change is the proposal that the additional payments to be made by the programme contractors should be levied on their net advertising receipts—that is, after the deduction of advertising agents'commissions—instead of upon gross advertising receipts. The second change is the proposal that the free slice, as it is now known, should be increased from £1¼ million to £1½ million.
  I am proposing the change from gross receipts to net in the light of the arguments which were advanced by hon. Members in Committee and, indeed, by both the programme contractors and the advertising world. The argument of the contractors was based partly on the fact that, in practice, they do not receive these commissions and probably to some extent in the hope that the Government might consent to retain the same scale of levy as for gross receipts and so to reduce the amount received by means of the levy. The second argument alone would not have convinced me, because in fixing the scale of the levy I had already taken into account the agents' commissions of 15 per cent.
  The advertising agents, on the other hand, actively disliked the inclusion of their commissions in the receipts on which the levy was to be paid, because they felt it might endanger the traditional structure of their profession. I think that it was in their minds that to avoid part of the levy the programme contractors might conceivably be tempted to work out with the advertisers a new method of payment to the agents and one on which the levy would not bite. The Government have no wish whatever to disturb existing practices and procedures in the advertising world by reason of the purely incidental feature of the Government's proposals for the levy. We have, therefore, decided to exclude the agents' commissions and
  956
  to make corresponding adjustments in the pitch of the scale.
  The Government have also decided to meet the point of view which was widely expressed by hon. Members in Standing Committee that the regional companies ought to be given more encouragement to produce programmes. This will be done by increasing the amount of the free slice from £1¼ million to £1½ million. The practical effect of this is to increase the exempted amount in the early stage, not by £¼ million but by £½ million, because if the scale had been adjusted to produce exactly the same amount after excluding the agents' commissions as it would have done before the free slice would have been reduced to £1 million.
  The effect of these two changes taken together is that the scale now proposed based on net advertising receipts will exempt the first £1½ million; the next £6 million will be subject to levy at 25 per cent. and the balance at 45 per cent. Naturally, the increase in the amount of the free slice will work to the advantage of all the companies, whatever their circumstances and whatever their size, but, in proportion, it is bound to confer the greatest benefit on the smaller companies not already exempted by the original free slice, and the middle group of companies will be assisted to a greater extent than the larger companies.
  4.0 p.m.
  What matters is the effect which the new scale of levy will have after July, 1964, when it starts to operate. On the basis of estimates of advertising expenditure furnished to the Government by the advertising profession, the levy ought to produce about £17 million in additional payments in the first full year. Assuming that costs, one way or another, are then about £3½ million higher than they were in 1962–63, the companies should be left with profits before tax of about £15¼ million.
  This figure allows for net advertising receipts of £70·6 million, income from programme sales, and so forth, of £8·2 million, costs including the Authority's rentals of £46·6 million—that, by the way, is an increase of £3½ million on 1962–63—and a levy of £17 million, leaving a balance of £15·2 million before the incidence of normal taxation.
  I think that I should be out of order if, at this point, I were to deal with matters which are extraneous to the Amendments, but not to the Clause itself, such as the operation of the flexibility provision in general and its application to individual companies, but there are three suggestions which arise from the Amendments which I should take this opportunity of refuting.
  The first suggestion is that the Clause, even as amended, will mean that the companies will in future suffer a licence to lose money. If any company really believes this—as far as I know there is only one candidate in this category—then I say that nobody is obliged to contract after 1964 if it does not wish to do so. But the truth of the matter is that this is not to happen. A collective profit before tax of more than £15 million is a very fair return on any view, either in relation to turnover or to the capital employed.
  The notion that the Government, my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General or myself, have the smallest wish to destroy independent television is an utter absurdity, and this Clause, as amended, offers every encouragement to the companies as a whole to carry on while, at the same time, protects the interests of the taxpayer. Neither side of this Committee has the slightest wish to jeopardise the future of commercial television, and, indeed, we shall see that that does not happen.
  The second criticism is that, because the top rate of levy is as high as 45 per cent. on net receipts, the larger companies will have no incentive to seek additional revenue in excess of £6 million because they would have to pay 45 per cent. on the excess of £6 million advertising revenue. But, on the contrary, they will have every incentive to receive advertising revenue of more than £6 million. After all, on the first £1½ million, they will pay nothing. On the next £6 million they will pay 25 per cent., and it is in that category that programme costs in reality apply because no company in this country, large or small, spends more than £8 million a year on programmes.
  On the band which is subject to levy at the rate of 45 per cent., the fact is that the margin of profit is at its very maximum—at a level of 55 per
  958
  cent. I confess that I could hardly believe my eyes when I read the argument that a commercial company will avoid or shy away from increased revenue because before tax it will be left with only 55 per cent. of its income.
  The third suggestion is that the new scale will so harshly affect the big four companies that the small companies which lean so heavily on the big four for network programmes will be put in peril. This has been very assiduously put about in some quarters. I must say that I find it a very odd argument, because it assumes that the big four will no longer be able to produce enough network programmes for sale. I think that this is palpably untrue, because they will still have the resources to do so, and, moreover, since the revenue will not apply to income from the sale of programmes the incentive to produce programmes and to sell them will be greater rather than less than it is at present.
  This is also an odd argument I think because, of course, the small regional companies will be a good deal better off, not worse off, than they are at present, and if, as the Government hope, these proposals tempt the smaller regional companies to produce more television and encourage them to get at least some programmes on the network under the new arrangements which transfer networking control to the Authority, so much the better, for this could well lead to more genuine competition between the companies and programmes of a more genuinely national character.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: I can see from what the right hon. Gentleman has said what the revenue position will be concerning the programme companies. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the position will be concerning the national Exchequer?
  Mr. Bevins: The approximate change as between the proposals which were previously before the Committee and the position if these Amendments are accepted will be a fall in Exchequer revenue of about £1½ million.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: The object of the Amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and myself is to help any company which obtains an advertising revenue of rather more than £1½ million.

  959
  Their effect is to leave the free slice, the £1½ million, where it is, but to free any company from the liability to start paying at £1½ million unless its advertising receipts exceed £2½ million; and then to overcome the difficulty, a theoretical difficulty at present, that the first £1 in revenue over £2½ million would otherwise be inordinately expensive in that it would make the company liable to pay the levy on the £1 million between £1½ million and £2½ million, they provide that no company shall pay more in levy than the amount by which its advertising receipts exceed £2½ million.
  Therefore, this cushions the shock which would otherwise be felt at the £2½ million figure without in any way affecting the larger companies.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: On a point of order. Is the hon. Gentleman discussing the Government Amendments or his own Amendments?
  The Chairman: As the hon. Member will have heard, all the Amendments are being discussed together.
  Mr. Chapman: I beg your pardon, Sir William. I thought that only the Government Amendments were being taken together.
  Mr. Gilmour: As I have indicated, this is an academic point, because at present no company earns an advertising revenue of £2½ million. They all earn a good deal more or a good deal less. The nearest company to this figure is Anglia Television, which hopes to obtain in 1964 an advertising revenue of about £2½ million.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the hon. Member aware that the declared advertising revenue of Anglia Television for 1962 is £2,669,000?
  Mr. Gilmour: That includes the notional figure for the advertisers' commission, which is not included in the figures for 1964. As I say, Anglia Television hopes to obtain an advertising revenue of about £2 million.
  These Amendments have a regional flavour. They are tabled to deal, in the first instance, with Anglia Television's special case, but I do not think that any
  960
  apology is needed for that because it is generally agreed on both sides of the Committee that Anglia Television has a good record. Secondly, both the opponents and the detractors of commercial television can agree that regional television has been one indisputably valuable outcome of the introduction of commercial television. Thirdly, some of the existing frontiers of the big four stations are decidedly unnatural and are, therefore, unlikely to be immutable, so that other companies will be likely to find themselves in future in the position that Anglia is in today. These Amendments, therefore, involve the future of regional television, and because they involve that principle, they are, and will be, supported by hon. Members who have nothing to do with the territory served by Anglia.
  I understand, of course, my right hon. Friend's inhibitions about this. Almost any dividing line is likely to entail injustice to those who are just one side or the other of it. I hope to be able to show the Committee that these Amendments would remove a serious injustice without adding further difficulties and without costing the Exchequer a significant sum; and that there is a strong case for adding a safety net of £2½ million to the dividing line of £1½ million.
  Anglia hopes to have advertising revenue in 1964 of £2 million and it hopes to make a gross profit of about £¼million on which, if the Bill is not amended, it would have to pay a levy of about £125,000, so that its profit would be reduced to a similar figure, and only a slight worsening in the terms of trade, therefore, an increase of costs or a fall in advertising revenue would drive it into the "red".
  The levy therefore strikes Anglia to a unique degree. The smaller companies are safely ensconced in the free slice. The larger companies in the second division, in which Anglia is usually placed, although it is much smaller than Scottish, Southern, Tyne-Tees and T.W.W., will all have a revenue in 1964 of probably nearly £3½ million or £4 million and a profit, after payment of the levy, of about £800,000 or more. Their profit will be rather more than six times as much as that of Anglia.
  For the small companies, the levy is merely a shot fired across their bows a

  961
  safe distance in front. For the larger companies, it is a direct hit, but only in the case of Anglia is it a direct hit amidships right on the waterline. Since Anglia stands for the things that my right hon. Friend this afternoon said he wanted to encourage—more regional programmes, for example—he is in the position, if I may move my guns from sea to land, of the artillery who, during the First World War, notoriously spent their time shelling their own side. If these Amendments are passed, they would raise the sights of my right hon. Friend's guns so that he would be saved from that frustrating and embarrassing activity.
  This is not to suggest that my right hon. Friend is against the big four, but merely that the object of the Clause is to siphon off large profits—and only the big companies make large profits. In Anglia's case, there are no large profits to be siphoned off. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will agree that these Amendments do not discriminate in favour of Anglia. They would remove a manifest although unintended discrimination against Anglia and they would do that without in any way either helping or hurting the larger companies.
  We are not solely concerned with a heavy fiscal blow at Anglia. As it happens, Anglia has produced for its size probably more and better programmes than any other company. It has produced a number of good and successful plays. It is now pioneering the idea of a "dawn university", a series of university lectures at breakfast time. I do not know how much that idea appeals to the Committee. More important, it has produced a great deal of regional programme material. It produces something like eight times as much as does the B.B.C. It produces about 36 hours a month, whereas my latest figure for the B.B.C. is about 4½ hours a month.
  4.15 p.m.
  Similarly, concerning Anglia, the allegation in paragraph 187 of the Pilkington Report that the I.T.A. devotes far less time to serious programmes than does the B.B.C. is quite untrue. The B.B.C. produces about 17 hours; Anglia produces rather over 16½ hours. Therefore, as to serious programmes, they are running neck and neck, and in regional content Anglia is miles ahead, an achievement for which, if these Amendments are
  962
  not passed, instead of being rewarded Anglia will be uniquely penalised.
  It is no good pretending that this very good programme policy of Anglia will continue if it has to pay the levy. Elementary business prudence would demand that it cuts down its ambitious programming policy. It would have to cut down on serious and regional programmes and rely to a much greater extent than it has done on the big four for its programmes. So if these Amendments are not enacted, a heavy blow will be levelled not only against Anglia television and against East Anglia as a whole, which would be strongly and rightly resented, but also against the principle of regional television.
  My right hon. Friend would be saying, in effect, that if any company manages to emerge from the state in which it is very little better than a conduit pipe for the programmes of the big four, it will be smartly returned to that condition, from which it is seeking to evolve, by the operation of my right hon. Friend's levy. He would be perpetuating the programme competition of the big four which was necessary at the start but which other parts of the Bill seek to loosen.
  I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend wants to do that. Indeed, he indicated this afternoon that he did not. In Standing Committee, he said:
  "It has always been my view that too much in the television of this country is London based, produced in London, set in London and designed primarily to appeal to the London and Home County audience."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 7th May, 1963; c. 911–2.]
  My right hon. Friend went on to discuss how to encourage production of more regional material, in which Anglia television is pre-eminent. It seems plain, therefore, that these Amendments are in accordance with my right hon. Friend's natural inclinations, of which I am very glad, since if passed they would remove an anomalous and unnecessary bar to the development of regional broadcasting.
  It seems that in the years ahead, we will have a development of regional broadcasting in the sense that there will be more stations corresponding to recognisable regions. There is not much point, however, in having more regional stations if they are to be prevented by my right hon. Friend's levy from producing more

  963
  good and regional programmes. His attitude to these Amendments will, therefore, show whether he and the Government think that the maintenance and encouragement of more and better regional broadcasting is more or less important than dogged adherence to a fixed scale of taxation.
  There is even more at stake than that, because, in the years ahead, the administration of the country will almost certainly be far more regionally based, with a much more regional tinge than now, with less centralisation and more regionalism, and it is right that television should precede or be parallel with this development. If, however, my right hon. Friend opposes the Amendments, he will be putting himself not only on the wrong side of the argument about regional television, but also on the wrong side of the argument about the future administration of the country. He would be voting against the 1970s. I am sure that he does not want to do any of these things and I hope that he will come down gracefully on the right side of this argument.
  Mr. David James: Would my hon. Friend not agree that he now, and I later, will be accused of special pleading when we refer to special cases and point out that to produce golden eggs one must not kill the goose from the word "go"?
  Mr. Roy Mason: The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) cannot possibly chastise the Postmaster-General with the views he expressed. It would be worth the hon. Member's while to study a later Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) about the amalgamation of small companies, for that might answer some of his queries.
  The Postmaster-General has consistently tried to explain in detail the concern he has for the future of the regional companies and that the sliding scale has been designed with them in mind. It is tragic that although nearly all the organisations within independent television are opposed to the Clause and the levy, they do realise fully that when it is imposed one block of them may suffer at the hands of the other.
  964
  I have in mind the trade unions in the industry—which are concerned about the big four directors, the major profiteers of A.R., A.T.V., A.B.C. and Granada—and the directors themselves, who are afraid that they may have in their hands some profitless companies. There is, therefore, the fear of unemployment, on the one hand, and the fear of companies not making handsome profits, on the other. We should recognise the concern of the trade unions and record our sympathy and understanding for their views.
  We as legislators have been placed in a difficult position. The House of Commons has witnessed a sickening growth of colossal profits over the last three or four years by these companies, particularly the big four, while, at the same time, they have been charged with bowing to the devil of sex and crime, too many repeat programmes and an undue percentage of cheap American films. The Postmaster-General himself has been disgusted with this development, Pilkington protested against it and, after all this, the public expects hon. Members and the Act to protect them.
  No Government could renew the Charter without demanding and fully expecting a great deal better from independent television, particularly from the directors of the big four. Much of this contentious Clause 7 would not have been necessary had they given us higher standards. Had they ploughed more money back into the industry, given the British film industry a greater boost, encouraged more drama and live programmes on independent television their profits would not have been so high, but the fist of the Postmaster-General would not have been needed with such force in Clause 7.
  Despite all this, we still have in the Committee, notably among hon. Members opposite, a lobby who are anxious to retain this measure of profiteering. Hon. Members should unanimously be demanding that this medium should be increasingly used to raise moral and cultural standards. The history of the Clause is showing and has shown Parliament in its worst light. It has shown not hidden persuaders, as it did in 1953, but those who have been openly contesting the Postmaster-General, nearly all of whom

  965
  have interests in television, either manufacturers, shareholders, or in advertising.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Mason: The Postmaster-General, some months ago, in the original Bill, proposed a Profits Tax. Later, because of advice he received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers, he changed it to a G.A.R. levy, as it has become known. The Postmaster-General spelt out his reasons for doing this in great detail and it is for this reason that I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite have been contesting this matter so strongly.
  To begin with, the Postmaster-General wanted to abolish the Television Advertisements Duty. This was hurting the smaller companies. He wanted, as the alternative, something to be done at source. He discovered, however, that had the alternative been allowed to go through, this form of Profits Tax would have been open to a great deal of evasion. By this means he would have lost T.A.D. and have got little back in return. He pointed out how many otherenterprises—bowling alleys, restaurants, and so on—were attached to these companies so that there could be a shifting of prices and, of course, profits. He pointed out the simpler scheme and how it would stop evasion. He also said that it was right in principle.
  Considering how the advertising monopoly has arisen by the use of a publicly developed and owned asset—the frequency spectrum is such—it is right in principle that such people should not have the right to exploit this medium for their own commercial ends. This belief joins most of my hon. Friends with the Postmaster-General against those who have been contesting the sliding scale. Since the Postmaster-General announced his change of mind he has suffered a great deal at the hands of his inquisitors. Pressure has been mounted by the big four and every hon. Member of the Committee upstairs has been swamped with material from them in an effort to get us to oppose the Postmaster-General.
  How nauseating it has been to watch the various operations. A cabal in the Committee has arisen through hon. Members opposite, nearly all of whom have interests in television. They have been
  966
  pursuing the Postmaster-General relentlessly.
  Mr. David James: No.
  Mr. Mason: Hon. Members who were not members of the Committee upstairs have only to read the Official Report of our proceedings to see how they pursued him, particularly on this Clause, although they were relatively quiet on other matters.
  Mr. David James: This point has already been dealt with. The matter of whether or not my hon. Friends have interests to declare has been gone into. When hon. Members spoke they were scrupulous to declare any interests they had. I am a paid-up member of the Society of Authors, Playwrights and Composers Incorporated, paying £4 a year. Is it right, therefore, that these charges should be renewed when they have already been proved to be groundless?
  The Chairman: I am not aware that there are any interests requiring to be declared.
  Mr. Mason: I do not wish to bore the Committee by pointing out the interests of hon. Members opposite. If they refer to the Official Report of our Committee proceedings they will see that hon. Members opposite were warned by me that if they did not declare their interests I would consider it my public duty to do it for them.
  It so happened that those hon. Members opposite with strong interests in Associated Rediffusion, the manufacturers of television sets, and so on, had a person who was relatively disinterested in these matters to head their Amendments. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) had fewer interests to declare than those who were supporting him on the Notice Paper.
  The Postmaster-General, throughout this insidious campaign behind the scenes and in Committee, has leaned over backwards to be fair to the little companies. He allowed, first, a free slice of the £1¼ million and for the sliding scale to be designed to take far more profit from the richer companies. This was done, as the Postmaster-General tried to point out in the Standing Committee and in the moving of his Amendment today, to try to assist the smaller companies so that they should not be squeezed out of existence.

  967
  Again, to be fair, he introduced an escape Clause whereby, if any of the smaller companies suffered in the future because of the imposition of Clause 7, he would have the power to modify the levy. He has already stated that these companies will have the right to produce films, home-produced programmes for export abroad, and not be subject to the levy at all.
  4.30 p.m.
  In spite of all this, the profiteer lobbies in the Standing Committee still voted against the right hon. Gentleman. We know now that they have broadened their ranks, because since the Standing Committee ended its proceedings they have brought in one whom we might describe as the "Old Father Time" of independent television—the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who is with us today. I understand that he is being brought in to assist his hon. Friends in their demands.
  On the very first morning the Standing Committee sat, the Postmaster-General, to get the Committee stage finished as quickly as possible and the Bill enacted at the earliest possible moment, asked us to sit three times per week. We wasted a whole morning arguing about that, and the Motion was eventually withdrawn. Three weeks later, he successfully moved the Motion, and we had three sittings per week. This Measure left the Standing Committee seven weeks ago. Why has there been all this delay before reaching Report and Third Reading? Is it because he has been subject to a great deal of pressure from the chattering hon. Member who remains in his seat on the opposite bench, and his hon. Friends—
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: I am sorry to have been chattering, Sir William. I was merely inquiring how these remarks could possibly be in order on the Amendment.
  The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I, too, should ask the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) to which of these Amendments his remarks apply?
  Mr. Mason: We have to talk on the Clause in general, Sir William, because the sliding scale is the guts of the Clause, and it should be put on record how the
  968
  Postmaster-General has suffered. If one looks at him now and sees the changing colour of his hair, one feels that had we delayed these proceedings a further week he would have been the best detergent advertisement there could be—because of the pressure in the background.
  I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman because, in spite of all this, he has introduced a sliding scale which gives the smaller companies a bigger slice—from £1¼ million to £1½ million—and squeezes the big four for a little more, but as we have had to wait seven weeks for this, one has to ask whether there may not have been a quid pro quo offered by him. Has the right hon. Gentleman offered independent television a second channel? We may be told later when we discuss the operative Amendment, but I have my suspicions.
  The Postmaster-General has granted a bigger free slice, has changed the sliding scale, which will hurt the big four a little more. I know that the 15 per cent, agent's commission is in that, too, and explains part of it, but has he made a deal behind the scenes? Have those who have pressed him had a quid pro quo in the form of the possibility of a second independent television channel? Is that why hon. Members opposite are now relatively quiet?
  I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's general approach to this matter. As I have said, this readjustment again indicates his desire to allow independent television to flourish in all areas, particularly in the North, and not necessarily to flow wholly from the South. We all recognise that commercial television is here to stay, but we want to see it flourishing in all regions, and not just in the South.
  The fears in the minds of the trade unions about the dangers of this levy are quite real. There is a tendency for those fears to be exaggerated, but they are worthy of examination. First, the cost of making films to produce a long film series—good films—may need an investment of anything up to £1 million and, as we know, the return from the investment is very slow. There is, therefore, a danger that some of the big companies may cut back in this realm. It may also affect their export earnings

  969
  and, in turn, because they have poor and cheaper films, cuts in the good-quality ones they produce—occasionally—which may also affect their sales of advertising.
  Secondly, if cheaper and less interesting productions come on the screens, the audience rating may also drop, and the I.T.A. once again become the poor cousin of the B.B.C. That, in turn, may allow the B.B.C. to drop back into its lethargic and less adventurous approach in these productions. There, again, there is danger.
  Thirdly, all the trade unions in the industry are concerned lest there be a cut-back in programme content. The artistes, the creators, the script writers, musicians and technicians are afraid that if there is such a cut-back unemployment may start to grow.
  It is not necessary to exaggerate these fears, but they do exist, and some of them are quite real. The Postmaster-General, therefore, must consider how he can ensure that the present rates of investment may be maintained. This escape clause for the modification of the levy as a last resort can help the smaller companies if they get into difficulties, but the trade unions themselves could at this stage of the Bill be much more helpful by providing evidence, if there is any, of any cut-backs that may take place.
  They should let hon. Members know of any laying-off of musicians, the cutting back in drama programmes, and similar matters, so that hon. Members can bring these things to the attention of the Postmaster-General, and so act as the watchdog of the trade unions in the industry. I remember the right hon. Gentleman saying in the Standing Committee that it would be premature to say that all these things would happen when Clause 7 eventually became operative. It is right to voice the fears of the trade unions, but, in general, I agree that it is a little premature.
  The big four, particularly, have built their empires, and will fight to maintain them. Their audience rating will determine their rates for advertisements, so they will be a little wary and chary about lowering programme standards. Some of the smaller companies are amalgamating, and it would be a good thing for television if there were more and better com-
  970
  petition within independent television as well. They will, therefore, make more strenuous efforts to compete with the B.B.C. for their own lives' sake, so that their programmes do not worsen and their advertisement rates drop.
  I only hope that worsened programmes and the cut-back in programme content of which the trade unions talk will not come about. It is my view that when this sliding scale becomes operative, independent television will still fight with the B.B.C. to get the best audience ratings, and it may be that we shall get better, not worse, programmes, when the Clause is in operation.
  Mr. William Shepherd: I wish, in broad and general terms, to support my right hon. Friend's proposals. I do not pretend that his methods are necessarily the best because, to serve the public interest in its best sense, there should apply in the allocation of contracts for television programmes the system that would obtain in almost every other similar circumstance. In each period a tender should be made for the service, and the contract should be allocated to the company that could prove, first, that it gave the highest tender—in the interests of the taxpayer—and secondly, was able to fulfil the contract into which it was required to enter.
  This ostensibly is the proper way in which contracts of this kind should be allocated but clearly, because of the massive investments required and the many other factors to be considered, it is impossible for us to insist that there should be this open tender at each period of renewal. Therefore, we are forced to accept the second best. We ought to have the best, which is the highest return for the taxpayer, but we cannot secure it. I therefore accept my right hon. Friend's view that we should have a system which insists upon the taxpayer receiving something for the concession given to these companies.
  This concession bestows upon them a monopoly position and the taxpayer has an entitlement, even if the company is losing money, to receive a return for granting this exclusive position. That there will be a reduction in the amount payable to the Exchequer does not worry me. I want to see a specific return to the taxpayer for the concession granted to these

  971
  companies. My right hon. Friend's proposal is second best only to putting the matter out to open tender on each occasion.
  As to the suggestion that the unions are worried, I would say that it is about time that the unions in the entertainment industry were worried. So far, they do not appear to have displayed much intelligent interest in their industry. If they are now becoming concerned I am very grateful. I have been disappointed, like many other members of the public, with what independent television has done in terms of programme standards, though I would not suggest for a moment that it has done as badly as Sir Harry Pilkington suggests.
  It has done badly because too much money has been made too easily. There are two ways of getting bad programmes or a bad anything in business. The first is to have competition so cut-throat, or economic conditions so perverse, that one cannot do a good job. The other is to have so much easy money that one does not care a tinker's cuss whether it is good or bad, because the customer has to have it. We have suffered in the past few years not from the former, but from the latter situation. I am convinced that had the road been much harder for these companies the programmes would have been much better.
  In discussing these Amendments we must be concerned whether with this duty the companies will not be able to do a job which is satisfactory from the point of view of the public and of viewers generally. I should have thought that if one can run a business which is a monopoly and at the end of the year have 15 per cent. profit on turnover one is doing extremely well. I am in business and I do not have anything like that figure at the end of the year. If I did I should be very pleased. I cannot understand the moaning and groaning about a position where one has a monopoly and at the end of the day the prospect of 15 per cent. profit on turnover. Many people in business would be happy to have that situation.
  I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfok, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) about Anglia. As a small unit it has done a great deal of good work. If we could help it in any way I should be glad. Whilst the duty will
  972
  have some effect on companies like Anglia, I think that my right hon. Friend's proposal will be designed to give the taxpayer his entitlement and to give the companies which enjoy a monopoly position a reasonable profit and the ability to serve the company with good programmes.
  I hope, therefore, that the Committee will agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Chapman: I welcome what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has been saying. I wish that he had been a member of the Standing Committee. One of the troubles there was that the sort of sentiment which he has been expressing was expressed from the Government side only by the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General. All the remaining hon. Members on the Government benches were opposed to the sensible line taken by the Postmaster-General.
  Mr. Arthur Tiley: That is not true.
  Mr. Chapman: Broadly, I accept the hon. Member's intervention. There were one or two exceptions, but I think that the hon. Member will agree that most hon. Members opposite or—and I would go any length to placate the hon. Member—the consistently vocal Members were opposed to the right hon. Gentleman and that the sort of thing which has been said this afternoon was said from the back benches only on the Opposition side of the Committee.
  I do not want to speak at length on the broad proposals. I simply wish to speak about Anglia Television. I do so because I raised the matter in the first place in Standing Committee and I want to express my thanks to the Postmaster-General that he has taken some steps in his Amendments to meet the sort of case which I put upstairs on behalf of that company.
  I also want to ask some questions, because we are faced with a difficult problem in choosing between the right hon. Gentleman's version of help for Anglia and that of the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour). I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman's figures involve. We cannot make up

  973
  our minds between these two ways of assisting Anglia until we know the right hon. Gentleman's version of the new figures which will now be involved, following his own Amendments.
  In Committee upstairs, on Anglia's provisional figures, I took a profit of roughly £300,000 on which it would lose about £200,000 in the new duty. Faced with a bad year, this might mean that the company would be near to extinction. When the Postmaster-General replied, he took a quite opposite point of view. He said, in column 815, that the profit would be reduced only from £274,000 to about £214,000, a drop of £60,000. We now have the new position that Anglia is putting out figures to show that its profit is likely to be about £250,000. The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central and I have received figures from Anglia and the hon. Member has said that on that profit the levy would be about £125,000. We are, therefore, faced with continually conflicting sets of figures.
  If it is true that on a profit of about £250,000 Anglia will still be paying half of it in tax then clearly the Postmaster-General has not gone far enough, but if the right hon. Gentleman sticks to his original figures given in Committee upstairs, and which, presumably, must be better now since he has improved the position by Amendments tabled today, the company will be paying only about £60,000 out of something under £300,000. Clearly, therefore, we must support the right hon. Gentleman against his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central, because the right hon. Gentleman's proposals today are quite adequate for Anglia.
  It is true, as the hon. Member for Cheadle has said, that the company is being given a monopoly concession like everybody else, it must be willing to pay something. We must not be continually trimming the tax position under the Bill to exempt Anglia all the time. At some time it must pay its rent for the concession which it is being given. I am willing to vote for a reduction only if the proportion taken from its profits is unfair. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us his version of Anglia Television's new figures before we make up our minds between the two Amendments.
  974
  I should like to make one further point concerning Anglia Television. The point of the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central, with which I have some sympathy, for I raised it in Standing Committee in the first place, is not a very good one. If we write into the Bill special concessions for Anglia Television around the £2½ million mark, what happens when the figure begins to reach £2½ million with costs following quickly behind as they now are when the figure is £2 million and the costs amount to £1·75 million? When we get beyond £2½ million as is suggested in the Amendment which the hon. Member is asking us to support, the Government will come back again saying "There is another very small profit margin" and asking us to pay 50 per cent. in tax, for the Amendment says that up to 50 per cent. in excess over £2½ million can be paid.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: The figure of £1½ million is crucial in the production of regional programmes. It will be a long time, probably as long as this Measure lasts, before Anglia advertising revenue of £2 million reaches £2½ million. Therefore, the point is rather academic.
  Mr. Chapman: When we write figures like this into the Bill they will stand for five or six years. Costs will rise without any increase in the income. The falling value of the £ will bring the problem before us again within a year or two, and we shall be back again with the problem of a company on the borderline of the first bite of tax.
  I think that possibly the proposals of the Postmaster-General, provided he shows that the figures are not too bad so far as the burden on Anglia Television is concerned, are more practical.
  In Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentleman made what amounted almost to an aside, about the future contracts. On 7th May, he said:
  "The circumstances…vary…But that does not mean to say that the Authority may not, before those contracts are given out, take certain steps to seek to even out the nature of these differences between contracts, especially as far as they affect the Big Four."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 7th May, 1963; c. 911.]
  I think what he was referring to was the particular problem of A.T.V. with its split franchise—
  Mr. Bevins Mr. Bevins indicated assent.
  Mr. Chapman: —I see the right hon. Gentleman nodding—between London and the Midlands, involving it in excessive overheads. This can make its tax position unfortunate in special circumstances. Is this the clear intention? Is it intended to review the franchise in this manner so as to take away one of the big complaints against the functioning of Clause 7? If so, another part of the case against the right hon. Gentleman's general position falls to the ground immediately.
  I conclude by making two general points. I hope that we shall come to the end of the continual "belly-ache" by Mr. Norman Collins and his friends. They really have become intolerable. I shall say the same thing to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) if he continues with these complaints today. To say that there is great cause for complaint when £16 million, £17 million or £18 million will be left as profit for the big four is a misuse of words.
  It is scandalous to go so far as Mr. Collins went in saying:
  "The levy on turnover which the new Television Bill proposes is sufficient not merely to reduce the profits of some companies to the level of those of a depressed industry, but to put others, large as well as small, out of business."
  This is an attempt to build up a lobby against the Bill by sheer misrepresentation—I should like to use a stronger word—of the true position. There is no chance under the general proposals, particularly with the Amendments tabled by the right hon. Gentleman today, that companies "large as well as small", to use Mr. Collins' words, are in danger of being put out of business. I noted with amusement that the Beaverbrook newspapers offered to take over A.T.V. if Mr. Collins thought it was such a bad bet for the future. When we see this sort of thing going on, one can only laugh at the antics of Mr. Norman Collins and his friends. They have done the whole thing much too proud in recent weeks.
  My final point is one which I have made twice before, and I hope that I shall be forgiven for repeating it. I plead with all Members that we shall keep our eyes on this levy, on the £15 million or so that is received from it, because the grave danger will be that
  976
  the Government will have a vested interest in high profits from advertising revenue because of the Exchequer return involved. We shall start off with a permanent tax on television, just as we started with the Road Fund, and something which begins with a particular revenue-raising purpose will become a general revenue-raising instrument.
  We must stop this happening if we can. It means that the interests of the viewers in having less advertising time will automatically be opposed by the Government, who will want plenty of advertising time on television in order to get plenty of revenue for the national Exchequer. The viewers come first in this matter, not the Exchequer. I want less advertising if it is compatible with reasonable profits. The viewers should be studied first.
  Mr. David James: Are not the hon. Gentleman's two points mutually exclusive? First, he attacks Mr. Norman Collins for saying that the industry would be in peril. Then he says that he would keep a most careful eye on the advertising revenue because the industry would be in peril, and the viewers should come first.
  Mr. Chapman: No, I did not say the industry would be in peril. I said the viewers would be in peril, which is very different from the position of the programme companies. The danger is that the viewers will have too much advertising in order that the Government can milk the advertising revenue. The two items that I was talking of are not antithetical at all.
  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for meeting this special case concerning Anglia Television. If he can satisfy me on the figures relating to Anglia Television, in the Amendments that he has introduced, I shall certainly support his Amendments as opposed to those of the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central.
  Mr. Peter Walker: I support the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour). In doing this, lest the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) should think that I have some vested interest in Anglia Television,

  977
  so far as I know none of the shareholders, none of the directors, nor I have ever seen Anglia Television, and, so far as I know, neither have any of my constituents.
  When the effect of this levy as affecting Anglia Television was brought to my attention, I considered that this company had been so unfairly treated that I gave full support to the Amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central. I disagree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who said that he would be happy provided that the proportion of the profits that the levy took from this company was not too high. Surely what counts is not the proportion of the profits taken by the levy, but the net profits which are left in relation to capital invested or the turnover of the company.
  If one examines the matter on the only figures which have been provided to me and which the hon. Member for Northfield quoted—the estimates for 1964–65—one finds that the estimated profits, before the levy, amount to £250,000 on a turnover of £2 million. This gives a relationship of profit to turnover of about 12½ per cent. If the levy were applied as originally stated, it would leave a profit related to turnover of 6½ per cent. Compared with the profits of any other companies in the same division, this is so absurdly low as to warrant special attention.
  By the Amendments, it is proposed to create a situation so that, should Anglia Television tend to grow in size and reach the level of the other companies in the second division, it would have the same tax imposed and be appropriately penalised. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend, who has been very considerate in his attention to the problems of the smaller companies throughout the Bill and has taken such an interest in the problems of the regional companies, will, as he promised at the outset today, pay particular attention to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central and accept his Amendments.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Dingle Foot: I associate myself with the Amendments presented by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour). I shall not
  978
  embark upon any of the wider considerations which have been raised in the debate except to say that I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) when he says that the first consideration must be the interests of the viewer. We should be concerned here with the viewers much more than with the Exchequer.
  It is, no doubt, important that we should avoid profiteering, and profiteering especially when it arises from statutory monopolies, but it is still more important, when we are dealing with a medium of information and entertainment, that we should have the widest possible variety of choice. This is one reason why I attach great importance to the future of Anglia Television. The other reason, of course, is that I have the privilege of representing an East Anglian constituency.
  I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central when he speaks of the quality of the programmes which have been put out by the Anglia company and of the contribution which those programmes have made to the community life of Norfolk and Suffolk. One of the most valuable developments we can have in television is the development of local interests and, I add, the appeal to local patriotism.
  The Postmaster-General will, no doubt, make his own comments on the figures which have been supplied by the Anglia company to those of us concerned. They are somewhat alarming figures. They show that, if the proposals now contained in Clause 7 or any similar proposals go through, the company will be operating on a very narrow margin indeed. It would take only some deterioration in the terms of trade in East Anglia for the company really to be in danger and, if it were in danger, or if for any reason in the next few years it had to cease operations, there would be a very real loss to all the communities concerned.
  It is not enough for the Government to refer to subsection (6) and to say that the Postmaster-General has this rather remarkable power of increasing or reducing the rates by Statutory Instrument. For one thing, it seems a rather extreme case of delegated legislation, but we will let that pass. It is not enough to say

  979
  that the Postmaster-General can use his power to redress the situation if this should become necessary, for, of course, what a company in this position must do is plan ahead, prepare its programmes and employ its staff, and none of these things can it do if it has no assurance for the future.
  I hope, therefore, that the Committee and the Government will be prepared to accept the Amendments put forward by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I think that it was the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) who called me "Old Father Time", or something like that, and suggested that I came here to defend or assist some sort of lobby. This is not so. I do declare an interest. As is well known, I have a financial interest in the company which owns part of Southern Television. I have a further interest by reason of my connection with the Beveridge Report. However, I think that the Committee will find, when I express my views on a certain matter later in the Bill, that they run contrary to those of three of the four big companies concerned in this matter.
  I do not propose to argue very much about the method adopted in Clause 7. I found myself in much agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) when he spoke about it earlier, and I think that it would have been better to adopt the tender method rather than a levy. However, I recognise that we must accept this method now as it is and make the best of it. I agree very much also with the views of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman)—perhaps it may be thought wrong or disloyal of me to say this, having once been Chancellor of the Exchequer—when he says that the views of the Exchequer should not be taken into account too much. The position of the viewer should be paramount in this matter.
  I put a specific question to my right hon. Friend which, again, arises out of something said by the hon. Member for Northfield. I think that this method of arranging the levy is bound to lead to inequalities. Can the Postmaster-General assure us that there will be the widest possible latitude left to the
  980
  Authority to adjust the differences so that this method of levy will be equitable as between the various companies? I hope that he will be able to give a clear and specific assurance on that point. It would reconcile me to some extent to this method of raising the money.
  As regards Anglia Television, I have considerable sympathy with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), but I think that this is largely a matter of figures. If the figures which have been given are to be accepted, I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it possible to give way on the Amendment.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I am very pleased to see the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, returning to what was his first love, and I am gratified to hear the rather refreshing point of view which he expressed on this occasion.
  We have had a good deal of discussion on this matter. This is, I think, the fourth shot we have had at trying to find the right standard to apply in order to evaluate a public monopoly. It will be remembered that the Postmaster-General said in his Bill originally that, in order to assess the value, he would tax the gross profits. Eventually, in Committee, he came to the conclusion that one could not assess the value of this monopoly by that method and he then adopted a scheme for a levy on total advertising revenue. Later, he came to the conclusion that that was not the right way. He was pressed still further, and he said that not only would he refund or cancel the Television Advertisements Duty but he would impose the levy not on gross advertising revenue but on net revenue. Then he altered the free slice, as it is called, from £1¼ million to £1½ million. All the time, there has been this retreat from the original arrangement whereby an adequate return would be obtained for the State from these people who had a licence to print money.
  Some of these changes may have been due to pressure. Some, undoubtedly, were due to argument and representations made to the Postmaster-General. But, in his new method, the right hon. Gentleman has listened to the Committee in so far as he has, as it were, tempered the wind to the shorn lamb and so far as concessions are being made to the smaller

  981
  companies at the expense of the bigger companies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) reminded us that there were foretold all sorts of dire consequences for commercial television as a result of the Postmaster-General's activities. First, we were told that some companies would gobankrupt. It seems to me that, in tackling this problem, we are dealing with the consequences of extremely bad planning in the structure of commercial television. We have had a number of rich areas given to a couple of powerful companies. Then there are a smaller number of middle areas, and then, again, the second division or third division areas, of which Anglia is at the top. I will deal with this question of special pleading for Anglia later in my speech.
  In view of all the information and the propaganda to which we have been subjected, it is just as well to see what the Financial Times argues would be the consequence of what the Postmaster-General was going to do when he was going to make the levy on the gross advertising revenue. This is what it said:
  "If advertising receipts in that year"—
  1964–65—
  "are £74 million (after commissions) against the present £60 million or so (with £6 million…coming from…Television Advertising Duty) and the levy raises the intended £16 million—£17 million, this leaves between £57 million—£58 million. If programme costs, now around £36 million, are £40 million (which could be on the conservative side) there would be profits for the whole industry of as much as £17 million or more."
  These are not the figures of the big four, of the tycoons, who talk about £11 million. They are not the figures of the Postmaster-General. These are the relatively independent figures given not by the Daily Herald or by a Labour newspaper but by the Financial Times after a thorough investigation. What the country has to ask itself is whether the amount that is going to be taken from the commercial companies is an adequate return for the possession of a public monopoly. That is what we ought to ask ourselves. Now the Postmaster-General has changed the formula. Instead of £17 million he has now retreated, and, as I understand it, what is left is £15¼ million.
  982
  To refer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield, I should like to know whether in the negotiating of these fresh contracts, with which this proposal deals, there is going to be a reorganisation of boundaries so that each company can be viable instead of having to make special pleas for special interests, such as we have heard today, and which will enable all the companies to be viable and maintain a greater variety in the commercial television of this country. But apparently the Postmaster-General has not that in mind because he is going to provide for flexibility in order to save the small boys from drowning.
  It seems to me that in all this structural mass of commercial television we have had to have a formula of this sort in order to try to take from the big boys and, at the same time, keep the small boys alive.
  Let me deal with Anglia. I was rather astonished to hear the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman from that area and to hear him say that the company was going to be left with 6½ per cent. Is a public monoply to be given to a private company for exploitation, and is it not only to get that concession but have we also to guarantee it against loss as well? Is that the idea?
  Mr. Walker: What I said was that on the present figures as estimated, the return to Anglia on turnover, if the present levy were applied, would be 6½ per cent, before tax. This is, of course, on the estimated figures. This would mean that any variation in costs of operation or declining revenue would mean that the company would make a loss. I was not asking for a guaranteed 6½ per cent. I was saying that on the present figures the company was getting 6½ per cent. while others were getting 40 or 50 per cent.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: Would the hon. Gentleman regard 6½per cent. on turnover as very inadequate?
  Mr. Walker Mr. Walker rose—
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): Order. Mr. Ness Edwards.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: That was a very interesting question to which I should like to have given the answer, but perhaps there will be another opportunity
  We have had a lot of figures thrown at us. Anglia is the top of the third division in population coverage. Are we to be told that a monopoly in the hands of the company covering 2,600,000 is not a viable area? After all, this is commercial television; it is not B.B.C. I said in Standing Committee that people cannot be expected to wear their best clothes all the week and someone else be expected to pay for them. When one mixes with some of the commercial television people and hears the views they express about the running of Anglia—whether it is a contribution to Manchester Guardian prestige or not, I do not know—they appear to be very dubious views about the businesslike way in which Anglia is being run It is tending to wear a top hat on a corduroy trousers' income. That is the view expressed.
  I put it seriously that here is a population coverage of 2,600,000 which we are being told is not viable.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: Of course, a number of the big companies resent the smaller companies coming into the network. It appears that these are the people to whom the right hon. Gentleman has been listening. The point which my right hon. Friend was making this afternoon was that he wants to encourage programmes to come from companies other than the big four. This is what Anglia has been doing up to now and what my Amendment seeks to perpetuate, and this is what I understand the right hon. Gentleman objects to.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is entirely misrepresenting my point of view. What I want are viable companies all over the country which are able to make their contribution to the network. What we have now are companies which have not the resources to make a contribution to the network because the I.T.A. has given all the fat areas of the country to the big four tycoons, and we may as well face it. Commercial television in this country is in the hands of four companies. That is the position, and I want to destroy that situation. What I do not want to do is to keep that position and subsidise the smaller companies. I would rather see Anglia get a bigger population cover-
  984
  age than it now has so as to enable it to do its job. That is the only way to deal with the position without asking the Postmaster-General to put his hand into the public purse in order to enable the smaller companies to maintain cleaner faces.
  I would remind the Committee of calculations given to us by the Postmaster-General—and I do not question his good faith. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "On the best calculations that I have been able to make, I expect if it is able to recoup T.A.D. our levy would only reduce the profits in 1962 by about £60,000, from about £274,000 to £214,000, so I do not really think that the picture for Anglia is as gloomy as some may suppose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 30th April, 1963; c. 815.]
  Quite frankly, in view of some of the good work which Anglia is doing on the programme side, I do not think that it is doing itself any credit at all or is being done any credit by the special pleading which took place upstairs in Committee and which is taking place in this Committee today.
  I ask the Postmaster-General to deal, when he replies, with the question of the value of the commissions. Under his Amendments he proposes to allow commissions on advertising up to 15 per cent. Do I take it that 15 per cent. is the normal charge, and that this is not only to be the maximum but the minimum, and that by every 1 per cent. by which the advertising revenue is decreased by the commission he will lose money? My information is that 15 per cent. is an abnormal commission, that there are many advertisements placed with programme contractors at the moment at lower than a 15 per cent. rate, and yet the right hon. Gentleman is providing 15 per cent. in one of his Amendments. This is a loss of revenue which is a gratuitous present to interested parties. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will explain very clearly to us this 15 per cent. which is the new minimum.
  The other point is about flexibility. The right hon. Gentleman retains unto himself the power to alter the scales either in special cases or generally. I should like to know, even when he alters these scales and rates of levy in special cases, whether he is to seek the authority of the House so to do, or whether this will be done by private pressure behind

  985
  the scenes. Will it be that an accountant will bring forward the accounts and say, "We are in a bad way this year" and that the Postmaster-General or the I.T.A. will say, "Very well, we will reduce your rent, or cut the advertisement levy"? Will that be done behind the back of Parliament? On that we require a very specific assurance.
  Those are the points which seemed to me to be new compared with those we raised in Committee upstairs, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will let us have answers to them.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: When I was thinking over this series of Amendments I thought that the debate would be concentrated on the relative merits of these figures, compared with the figures as they were when the Bill left the Standing Committee—the £1¼ million and the £1½ million, the£8 million and the £6 million, the 22½ per cent. and the 25 per cent, and the 40 per cent. and the 45 per cent. It seems to me that if I were to deal with the debate as it has been going I should have to deal with it as if it were a Second Reading debate. I am rather surprised that it has taken this course this afternoon, because I think that we may have anticipated a very useful debate on other aspects of the Bill by introducing them at this stage. I suppose I shall be bound to comment on some of the things which have been said, although it was not my original intention so to do.
  We are all agreed, I think, that this Clause 7 has had an eventful life, to say the least of it, and I should imagine that it has provided the Postmaster-General with a pretty rough battlefield; but I think that some of the combatants have fallen. After reading all the papers, after getting all the documents from all sorts of quarters about how all these big companies and others were going into bankruptcy and were going to be destroyed one after another, and after hearing, as we were told, that they had friends in this Committee who shared those views, I anticipated that they would be on the attack here this afternoon.
  I have not noticed that up to now, and I have reached this conclusion, that in their heart of hearts all the people who have been arguing to that effect know very well that the Postmaster-General in these particular Amendments has come
  986
  very near to a fair and equitable situation. I do not think there is any doubt about that at all. I think I am entitled to assume, in the absence of criticism of a contrary character, that the bulk of members of this Committee must really be sharing the view of the Postmaster-General that this is a fair conclusion to a very long drawn out effort in the Standing Committee.
  I have been very interested in this debate today, and I think I ought to put the position which I have tried to take up, and which most of my hon. Friends behind me have taken up, consistently in relation to this Clause. We have been concerned in the first place that this country should get something back, something tangible and substantial, from these companies in respect of the most valuable concession which has been given to them. I do not share the views of some of the people that the only people who have got to be considered in this case are the viewers. I think that the viewers must be considered, but I think that for this valuable concession, this national asset, the nation as a nation, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is entitled to have a fair slice of this cake in order to develop scientific and technological research and all the rest so as to provide this country with the very best possible television service.
  We are entitled to have that, and I was glad to hear the Postmaster-General say this afternoon that in his opinion one of the charges should be reasonable rentals, economic rentals, to flow to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We believe that fundamentally. We believe that this is a big and valuable concession and that these companies should be making a substantial contribution because of that concession.
  Having said that, however, I want to say something else we believe in. We want to ensure that the resources of the companies are adequate to meet the new requirements and the new demands which will be made upon them as the service develops, as research develops, and as the very costly installations and instruments are introduced into the service. We want to ensure that they have reasonable resources in order to deal with the obligations and the duties which the Committee is imposing upon them. I am going

  987
  to say this to the trade unions concerned in the industry, and to the programme companies, that in my submission, which I think is shared by most of my hon. Friends behind me, the levy proposed here is such as to allow them to have sufficient resources not only to do the things which they are doing now and have been doing up to now but to do infinitely more. What we are providing them with now gives more reason, even than we had in the past, for ensuring that these people carry out fully their obligations and duties to the nation and that there will be no possibility of a recurrence of a Pilkington Committee Report which shows that they have fallen down on the job of providing the best television service it is possible for them to provide.
  I am going to say another thing. We are not against reasonable profits. We have not in Standing Committee argued against reasonable profits. However, it is very difficult to reconcile some of the figures which have been floating about. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether, in the light of what he was saying, 6½ per cent. profit on turnover was not reasonably adequate. I should think that he would say that it was. His difficulty was that if the circumstances changed and profits were likely to fall below 6½ per cent., there would be difficulties for the companies.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Walker: I think that 6½ per cent.—which is gross before tax—is somewhat low for what must by its very nature be a somewhat speculative industry, but the point I should like to make and on which I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would comment is that it must be wrong for five companies to be treated in the same way by a particular levy, four of them being left with a profit of 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. on turnover and the other with 6½ per cent. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that 6½per cent. is the correct figure, why did he not produce an Amendment to reduce it for all of them to 6½ per cent.?
  Mr. Williams: I could turn that the other way and ask the hon. Member why he did not do so. He had the same opportunity. I agree with him that the profits which have accrued to some of the four
  988
  companies in the past have been so fantastic that they have constituted a national scandal. Anything we can do to ensure that we shall not have a repetition of that will be in the interests not only of the nation but of these companies. I think that the hon. Member and I are on fairly level pegging here. We agree that there should be a reasonable amount of profit.
  I want to declare, as I did in Standing Committee, that we have now accepted that independent television is an integral part of the country's televising services. Whether we believed that in the beginning is beside the point. We now accept it as an integral part of our television services, but that means that we also accept the related responsibility of making sure that only the best standards and the best conduct and the best application of resources are adopted.
  Above everything else, we mean to ensure that the smaller companies get a better deal than they have had in the past. All along I have felt that even the figure of £1¼ million was too near the bone for some of the small companies. The sum of £1½ million may not be enough, but I am prepared to say that as a start, anyway, it should be an encouragement to the small companies.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) have long held the view that the main problem is the distribution of the companies, the location of their spheres of influence. I doubt whether we can make the necessary changes under this series of Amendments, but this is a matter to be seriously considered in future if we are not to have a repetition of the Anglia situation. But there is something in the argument of my right hon. Friend that one should not dress above one's station in the world of today.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: If, as the hon. Member says, there were a redistribution of stations to avoid a repetition of what has happened to Anglia, we should be ensuring that a number of other stations got into the position of Anglia. That is the point which I tried to make plain in my Amendment—if there is a redistribution of stations, as we think there may be, there may be other stations in exactly the same position as Anglia.
  Mr. Williams: I have no doubt at all about that, but the only Amendment here deals with Anglia. There does not seem to be much point in the argument if it does not. I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument, but despite that, there is something in the argument that one cannot go about in a top hat and frock coat if one does not have the resources to go with them, and we also have to be careful about that.
  I want more money to go into the small companies, because I am a great believer in the regional influence of these companies on the life of the nation. They ought to be entitled to do two things. They ought to have sufficient resources of their own to make it less necessary for them to lean on the four big companies as much as in the past. The tragedy of independent television is that four companies which ought to be acting as agents have been acting as dictators. That is the main thing which has come out of the Pilkington Report. One of the main duties which we are trying to impose on the Authority in the Bill is that it must become the master of its own house and not a sub-agent of the four big companies as in the past few years. Secondly, the additional resources being placed at the disposal of the smaller companies should enable them to produce better programmes for themselves and they ought to make their programmes appeal not only to their own regions, but to the nation as a whole by being of sufficiently high value.
  Therefore, I think that the Postmaster-General's approach to the problem of how to finance the independent television companies is quite right. I have studied the figures he quoted. As I understand them, in 1964, or whenever these proposals are introduced, independent television is likely to receive a return of £15,200,000. Is there any hon. Member who would now like to stand up and say that £15,200,000 is not an adequate return on turnover? I give that opportunity to any Member who feels so. My own view is that it is a handsome return and on that score there is no suggestion that the Postmaster-General's action will cripple or weaken, let alone destroy, any of the companies, notably the big four.
  Much has been said about Mr. Norman Collins. If any one man ought to be
  990
  ashamed of his mathematical miscalculations, it is this fellow. He has confused and conflicted all the issues. I have never been able to understand his mathematics. I go further—they were never expected to be understood. They were intended to confuse and mislead, and they misled some hon. Members opposite—or did they?
  I congratulate the Postmaster-General. I do not like congratulating Ministers opposite because they are having an awful time just now and anything said by any of us might be used to their detriment, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not mind if I say that in all these negotiations and discussions, even when we have not been given what we considered to be valid points, we have never challenged his accuracy, his honesty or his integrity.
  I think that the smaller companies ought to do very nicely. I think that the companies like Anglia and the others in what I call Division II—not the big battalions nor the small ones—will have their interests looked after by the flexibility which this Clause provides. I want to choose my words very carefully. I want this flexibility to be controlled because we do not want people running in every two or three minutes saying that the situation has changed. If the situation changes and it is necessary to have a review of the position, we want it to be a careful one, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will carry it out in accordance with the promise that he has made.
  Some of us have been very badly misrepresented in regard to our approach to this question of extravagant spending by some of these companies. A tremendous amount of money has been spent without the goods produced being of a standard to justify that expenditure. I shall not attempt to justify that expenditure, even for the sake of the workers in this industry, because we have a responsibility to workers in other industries who have to pay for what is produced by independent television. It may be said that independent television is provided free but, in the long run, in fact one pays through the money paid to actors.
  To the representatives of the trade unions who claim that the big companies in particular will produce inferior programmes and make use of more mechanical programmes instead of live ones, I

  991
  say that it is up to the trade unions as much as it is up to us in this Committee to make sure that this kind of thing does not happen. We are now putting the Independent Television Authority in a position to say to a large or small company which does not produce programmes of a high standard that it will not renew that company's contract, and I feel sure that after July, 1964, none of these people will be queueing up to give up their contracts because they are bankrupt or insolvent. This claim is a big bluff, and I hope that the workers in the industry will join us in keeping an eye on the situation. If there is any evidence of inferior programmes being produced, the House of Commons will have to re-establish its authority and see that the Authority uses its powers to do the right thing.
  In Standing Committee I took the view that if somebody does not get any money, if he does not handle the lolly, he should not be taxed on it. Taking that view, I could not understand why, if this commission was not received by the companies, they should be expected to pay a levy on it. My difficulty about the commission to be levied has arisen because of the conflict of evidence on this point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said that some people say that it is 10 per cent. Some people put it as high as 20 per cent., while others put it at 15 per cent. My estimate is similar to that made by the right hon. Gentleman. I think that it is about 15 per cent, and I take it that that is the maximum figure which the right hon. Gentleman proposes in these Amendments.
  Mr. Bevins Mr. Bevins indicated assent.
  Mr. Williams: Many other points have been raised, and I should dearly like to follow them, but time is moving on and I conclude by saying that we support the reasonable proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has brought to the Committee.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Bevins: I should like first to thank my hon. Friends and certain hon. Gentlemen opposite for the useful and helpful contributions which they have made to the discussion on these Amendments. I refer in particular to the helpful
  992
  speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd).
  I turn without further ado to the question of Anglia Television. I do not attempt to conceal from the Committee that I find this a difficult question. A few days ago I told my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) that I proposed to listen to what was said in this debate before finally making up my mind on this question; and I can no longer sit on the fence.
  There are, I think, two sides to this question, which is very finely balanced. First, there is no doubt that the circumstances of Anglia are unusual. They are unusual in the sense that under the levy a company with an advertising revenue of less than £1½ million will pay no levy at all. There are four companies at the moment which will not pay a brass farthing in levy. With one exception, all the other companies are likely to have revenues of nearly £4 million or more in 1964. I estimate the lowest at about £3¾ million, and the highest at about £14 million.
  The one exceptional case which falls into the category of being neither a small company paying no levy, nor a big company paying quite a substantial amount, is Anglia, which is in a peculiar position, and of course the levy will bite on the financial affairs of this company. It is in this peculiar position partly because its costs are not very substantially less than those of the medium-sized companies like Scottish Television, Tyne-Tees, and the rest. On the other hand, its revenue is nothing like as large as some of the medium-sized companies.
  To that extent, therefore, it is true that Anglia falls between two stools. It is also true that Anglia's performance in the production of things like serious drama has been extremely good, and has been better than that of most of the regional companies. The company deserves good marks for this. It is indeed an extremely good television contractor.
  When one comes to the practical question pinpointed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), "How is Anglia likely to fare under the Government's proposals?". I think that we have to consider the position as it is likely to exist in 1964–65, the

  993
  first year of the levy. It is true, as has been said, that on Anglia's own admission—which I accept as having been provided in good faith—its estimated revenue is £2 million, spending is £l¾ million, leaving a gross profit of £¼ million on which the levy would be £125,000, leaving a profit after levy of £125,000 which I think represents a return on turnover of only 6½ per cent. Although I do not quarrel with or doubt the good faith in which these figures have been supplied, I do not accept them as being very good forecasts.
  I do not disagree with any of these detailed figures except the figure of estimated advertising revenue. I must say to the Committee that the estimate of the Government is that the advertising revenue in 1964–65 is much more likely to be about £2·2 million than £2 million, and if that turns out to be the case the profit of Anglia, after the payment of the levy, would be about £278,000, representing a return on turnover of approximately 15 per cent. or 16 per cent.
  I think that I ought to make it clear to the Committee that the Government's estimate of Anglia's net increased advertising revenue takes account of two factors. First, it assumes, as the Government have been assuming throughout, that T.A.D. will be recouped; and, secondly, it assumes that if the general margin of increase in advertising revenue is as predicted the advertising revenue will affect Anglia as well as the other companies.
  Mr. Chapman: The revenue has been falling in recent months.
  Mr. Bevins: I cannot speak for recent months, but the last information that I had was that Anglia were pretty confident that advertising revenue would take a reasonably good course in the near future. I dislike legislating for a special case which—
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: I should like to point out to my right hon. Friend that the Anglia estimated figures take this increase into account. The estimated advertising revenue in 1963 is only £1,800,000. My right hon. Friend is putting it up pretty substantially, something like 20 per cent. for 1964–65, if he puts it at £2,200,000.
  Mr. Bevins: I was saying that Anglia has estimated a figure of £2
  994
  million whereas our estimate is £2·2 million.
  Mr. Gilmour: This is high. It is an increase of about 20 per cent.
  Mr. Bevins: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. We are now talking of the financial year 1964–65. It is perfectly true that none of these contracts, even if we look at them within the categories of big, medium and small are precisely alike or for that matter, equal in value. I reiterate that Anglia is undoubtedly a special case but it is not the only special case which the Committee and the House of Commons may have to look at in our final consideration of the Bill.
  I think that it is important that we should adopt, as far as we can, a consistent line in cases which prove to be of an unusual character. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) asked me whether it was the intention that there should be some, or a good deal perhaps, of financial latitude exercised by the Authority in dealing with new contracts. I hope that I may be permitted at a later stage in our proceedings, either tonight or later this week, to say something in detail on what the Authority and the Government have in mind on that question. When one considers that Anglia is at present—I am dealing now only with that case—paying the Authority a rental of about £200,000 a year, it may well be that if the forecast of Anglia Television proves to be more accurate than I think it will be—if it proves to be right and I prove to be wrong—it may well be that it is here that there might be scope to alleviate its circumstances.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: This is a strange argument. These services are let out on an economic basis provided for under the original Act. The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) will remember that the Authority has to recover the costs and the annual charge must be enough to pay for the running costs and refunding the loan. That is provided for in the original Act. Now we are told that there is to be a departure from that principle because the rental at present provides only for the running costs of the Authority. There is no element of the charge for the use of a monopoly.

  995
  It is this Bill that is giving the right to impose a levy as a charge for the use of a monopoly. I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman is departing from the original purpose of the rental for the use of apparatus provided by the Authority.
  Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has no intention himself nor has the Authority of taking any course of action which would be outside the legal provisions of the Television Act as amended by this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will be patient I shall be very happy to explain what I have been saying in rather obscure language in very simple language at a later stage of our proceedings. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central if I have to disappoint him, but I have given this matter my most careful consideration and I think that this is the right course in the circumstances.
  Mr. Walker: If my right hon. Friend had agreed that the figures for Anglia were correct, would he have found it reasonable to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment.
  Mr. Bevins: If I were satisfied that the figures supplied by Anglia for 1964–65 were likely to prove true, then certainly my disposition would have been to accept the proposal.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In line 12, column 1, leave out "eight" and insert "six".
  In line 13, column 2, leave out "22½" and insert "25".
  In line 16, column 1, leave out "one-and-a-quarter million and eight" and insert "one-and-a-half million and six".
  In line 17, column 2, leave out "40" and insert "45".
  In page 10, line 1, leave out from "agent" to end of line 6 and insert:
  "the amount of any receipt by the programme contractor which represents a payment by the advertiser from which the advertising agent has deducted any amount by way of commission shall be the amount of the payment by the advertiser after the deduction of the commission, so, however, that if the amount so deducted exceeds fifteen per cent. of the payment by the advertiser, the amount of the receipt shall be the amount of that payment less fifteen per cent.
  996
  (12) The contracts between the Authority and the various programme contractors shall include such terms as are in the opinion of the Authority necessary or expedient to ensure that, except for deduction of commission by persons acting as advertising agents, the amount of the advertising receipts of a programme contractor is not reduced under arrangements by which any part of the consideration for the insertion of advertisements in programmes provided by the programme contractor is receivable by any person other than the programme contractor, whether that other person is under the control of the programme contractor or not".—[Mr. Bevins.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.
  New Clause.—(WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE, AND SCOTLAND, TO BE SEPARATE PROGRAMME AREAS.)
  In negotiating contracts to replace their contracts with programme contractors which are due to expire on 29th July 1964, the Authority shall do all they can to secure that Wales and Monmouthshire are constituted one programme area, and that Scotland is constituted one programme area.—(Mr. Ness Edwards.)
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): With this new Clause it will be possible also to discuss the new Clause—Wales and Monmouthshire to form single contractual area—in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box).
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  The new Clause deals with a subject which has caused a great deal of disappointment, hardship and confusion. It will be understood that we are committed to going over to a system of 625 lines in Band IV and V, and that this transference will occur during the period of these contracts. As these contracts will be let for a period to be covered by this great technical change-over, the Clause proposes to give the Authority power so to order the contracts as to provide for greater viability among contractors and, at the same time, to see that contracts are let in what might be described as more natural areas.

  997
  The Clause provides that the Authority will do all it can to secure that Wales and Monmouthshire and Scotland are constituted as indivdual programme areas. In that way people of a like provincial or national character will be catered for by the same station, so that the regional contribution will not be split into two but will cover the whole area.
  The way in which the Authority has gone about its task of allocating areas for commercial television has resulted in a great deal of confusion—a great deal of profit on the one hand and a nearness to bankruptcy on the other—among contractors. This confusion can be explained in terms of population coverage. In the London area the contractor has a population coverage of nearly 13 million; in the Midlands area he has one of 8·85 million and in the Manchester area one of 12½ million. The figure for Scottish Television is 3·98 million, TWW, which covers part of Wales and part of the West Country, caters for a population of 329 million, and Southern Television, another artificially cut out piece of the United Kingdom, for a population of 4·27 million.
  Below that we come to the extremely difficult allocations which are not viable. The first we heard of was Anglia Television, with a coverage of 2·55 million. Then there was Ulster, with only 1·36 million; South-West—which is also on the verge of bankruptcy—with 1·6 million; the Borders, at Carlisle, with only 0·48 million; north-east Scotland, with 1·42 million; Wales, West and North, with only 1·04 million, and Channel Islands, with only 0·1 million. As a result of this distribution of areas there has been a complete inability on the part of the seven smaller companies to serve the regions in which they function and to make the contributions which they ought to make, while, at the same time, being able to operate as viable economic units.
  To the extent that we have these small areas we are bound to have very large areas—large population coverages—to the extent that only four companies cover a vast proportion of our population. They are the people who have a licence to produce money, while there are six other companies which cannot hope to live except through subsidisation by the national network—the four big companies.
  998
  The new Clause seeks to ensure that, in negotiating these new contracts, the I.T.A. will have regard, first, to viability and, secondly, to continuous ethical qualities, and that the programme contract will cover the whole area, to the extent that there are identifiable provincial areas.
  It suggests that Wales should be treated as a unit. It was a piece of foolishness to give a contract to Wales, West and North, because it was never viable. The Authority was told beforehand that it would not be viable and that it would reach a state of bankruptcy, besides being incapable of serving the purposes which it was intended to serve. We suggested that the matter should have been dealt with quite differently. A separate contract should never have been given for such a small population coverage.
  Scotland is in precisely the same position. The sensible thing would have been to treat Scotland as a whole. The licence which Mr. Roy Thompson has to print money could then have been used to cover the whole of Scotland, providing it with a viable programme and having adequate resources to ensure good television and, if necessary, to make a contribution to the United Kingdom network.
  It would be equally sensible that Wales should be covered by one network. It might be argued that a television contract confined to the boundaries of Wales would not be viable. I do not know the number of homes in the whole of Wales. But the advice I have had leads me to believe that it would be necessary to examine whether any supporting fringe population should be included to make such a system viable. It has been suggested that the West of England contract should be taken away from the South-West and instead of it being Television West and Wales it should be "Television West", taking over Westward Hoe and going right down to the toe of Cornwall. That would be the natural thing to have happened when the Independent Television Authority was set up, and the transmitter at Wenvoe by being given a rather more precise directional transmission could have served Wales instead of to the South. This is something which requires examination.

  999
  I appreciate that there are technical difficulties in the South and round the Bristol Channel and that there are "mush" areas associated with Granada and W.W.N. But we ask that the Authority should approach the problem in this way and give to what would be described by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) as an area with a national boundary its own basic commercial television service, no matter how it might have to be supported by the addition of some fringe element to make it viable.
  Mr. Donald Box: In opposing the Motion moved by the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards)—for in effect that is what is achieved by the proposed new Clause on the Notice Paper in my name—I have to repeat a declaration of the rather tenuous interest which I have in the television industry. Some six or seven years ago, when the shares of T.W.W. were brought on the market, my firm acted as brokers. But I wish to emphasise that I have no financial or other interest in the concern whatsoever.
  I welcome this opportunity to discuss the proposed new Clause because I believe that this is a matter of prime importance to the commercial television viewers in Wales. In ventilating various viewpoints on the subject, we may find some solution to the difficult situation which has arisen following the virtual failure of Wales West and the North, our newest company. As hon. Members will know, we have at present two companies operating in Wales. One of them is particularly strong. The other is very weak. I fear that the effect of the proposals in the new Clause would be to leave us with two "lame ducks", two weak companies, rather than one strong and one weak as at present.
  In Wales we have had the rather salutary experience of seeing Wales West and the North, our newest television company, reach a state of near bankruptcy within 12 or 15 months. It lost £160,000 in the first period of operation. Varied reasons have been given for this apparent failure, some official and some unofficial. The most logical—it was suggested by the right hon. Member for Caerphilly—is the area contracted by W.W.N. was not a viable proposition. But when consider-
  1000
  ing that point we must also consider that the company acquired its contract in the face of considerable competition from other syndicates willing to undertake the contract.
  6.15 p.m.
  I would go further than the right hon. Member for Caerphilly and suggest that the whole of Wales, even with its viewing population of 2½ million—unfortunately this population is spread thinly in some areas and thickly in others—is not a viable proposition. If that is the case under present circumstances, I do not see how it can possibly become a viable proposition with the new television levy included. Critics of my proposed new Clause may well argue that if the B.B.C. can provide an all-Welsh service why cannot commercial television do the same?
  I think that the B.B.C. is well able to cope with the situation, because it is prepared and able to gain on the English "swings" what it may lose on the Welsh "roundabouts". Commercial television has to make ends meet while operating in a much smaller area and with a smaller viewing population figure. These difficulties are best summed up in the words of the commercial television contractor who, hearing the powerful pleas from the thinly populated areas and viewing the lovely hills and vales of Mid-Wales, said, ruefully, "You cannot sell Daz to sheep". That just about sums up the situation. Unless we can provide the thinly populated areas with a service which is paid for by the revenue from the more thickly populated areas, the proposition becomes a very difficult one.
  To judge the merit of my suggestion, that Wales and the West of England—the whole of Wales and that portion of the West of England at present looked after by T.W.W.—should form a single contractual area, it is necessary to consider what is required of the commercial television service in those two areas. Primarily it must cater for three sections of the public, the English-speaking and bilingual majority in Wales; the interests of the Welsh speaking minority—which I understand amounts to about 750,000 people—and, thirdly, the specialist nature of the West Country, reflecting, of course, the distinctive history and heritage of that part of Great Britain.
  Secondly, the commercial television service must provide occasional programmes of good quality for the whole network. Thirdly, it must provide a suitable service as an alternative to the B.B.C. in Wales. These are heavy and expensive responsibilities and only a company catering for a highly populated area could afford the luxury of providing minority programme interests.
  I believe it to be possible for one company to satisfy these various requirements by providing separate transmissions of good and appropriate programmes suitable to individual tastes in the various areas. This might be made more practical if Channel 7, which I understand is available, were available in the future. They would also require the use of the three transmitters which, I understand, are now let to Wales West and the North, and which, ironically, are used at present only for the transmission of Welsh programmes provided by the other service, T.W.W.
  If my suggestion is adopted it will, of course, be for the Independent Television Authority to decide which company is to obtain the contract, and also to ensure, by making very definite conditions, that the special requirements of the three sections to which I have referred are suitably looked after. On the one hand we have T.W.W., the older-established company, which already has excellent equipment, specialised knowledge and proved ability and the ability to make profits while operating both in Wales and the West of England. On the other hand, we have, unfortunately, Wales West and the North, which is approaching bankruptcy and has had to cease all production from its studios in Cardiff. It involves, incidentally, the investment of many small investors, 900, many of whom are situated in Wales.
  Bearing in mind all this and that a strong Welsh service can come only from a company which has financial stability and resources, the best possible solution to what admittedly is a very difficult problem is some amalgamation, some association, of the interests of the two companies, T.W.W. and W.W.N. I think that would provide a solution to a very difficult problem. It would avoid the duplication of heavy equipment costs and, incidentally, it might provide some hope that those many small investors in W.W.N. could recoup at least some of
  1002
  their investment in future. On those grounds I oppose this new Clause, and I hope that the suggestion I have made will receive the sympathetic consideration of hon. Members on both sides.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I shall have something to say later about the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) and what he said in support of it and in opposition to the new Clause the Second Reading of which has been moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards).
  We started our proceedings this afternoon with what I thought an exceptionally useful and inspiring debate on the whole question of regional provincial contributions in Britain to the variety of television in this country. What we are about now when we consider the position in Wales is related to what we said earlier this afternoon. I remind the House that the Pilkington Report had very much to say about the need to encourage the peripheral areas, particularly national communities such as those of Wales and Scotland, to mobilise their talent and resources in culture and entertainment so as to enable them to make their proper contributions to the British system of television.
  During the Second Reading debate and throughout our Committee discussions upstairs we had from both sides of the House views expressed in support of this. Particularly, the Postmaster-General, who is a very proud Lancastrian, made what I thought a fine speech in Committee in favour of this regional encouragement and development. If this is true of the rôle of the traditional English provinces—and I certainly agree that it is—how much more true is it that a distinctive national community such as Wales, with its own culture and language, its own way of life, attitude and temperament, should be enabled to express itself coherently and contribute its best to the British scene?
  So far, however, Wales has been denied the means of expressing itself as a community in the sphere of television. It is true that the Government have at last agreed that the B.B.C. should be enabled to establish a unified television service and programme for Wales as a whole and we look forward very much in Wales

  1003
  to that becoming a fact early in 1964. What this Clause asks is that the same policy should be followed in regard to commercial television.
  What is the present position regarding commercial television in Wales? For the purpose of commercial T.V., Wales, as my right hon. Friend told us, was cut up into bits and pieces, the most populous areas being tacked on to parts of England with which they have little social or cultural affinity. For instance, the populous parts of North Wales, Deeside and Wrexham, were attached to the Granada empire operating from Manchester, as if that were not large enough already. The even more populous south, Glamorgan, Monmouth and the industrial conurbations spreading from Newport to Swansea, were attached to the West of England. That created a territorial and cultural absurdity which has paid vast dividends, but which many of us think is culturally bankrupt.
  The rest of Wales with parts taken away from the rural, sparsely-populated rim of the country, the parts which the tycoons of Manchester and T.W.W. did not want, were rented, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, North reminded us, to a company which, of course, very soon ran into difficulties. I hold no particular brief for the company concerned, but it is well to understand why it has found itself unable to finance or originate programmes on its own account and is now completely at the mercy of the network—the very condition against which the Pilkington Report warned us and against which hon. Members on both sides of the House have protested in our discussions.
  This company attempted the impossible. All the populous areas having been attached to the West of England or Manchester, it was left with the rural, sparsely-populated districts. On paper, but only on paper, W.W.N. was given a territory which had a population of a little over 1 million. Actually, because of the overbearing signal strength of adjacent programmes and also because of overlap and "mush", it was not given a population of 1 million. In fact, it had something under 400,000. The set count, which was supposed to be 260,000 in this area, turned out—for a variety of reasons which the company could not be expected to anticipate—to be rather less than 100,000.
  1004
  The remarkable thing is that, despite all those disadvantages and discouragements, the new company, in its first few months of operation, produced indigenous programmes in both languages which compare very favourably indeed with programmes similarly produced by its neighbours. But in commercial television good programmes are not enough. One must have the population, otherwise one has few advertisers, and those few are unable to pay more than very low rates. That has happened in this case. T.W.W., having attached the "fat" of South Wales to the West of England, is having the best of both worlds. T.W.W. has been getting £160 for 15 seconds of advertising. W.W.N., the rural company, could charge only one-tenth of this, £16. The reason that one company could charge £160 was that within its area were included 1½ million Welsh people who ought to have been in the area of the other company.
  6.30 p.m.
  What has been the result in terms of programmes and service? T.W.W., with an area extending from Swansea almost to Southampton, has within it two utterly different communities, the West of England and South Wales. The programmes are, therefore, the result of a marriage of incompatibles. Neither community is properly served. There is a hotch-potch of a programme which is uneasily trying to deal with the local interests and needs of two fundamentally different communities. From time to time in the same horizontal programme—there is only one channel—the company is boring and irritating one community after another. The postbag of the company proves this, because it is receiving complaints from the West of England that there is too much Welsh content and complaints from Wales that there is too much about Dartmoor and the West of England.
  A famous region such as the West of England, with its rich history and literary tradition, is as much entitled as is Wales to proper treatment through this medium, and in making this plea for fair treatment for Wales I am equally making a plea for proper treatment for the West of England. The suggestion that we can create a monster area stretching practically from Southampton to Holy-head and within that area, through the medium of one centralised company,

  1005
  provide proper programmes for the communities involved is quite absurd.
  We have heard that the Welsh language is still spoken by 750,000 of our compatriots. It has a living literature and it is the basis of much of our distinctive crafts, arts and music. But all that T.W.W. is doing in Welsh language programmes is to put over a very few either in the afternoon or in the very late evening, after 11 p.m., when Welsh people, like everybody else, are either at work or have gone to bed. That is not the way to use this marvellous medium to inspire local initiative and to mobilise the talents of a nation so that it can contribute to the common treasury of British culture.
  There are two solutions. The interim solution is to enable the peripheral company, W.W.N., to broadcast side by side with T.W.W. in South-East Wales and to delete the Granada overlap in North-East Wales. That is an interim compromise. But the real solution, which was clearly and cogently put forward by my right hon. Friend in moving the new Clause, is to rearrange the programme areas so that Wales is constituted as a unit. That is the natural, reasonable and just thing to do. It has been done by the B.B.C., and our new Clause provides that it ought to be done by the I.T.A. If it is right for the one, then it is right for the other.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, North said that irrespective of whether this is right or desirable, he doubts whether it is practicable, and he doubts whether Wales would be a viable unit. He is the spokesman this evening for T.W.W., which has a population of 3·29 million and a set count of over 650,000. This company last year paid a dividend of 95 per cent. The population of Wales is 2·7 million, not very much less than the population of the area which he is representing, in which the company last year paid this fabulous dividend.
  Does the hon. Member say that 27 million as a population base is not enough to sustain a commercial television programme? If he says that—and I took him to say it throughout his speech—why is it that Ulster T.V., with a population of less than half that of Wales, is not only paying its way satisfactorily, but is even producing original programmes of
  1006
  first-class standard, some of which—good luck to them—are already seeping into the network? If 2·7 million is too little, according to his calculation, to sustain a viable commercial programme, why is it that a company of which we hear so much, Anglia, is able to operate quite well, to pay its way and to produce original programmes which cost a lot, including good drama?
  Mr. Box: The answer is that in the 2½ million viewing population of Wales there is a Welsh-speaking population of 750,000. The B.B.C., with its special arrangements, can lose money in providing a suitable programme. The hon. Member would not suggest that that is a commercial proposition. Does he not agree that the best way to provide a good all-round service for the Welsh-speaking and non-Welsh-speaking in Wales and the West of England is through having a financially strong company?
  Mr. Roberts: The hon. Member has not answered my question. If Ulster T.V. is viable on a population base of 13 million, why could not a Welsh T.V. service be viable with double that population? In commercial television population is what counts—the number of sets; that is what attracts the advertisers and that is what enables the contractor to set the rate.
  It is not good enough for the hon. Member, especially as a representative of the capital city of Wales, to come to the House to decry the possibility of a commercial television service in Wales when we know that two-thirds of a province—Ulster—is doing quite well and making a contribution to the British system, and that Anglia, with a slightly smaller population, is also successful and is producing its own original drama which is being seen by viewers all over the country.
  It will not do to say that all things are possible except in Wales, and the hon. Member is not doing his country and mine a service when he twists the facts and figures which are staring him in the face in order to try to prove that in Wales "it is different". The service can be provided quite well in Wales if we are given the opportunity, and the opportunity should be given by creating a territorial unit by and large, as my right hon. Friend said, inclusive of Wales. Thus, a new company—I do not say any of

  1007
  the existing companies—should be assembled, if possible, and put to work not to seek fantastic dividends, but to give a service through this medium on a commercial level to the people of Wales, and to enable them, in turn, to serve the larger interests of British television.
  It would be a healthy thing to join Westward and the West of England proper and set up a proper service for people in the West of England. It is time they had one. It is time their programme was not interrupted by occasional items about Wales in the news and Welsh local discussions. Equally, it is time that the programme going to Wales was not interrupted by local features emanating from the West of England.
  I want to put some questions to the Postmaster-General. First, for the period starting 29th July, 1964, will there be contracts based on the re-zoned areas? Secondly, if so, will Wales be substantially or actually constituted as a unit for this purpose? Thirdly, if not, for how long does the right hon. Gentleman think that the present situation in Wales will last? The present situation is one of chaos and incoherence, with the most populous part of Wales a milch cow for the West of England.
  I can tell the right hon. Gentleman this. Informed opinion and public opinion in Wales resents the way we are being treated. We had to fight for years to get a B.B.C. service for Wales. How long have we to fight to get proper treatment on this score also? The right hon. Gentleman has often said that he believes in the regional and local contribution. I appeal to him to use Wales as an example of what a local contribution can be at its best.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I find myself in a somewhat strange position this evening in supporting the new Clause in the names of the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) and in almost total disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box), who I often find a charming and persuasive debater but with whom I cannot in any way agree at this time.
  1008
  I think that I was born either in his constituency, or in a neighbouring constituency, but I have never lived in Wales, though I have a number of connections with it. I have been there often, to both North and South Wales. I represent a constituency in Bristol which receives the programmes of the company which has been much under discussion, though I live elsewhere and never see its programmes. Although I have sometimes broadcast on it, I have never seen myself projected.
  A good deal of partisan nonsense has been talked about this from both sides of the House. I can understand the Welsh Members being very keen to put their point of view across. I can also understand that my hon. Friend wishes to have a strong company to broadcast to Wales. I think that he destroyed his case in giving his three points. He said that the objects of this company should be, first, to provide programmes for the whole Welsh interest; secondly, for the Welsh-speaking minority; and then, rather as an afterthought, his third point was to provide programmes for those people in the West Country whom he mentioned as having some special culture of their own.
  Indeed they have. It has always seemed to me to be utterly wrong that the City of Bristol, which I regard as being the capital of the West Country, with its interests down almost to Land's End, or as near to the Royal Duchy of Cornwall as we are allowed to go, and also down into Somerset and Wiltshire, should be tied to South Wales, which is utterly different in character. On the other hand, it seems to be true that we should not have seen television in this part of the country if this company had not been called into operation at the time it was. It has done an extremely good job within the limits of what it has been allowed to do.
  6.45 p.m.
  I think that when the new contracts are let there is a very good case indeed for some realignment of boundaries. The idea of the whole of the Welsh nation being given one company to deal with its affairs, even if it is necessary to drag in a little fringe area in order to make it viable, would be worth exploring. I cannot bear to think of the idea that Bristol should remain for ever

  1009
  tied to South Wales, even though we are to have a grand new road across the Severn. We are quite different from them. We are not very interested in hearing the Welsh language. If our interests in Somersetshire and Gloucestershire are properly looked after and programmes broadcast in the local language of Somersetshire and Gloucestershire, the Welsh will not look at them very much. They will not understand a word of them.
  We have these special interests. We want to see in these small companies a little more local interest and more local programmes. They must, therefore, be of a very local character. We should like to see Wales made a viable entity and the West of England, possibly the whole of the West of England, made into another. There are very special difficulties about the company called Westward. It will find itself in these difficulties largely because T.W.W. covers an area which is allegedly West ward's but where it has no powers.
  Mr. Box: Can my hon. Friend assure us that, if we lop off an area at present accommodated by T.W.W.—the Bristolarea—and put it on to the Westward company, that, in turn, will become a profitable concern? My theory is that, if we lop the profitable areas away, we will have the same situation in the West of England as we are finding with Wales West and the North, where they have had the opportunity but have failed to provide the service or make any money out of it.
  Mr. G. Roberts: Before the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) answers that point, may I interpolate one or two points?
  Mr. Speaker: I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but he knows that we get into great difficulties if we have an intervention upon an intervention. I think that we must restrain ourselves.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps I may continue, Mr. Speaker, and inspire a further intervention during the course of my speech, because I know that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) is very anxious to be helpful in this.
  1010
  I realise that there are dangers in messing about with the boundaries. We know that some programme companies are very profitable and some are not. On the other hand, we should not leave ourselves stuck with areas which are, for one reason or another, unacceptable. When the new contracts are let would be an opportunity for looking at this question again.
  My hon. Friend suggested that a combination of the Bristol end of T.W.W. and Westward might not be viable. In the present circumstances Westward finds itself hardly in a viable condition. Therefore, surely it is entitled to a little more populace to give it a better chance. I think that the time will come—I am sure my right hon. Friend has these problems very much in mind—when something should be done about this difficulty, and I hope that he will be able to say something helpful, even though he may wish to reject all the Amendments.
  Mr. James Griffiths: I offer my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) for the case they have deployed. Those hon. Members who have listened to the arguments from both sides will agree that they proved their case, but the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) has not proved his case. I am speaking as a Welsh Member. Does the hon. Member for Cardiff, North realise what he is saying? It may be true that he believes in commercial television. I do not, but he does. What he is saying to Wales is this, "You can never have commercial television for your country". In other words, he is saying to the Welsh people, "The only service you can have for Wales is that provided by a public authority—the B.B.C."
  I hope that this will be noted. It was my view when this matter was under discussion many years ago, but now the hon. Member says that the only way by which we can have a service for Wales is by linking it up with something else, otherwise commercially it is not viable. If it is possible for Ulster, with its population, to have a commercially viable station, I should have thought that Wales, with an even larger population, could have an equally viable one.

  1011
  I support the Clause moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, because everyone in Wales, whether or not he or she speaks Welsh, wants to preserve the Welsh language. That is common ground between all parties and people in the country. Hon. Members who represent English and Scottish constituencies will, I am sure, agree with this view. I remember a time when I tried to discover how many hon. Members spoke their native tongues. I found that only two hon. Members spoke the Scottish language while 40 spoke Welsh. The Irish have made a big attempt to resurrect their Erse language. We all realise that if one of these languages dies it is impossible to recover it.
  We want to preserve the Welsh language, which is now spoken by about ¾ million people. The Minister of Education has accepted a bilingual policy. This was begun, only in recent years, by Mr. George Tomlinson and today where a local education authority thinks that there area sufficient number of Welsh-speaking parents who would like their children to be taught in Welsh up to the age of 11, such teaching in the native tongue may be undertaken.
  The Pilkington Report described television as the most pervasive influence in our modern life. Indeed, it is the most decisive. It will set many things, including our standards, for good or ill. Television is an influence in our homes. We do not yet realise just how deep an influence it has. It can be a friend or an enemy of Wales. It can help to preserve the Welsh language or it can kill it. We hope at present to sustain the Welsh language and the number of those who speak it. We are fighting a tough battle.
  I hope that the Postmaster-General will accept my right hon. Friend's new Clause and that when the new boundaries are allocated and contracts negotiated he will treat Wales, for the purposes of commercial television, as one programme area with one commercial company. If he does that and a new company appears in 1964 to operate commercial television in Wales—and for all these remarks Monmouthshire is included—we will be able to begin a new chapter in the history of Wales.
  1012
  Already much has been agreed. In 1964 there will be a separate Welsh service over the B.B.C. That is an important step forward. I remember when a similar request was made for a Welsh programme on sound radio. In the end we got that programme and next year we shall have a separate television service for Wales from the B.B.C.
  If the right hon. Gentleman accepts my right hon. Friend's new Clause there will be one programme area for commercial television for the whole of Wales. I have a suggestion to make in the event of this happening, but, before doing so, I wish to pay tribute to the B.B.C., for the people of Wales and those who care for its language and culture—both of which are dependent on its language—owe a debt of gratitude to the B.B.C, I listened to a programme yesterday concerning someone who has made a valuable contribution in broadcasting towards the future of Wales. He is retiring soon and we all know him as Sam Jones.
  The suggestion I have is this. Will it be possible, if the new Clause is accepted and we get one commercial company for Wales in 1964, for the Welsh programme company and the B.B.C. either to work or get together? I hope that the Postmaster-General will, if he has the power, include in the contract of the new company an obligation on them to help to preserve and maintain the Welsh language. After all, why should he not do this? If the Minister of Education can oblige local education authorities to go in for Welsh language teaching, why not commercial television, which has a wide influence on children in many ways, an influence which competes with the headmaster?
  If this can be done, I ask the B.B.C. and the new Welsh commercial company to agree together to transmit their Welsh programmes at different times of the day. At present the B.B.C.'s daily feature in Welsh is transmitted at 1 p.m.; that is, unless there happens to be something like a Test Match, when it is shoved backwards, as it was today. On such occasions the Welsh feature must take second place.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I dealt with the question of precedents and such things as Test Matches.
  Mr. Griffiths: I, too, enjoy Test Matches and seeing the West Indians

  1013
  play. My remarks also apply to the other companies. T.W.W. put out their Welsh news at a certain time. I merely mention these facts to illustrate the times at which programmes are transmitted. W.W.N, failed, and, presumably, something will have to be done about that. Many people ventured their money—people I know—and many of them had other than commercial motives in mind when they made their investments. They have lost their money. For this reason, I say that something must be done.
  Is it not possible, if there are two services in Wales, for them to agree not to overlap their Welsh programmes? Could they not agree to transmit them at different times? This would increase the amount of viewing time available for those wishing to view purely Welsh programmes while not affecting the alternative programmes spoken in English. No one would be denied watching other programmes, and those who do not speak and understand Welsh would be able, if the transmissions were staggered, to switch over to English-speaking programmes.
  I hope that the Postmaster-General will agree to accept my right hon. Friend's Clause and my suggestion for urging the two organisations, if we have two, to stagger their Welsh-speaking programmes in this way. Power to do this is already contained in the B.B.C. Charter. In any case, we in the House of Commons decide what that Charter should be. Commercial television is, fortunately—whether or not we agree with the medium—under our control. Since it is already the policy of the Government, the Minister of Education—and I trust that the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs has been consulted on this score—to desire to maintain the Welsh language, we have an obligation to ensure that the legislation we are now passing makes a contribution towards preserving it and does not become its enemy.
  I plead with those who are and will be responsible both for the new company's Welsh programme and that transmitted by the B.B.C. to agree on the timing of their programmes in Welsh so that their programmes will not overlap and compete with each other in the Welsh language. I hope that the
  1014
  Postmaster-General will fully consider this matter, will accept my right hon. Friend's Clause and reject that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Bevins: I would remind the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that we said in the second White Paper on Broadcasting—issued, perhaps, a year ago—that the Government had told the two broadcasting authorities that they should co-operate as far as possible in respect of programmes where competition is inappropriate, namely, educational programmes, and religious and Welsh and other language programmes. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the two authorities have every intention of carrying that co-operation to success.
  I have listened to the views expressed on both sides of the House on television for Wales generally. I was not surprised one bit that the views have not been altogether in harmony with each other, but I shall certainly take an early opportunity to convey them to the Authority. Meanwhile, it would be quite wrong for the House to suppose that the Government have been indifferent to, or idle about, the claims of Wales for television services. In fact, on the whole, the Government have been rather liberal-minded in their attitude to television services for Wales.
  An example of that attitude is the Government's decision, taken some time ago without any hesitation, to make sure that the Principality should enjoy a self-contained Welsh television service, and that service will, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, be in full operation by 1964. That will be a very real advance in the Welsh service, but it is not quite appropriate then to say, by inference, that if the B.B.C. can do this for the Principality as a whole commercial television should do it as well. Complicating factors are involved.
  The B.B.C. lives on the basis of licence revenue. A commercial television company lives on the basis of advertising revenue, and if that advertising revenue is inadequate to sustain it the company goes to the wall. We have seen recently what can happen when indifferent judgment leads to the creation of a company, and the giving of a contract to a company, in circumstances that do not allow

  1015
  the companies affairs to be financially successful.
  When representations were made to me and to my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, when he was Minister for Welsh Affairs, we were both deeply sympathetic to the needs of the Welsh people, and especially to the views of members of the Welsh universities and educational establishments who emphasised, at very natural length, that Wales should have more language programmes and should enjoy more distinctively Welsh cultural programmes. After a good deal of consideration, we decided to give our moral backing to the Authority in giving out this contract.
  The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) suggested in the Standing Committee that the solution to these difficulties probably lay in allocating the V.H.F. Channel 7 so that the Wales West and North Company could operate in the south as well as in the north and in the west. That has been mentioned to me informally by the acting chairman of the Authority, and the Authority is at present considering that matter—and, into the bargain, is considering the whole question of the future pattern of contracts in Wales.
  I want to tread carefully here. The position is not as simple as some hon. Members may suppose. It seems quite conceivable that if we were to say that the company in North Wales and the west is not viable at present, the way to make it viable is to allow it to operate in the more prosperous, or more thickly-populated, areas of South Wales, and that would do the trick.
  I am not sure that it necessarily would. It could well happen that the company might not succeed in increasing its advertising revenue substantially. It might very easily happen that its costs, and especially its programme costs, would rise substantially because, if it were in competition in South Wales with T.W.W., one could hardly reasonably expect T.W.W. to supply programmes to a company that was in competition with it. We therefore have to tread this path rather carefully.
  It has always been the situation that the allocation of contracts is a matter essentially for the Authority and not for
  1016
  the Government, and it is undesirable to lay down in a Bill hard-and-fast provisions of this kind. I do not for a moment say that I disagree with the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), but this is not my responsibility, and it would be wrong to fetter in advance of the date the circumstances, and the judgment, of the I.T.A.
  It is quite true that Wales, like Scotland, is a separate nation and presents a special case for consideration but, with the advent of U.H.F. transmissions, the difficulties that have arisen in the past, particularly in Wales, where T.W.W. covers South Wales and part of the south-west of England, might be more easily overcome, but all sorts of considerations arise here, and we must leave it to the Authority to determine how they should be dealt with when the time comes.
  I add that I have, of course, taken the opportunity of seeking the views of the Authority on this new Clause, and the form of words suggested. The Authority has indicated to me, quite naturally, that there are also the technical facts of life and that, on the present V.H.F. arrangements, the South Wales station must also cover Bristol and several parts of England to the south of the Bristol Channel. The Authority has had to resort to the compromise of one mixed company; T.W.W. which can fully implement its obligations to its Welsh audiences and its West Country audiences.
  The more I think of an all-Welsh television service the more I realise this is a difficult problem, the solution of which, must depend on technical factors undetermined as yet. These factors limit what the Authority can do in future and, as must always be the case with a self-supporting service, there are considerations of the financial possibilities of an all-Welsh service. The Authority concludes that in view of all the uncertainties existing about the future it would not wish to have its right to decide on what seems to be the most appropriate contracting arrangements for Wales circumscribed by the obligation that this Amendment would impose.
  With respect, I think that in the circumstances now existing that is a perfectly understandable view for the Authority to

  1017
  take, but, having said that, I would add that what has been said today will be helpful both to the Authority and to me. When the time conies for the making of decisions, I shall certaintly not feel in any way inhibited from talking with the Authority, informally or otherwise, in order to see that the best and most sensible course is pursued.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
  Motion, and Clause, by leave withdrawn.
  New Clause.—(ADVISORY COMMITTEE.)

  (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 8 of the principal Act, the Postmaster-General may, after consultation with such organisations as he may consider appropriate, appoint a general advisory council to advise him on matters arising from the operation of this and the principal Act.

  (2) Any council so appointed shall make to the Postmaster-General each year a report of its proceedings and as soon as may be after receiving any such report, the Postmaster-General shall lay copies of the report before Parliament.—[Mr. Willey.]

  Brought up and read the First time.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  I am sure the House will recognise that this proposal is very much a second best. We had hoped to make more constructive proposals for a National Television Council, but we recognise that that would go beyond the scope of the Bill. We have felt nevertheless that we ought to make the proposals as far as the Bill allowed us to make them. We recognise that in doing this we are going against the Pilkington Committee which examined representations made to it suggesting that an approach of this kind should be made to the problem. The Pilkington Committee rejected those representations.
  I do not wish to pursue that matter very far, but I should like to say why we, in turn, reject the conclusions of the Pilkington Committee. The Committee said, in short, that if we had any such body as is proposed in this new Clause it would reduce the status of the public corporation and would raise doubts as to where the responsibility lay. I feel that both of these conclusions are irrelevant to the proposal which we are now discussing.
  1018
  I do not think that any machinery to allow representations to be effectively considered in this way derogates from the status of the public corporation. One of the disappointing things over the past years has been lack of originality and initiative by the Government in considering consumer representation in connection with public corporations. This was one of the areas in which one would have expected action from the present Administration. It has been disappointing that we have had none.
  I submit that to allow for representation and the consideration of the point of view of the consumer in no way derogates from the status of the corporation and in no way allows dubiety about where responsibility lies. All this is very relevant to the Pilkington Report. That Committee, by its very nature, allowed a large number of representative bodies to make representations which considerably affected the Committee in some of its conclusions. I am certain that the Postmaster-General realises that it would have been far better for everyone concerned if those representations could have been made before that Committee was first assembled, and could have been considered by the Authority. This is why we propose that the right hon. Gentleman should have powers to establish a general advisory committee and that committee should be allowed to report to the House.
  It is important to recall that this was proposed to the Pilkington Committee by the Radio and Television Safeguards Committee, because that Committee represents those who are engaged in the industry. This means, therefore, that a proposal of the kind made in the new Clause would not cause difficulty with those employed in the industry. On the contrary, they welcome it.
  An announcement was made today about the Press Council and I noticed that Mr. George Murray also supported the initiative which we are taking here. When he addressed a conference in the spring he suggested that there should be some committee with power to deal with complaints against radio and television on some such lines as the Press Council. It is opportune that we should be discussing this proposal today because the Press is in a position not dissimilar from that of television. The Press recognises that some such machinery as this

  1019
  would be of advantage to it. In the same way, it would be of advantage to television.
  7.15 p.m.
  I am one of those who take the view that we have to be realistic about the responsibilities of the House. This proposal would provide admirable machinery to enable the House to discharge its responsibilities. I think that we all recognise today that many of the present difficulties are caused because people feel that they must make representations to Members of Parliament. Hon. Members send the representations on to the Postmaster-General, who acts as a postbox, and they go on to the Authority and then are probably lost. These representations are far too diverse and scattered. They would not all be complaints. There are many matters which a committee of the kind we propose would consider quite apart from complaints. The committee would consider constructive matters affecting television and it would be far better that they should be considered by a body like this and then by Parliament after receiving that body's report.
  This is an important proposal and, as I have said, it is significant that the Press should be announcing today the steps which it is taking. Television should run in line with the Press. It is important that the responsibility which the Authority has recognised it owes to the public should be given an effective form so that representation can be made and be properly considered while at the same time the ultimate authority of the House is recognised. Representations and proposals would be considered by this proposed committee which would also consider what action the Authority had taken and then would report to the House, so that we here, if we so wished, could consider the matter further. In this way there would be some proper accountability.
  This is a problem which affects all national corporations and which applies equally to the B.B.C. It is only because of the difficulty of framing a new Clause which does not go outside the purpose of the Bill that we are limited in this approach and in trying to solve this perplexing problem of providing for orderly consideration of complaints and proposals coming from the consuming public. I am sure that the right hon.
  1020
  Gentleman will appreciate the importance of this and of at any rate making a beginning by accepting the new Clause.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and to emphasise what he has said about the accountability of the various State corporations, including I.T.A. We have the very paradoxical situation that it is sometimes more difficult to raise matters of public concern, and more difficult for a Member of Parliament to raise them when he is dealing with State corporations than when he is dealing with private industry. With the exception of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, where he is still subject to Parliamentary Question, we are often in considerable difficulty in bringing matters to the attention of the various State corporations.
  I should be out of order if I went into details about the difficulties which hon. Members have faced, for example, with the British Transport Commission, but it will be within the recollection of the Postmaster-General that in the case of the I.T.A., and in connection with abuses by advertisers in particular, it has often been necessary for Members of Parliament to employ all kinds of devious means to get their Questions past the Table. They have sometimes also had to stretch the rules of order by asking supplementary questions quite wide of the original context of the Question to put the point to the Postmaster-General.
  There have been cases when back benchers have had to wage campaigns about a category of advertisement, or about a particular advertisement. The Postmaster-General may remember the campaigns about some toothpaste advertising some months ago. These campaigns have been necessary before I.T.A. has taken action. This is an unsatisfactory situation, and it would be a very substantial improvement if the Postmaster-General would agree to set up an advisory committee of the kind suggested by this Clause, to which body representations could be made not only about the contents of television advertising but about programmes. From time to time, at Question Time and on other occasions in the House, comments have been made about television programmes and points raised by consumers have been drawn to

  1021
  the attention of the House. All this could be dealt with much more satisfactorily by an advisory committee of the kind suggested.
  I support my hon. Friend in his plea that if a body of this sort were set up, the consumer should be adequately represented on it. At a later stage I understand that we are to have an opportunity of discussing consumer representation on a committee dealing specifically with advertising. I am a little pessimistic about the possibility of the voice of the consumer being heard effectively by I.T.A. and really producing results while we have the present structure, when in effect the finances of the programmes are derived exclusively from advertising, when the programme contractor is dependent on the advertiser and his main motive is to produce a programme which will get a high T.A.M. rating, thus resulting in a satisfactorily profitable advertising revenue.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) discussed the possibility of improving programmes, and I thought to myself: This is all very fine, but it is not much more than pious wishful thinking when we have the main structure of the industry as it now is, and where, obviously, there is very little motive in the minds of the programme contractors except to get a high T.A.M. rating which is sometimes achieved by exhibiting the least common denominator programme in order to get the highest amount of advertising revenue. In this situation it is more important than ever that there should be an effective watchdog body on which consumers are represented to keep an eye on the standards of programmes as well as the other matters that I have mentioned.
  I urge that a council of the kind suggested in the Clause should be set up and should lay copies of its report before Parliament, because it is unsatisfactory that we should not be given a regular and statutory right to discuss the affairs of the commercial television industry once a year in this House.
  For those reasons, I support the Clause.
  Mr. Chapman: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) correctly interpreted the Pilkington Committee's Report. He said that the Pilkington Committee was not in favour of some such general
  1022
  advisory council. In paragraph 640, the Committee definitely said:
  "We are surprised that the Authority has not appointed a General Advisory Council."
  Towards the end of the paragraph, referring to the B.B.C.'s General Advisory Council, the Report says:
  "We now recommend that the Authority be required to appoint a similar body."
  I do not know what my hon. Friend meant when he said that the Pilkington Committee was not in favour of a body such as is proposed in the Clause. I should have thought that the paragraph from which I have just quoted gave a general impression that the Pilkington Committee would, at any rate, be sympathetic to such a body, if no more.
  Mr. Willey: I was dealing with the part of the Pilkington Report which deals with the proposals made by the Radio and Television Safeguards Committee. I was making proposals in the context in which we made our original proposals, which would have gone beyond the scope of the Bill, indicating that although we were limited by the Bill, we wished to establish a committee which would have powers as full as this Bill would grant to such a committee.
  Mr. Chapman: I hope I may take it that my hon. Friend would agree that the Pilkington Report, in the paragraph which I have quoted, would at least be thoroughly sympathetic to the sort of body which he is proposing. I will not read any more from that paragraph. It is a very strongly worded part of the Report, and I hope that we may call it in aid of our proposed Clause, instead of thinking that we have any reason to apologise for introducing it in spite of the Pilkington Report.
  The reason that I particularly support the Clause is this. I do not intend to rehearse all the complaints that I have made about this Authority over the years, but I say once again that the task of making complaints about this body is difficult when there is no body to which one can go as a court of appeal, and there is no one with any influence on the Independent Television Authority whom one can win over to one's side.
  When I have had to make representations they have always been courteously received. I could never grumble on that score. Indeed, the Chairman and the

  1023
  Director-General have been willing to see Members of Parliament about their complaints. But if they turn one down, there is very little more that one can do. There is no body to which one can turn and to which one can make the request, "Will you support me against the I.T.A. as a more vocal expression of general viewer interest?"
  This is made worse for two reasons. First, it is impossible to guarantee that every year without fail we shall have in the House of Commons an inquest on the last year's working of I.T.A. We cannot guarantee that a day will be set aside every year for this purpose. We have never had such a debate since 1954. We have never been able to air our views here.
  The other reason which makes it the more urgent to appoint such a body as is proposed in the Clause is that if one looks at the work of the Pilkington Committee one realises the abuses which can creep into this business and which need public attention. I want to take a specific example of the sort of thing which such an advisory committee could have stopped long before it reached the proportions that are revealed in the Pilkington Report.
  There was a lot of complaint about the way in which violence was presented on television. The Pilkington Committee examined this question and the point of view taken by the Authority. It was quite incredible. According to the Pilkington Committee, the Authority had never got beyond the point of thinking that because violence occurred in the classics, in Greek plays and in Shakespeare, therefore the kind of violence presented on independent television was justified.
  This is not what I say. It is what the Pilkington Committee said. I will read from paragraph 170:
  "The Authority's view seems to be that since violence appears in great art (the classical Greek drama, Elizabethan drama, the novel) and is acceptable there, so must it be acceptable in the Westerns and crime serials an television".
  The Pilkington Committee had to spend considerable time pointing out to Sir Robert Fraser and the public in general that the criterion was not just the amount of violence connected with a subject. It said:
  1024
  "The test was not, therefore, whether a play or story contained violence; it was rather its values—the moral values implicit in its presentation."
  It had to take the Authority publicly to task on an issue as simple as that.
  If we had had the sort of general advisory committee which is proposed here, it would have been the arena in which that clash of view about the presentation of violence could have been hammered out years ago, where the Authority could have been taken beyond its simple acceptance of a rather naïve approach to the presentation of violence on television, and by which we should probably have got the abuse cleared up and out of the way long before the Pilkington Committee sat. That is the sort of thing one has in mind. Again and again, throughout the hearings of the Pilkington Committee, it was clear that a general advisory committee could help in that way.
  There is, and necessarily will be, a certain amount of difference of opinion about the way an Authority like this works. It is much better not to let the criticism be bottled up, not to let it reach the point of having to break out here or in new Pilkington committees. It is far better to have the subject continually watched. There is nothing for the Authority to be afraid of in having a watchdog at its side. Other bodies have them. Let there be this watchdog which can generally consider all these matters and advise as time goes on.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Yates: I strongly support the new Clause. I was extremely surprised to find that the Pilkington Committee, in its Report, rather discouraged the idea of a consumers' council. I agree that that, of course, is a bigger proposition, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) is quite right when he says that, in the mind of the Pilkington Committee, there was the thought that it would probably be better to debate these matters fully each year on a report.
  In paragraph 427 of its Report, the Pilkington Committee said:
  "Yet the fact that the proposal has been made emphasises the need for each of the two broadcasting authorities to use all the means at its disposal to answer for the conduct of its services. Each should welcome

  1025
  and, indeed, invite criticism, the more so since (as we have noted each is exempt from the commercial consequences of a failure to realise the purposes of broadcasting…More particularly, the broadcasting authorities' annual reports made to the Postmaster-General and presented to Parliament should be the occasion for an explanation of policy and for a revealing examination of criticisms."
  That has not been accepted by the Postmaster-General. We cannot discuss individual criticisms, and we are in the difficulty of trying to raise matters by Parliamentary Question. This is by no means easy. I admit that I have myself put Questions to the Postmaster-General, having got them beyond the Table, and, no doubt, he will say that, for instance, I have been able to voice my criticisms about violence in "Oliver Twist" on television and other matters. But is this really satisfactory or scientific?
  I think that the Postmaster-General admitted in Committee that he could not watch television very often and he had to rely upon other people. We ought to have a better system than that or the mere possibility of trying, in an indirect and difficult way, to raise criticisms by Questions in the House. We need a more scientific method of determining what is good and what is bad in television broadcasting.
  Clause 2 provides that the Authority shall
  "draw up, and from time to time review, a code giving guidance as to the rules to be observed in regard to the showing of violence, particularly when large numbers of children and young persons may be expected to be watching the programmes."
  The B.B.C. has a code for violence, as is fully reported by the Pilkington Committee. It is a long and detailed code, but any producer, even with such a code, could introduce any amount of violence if he wanted it, provided that he could prove that it was necessary to the main theme or essential to the purpose of his production. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction today even where there is a code of practice because we have not yet found the right method of assessing what is good and what is bad and of assessing properly what people think.
  The Viewers' and Listeners' Association, which gave evidence to the Pilkington Committee, published a very interesting pamphlet in which it argued that, after a careful study of a large number of films of violence, crime, comedy, and so forth, it was able to assess what it regarded
  1026
  as good and as bad. It paid particular attention to Western films. But its conclusion—I think that it could come to no other conclusion—was that there should be some body which could study the effect of television programmes and advise the Postmaster-General.
  I am not suggesting, and I do not think that anyone is suggesting, that there should be a committee which interferes with the broadcasting authorities. It should be a committee able to study these questions and report to the Postmaster-General upon the working of the Bill. There will have to be some very careful study of how matters proceed, even if the Bill becomes law with all the safeguards which we want. The B.B.C. has its code, and, by jingo, it is subject to a good deal of criticism as a broadcasting authority. If we started talking about what should be done with, for instance, "That Was The Week That Was", we should run into considerable difficulties. The committee which we propose should be an advisory body, in the main representing consumer interests throughout the country, representing parents, representing those who understand what is dangerous or harmful to children, and so on.
  I remind the House of what the new Clause says—that the
  "council so appointed shall make to the Postmaster General each year a report of its proceedings and as soon as may be after receiving any such report, the Postmaster General shall lay copies of the report before Parliament."
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider the feeling of dissatisfaction there is among many people, and the fact that there is a good deal of feeling that all is not right with the broadcasting services, and that the Bill will not make them any better unless there be some greater safeguard. People feel that a great deal of moral and spiritual damage is done by these bodies, and will be done unless there is a greater study, and a greater advisory power available to advise the Postmaster-General. I know that he is sensitive to criticism which is made about this service, and I am certain that as Minister he would do what he could to repair any damage he thought might have been done. I am certain of that.
  Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will favourably consider the establishment of some kind of advisory body, even if not in this form, a body

  1027
  which the general public can feel is outside the broadcasting authorities and studying these things, and to which those who feel dissatisfied can write, a body which they can approach to state their views, and through which the Postmaster-General may get a more scientific analysis of the feelings of the people and also an assessment of the damage which is likely to be caused.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I did not hear all but I heard most of the horn. Gentleman's speech and I heard it with some sympathy. We have in the newspaper industry a Press Council and we welcome the announcement which has been made today about that, for the old Press Council was a useless body; perhaps this new one will be effective.
  I do not think, however, that the television industry is really on all fours with the newspaper industry. After all, one has commercial control by the Independent Television Authority, and control by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and Parliament has its own ways of expressing its views to both those authorities. The Press to some extent is uncontrolled. Small people have very little chance to make their views known to the Press. They can write to a paper, but that does not do much good.
  The broadcasting world is not on all fours with the Press, and I do not think the sort of council suggested for broadcasting would do much good. I think that it would be just another body, a rather vague body, without very much power.
  Mr. Bevins: I will not detain the House for more than a few moments, but it is perhaps only right that I should deal with one or two of the points which have been raised.
  I thought that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) was feeling a little sorry for himself about Parliamentary Questions. I should have thought, despite the many formidable difficulties about asking Questions in this Chamber, that most hon. Members were conspicuously successful in asking them. Sometimes difficulty arises when it comes to giving an answer.
  1028
  I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) that the position of television and the Press Council is rather different, in the sense that it is generally possible for a Member somehow or another to ask a Parliamentary Question or to write to the Postmaster-General if he has a particular complaint. To my knowledge many Members do this, such as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), about the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. from time to time. Apart from the differences between the Press and television, I see some very real practical difficulties to which I will refer in a moment.
  7.45 p.m.
  However, on the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northfield, I hate to cross swords with him, and I am not complaining about his quotation from the Pilkington Committee, but I would read out what actually was said by the Committee in paragraph 169. Referring to Sir Robert Fraser, the Director-General of the I.T.A., the Committee said:
  "He cited, in particular, the epics and drama of classical Greece, and Shakespearean tragedies and histories. The test was not, therefore, whether a play or story contained violence; it was rather its values—the moral values implicit in its presentation. Particular classes of programme must not therefore be dismissed en bloc; each programme must be examined on its merits and one must ask if there was humanity in it."
  Those were the words attributed to Sir Robert Fraser. Then the Pilkington Committee construed those remarks to mean this:
  "The Authority's view seems to be that since violence appears in great art (the classical Greek drama, Elizabethan drama, the novel) and is acceptable there, so must it be as acceptable in the Westerns and crime serials on television."
  Sir Robert Fraser did not say anything of the sort, nor did he imply anything of the kind. That was a really shocking misconstruction of what Sir Robert said.
  Coming on to this question of violence, we have written into this Bill, with the approval of both sides of the House, a provision that the Authority shall improvise a code covering violence, especially for programmes which are seen by young children. I am bound to say that if we had a consumers council or the sort of advisory council referred

  1029
  to in the new Clause, I really do not see what that council could do which the Authority itself cannot do.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) has spoken about a body such as this deciding, presumably after a lot of monitoring or a good deal of research, what the effects of television are and particularly what the effects of violence are, but, with great respect, who are these people to make these decisions? How do they decide? Having decided, they come to the Postmaster-General with conclusions which may be wholly baseless, and then invite me, as Postmaster-General, to go to the Authority and tell the Authority, in effect, that its policy with regard to violence, or whatever it may be, is wrong.
  Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Surely, on that argument, all the advisory bodies which advise different Government Departments already would be done away with. Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that for years the Minister of Pensions has had an advisory council and that most of his legislation in the past has been based on its advice?
  Mr. Bevins: I do not dissent from that for one moment. Indeed, I agree with it, and it is, of course, the case that the B.B.C. has a general advisory council. It is also the case that we have written into the Bill a provision allowing the Authority to appoint a general advisory council.
  Perhaps I did not put it very happily before, but what I am trying to say is this. I do not want, as Postmaster-General, to appoint a council with I do not know what terms of reference but, presumably, with power on its own initiative to put reports to the Postmaster-general, the Postmaster-General in turn to discuss its reports and recommendations with the Authority, and for those reports to be debated annually in Parliament. I feel strongly that if we were to have a system of that sort it would certainly detract from the responsibility of the Authority and I should become an active intervener in the affairs of Independent Television. I really do not think that would be right. This is an entirely separate proposition from a general advisory committee.
  1030
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was perfectly right when he said earlier that the Pilkington Committee came down against the idea of a broadcasting consumers' council, and if the hon. Gentleman would care to look at paragraph 426 he would see the reasons which influenced the Pilkington Committee in that direction.
  While there may be and probably is a good case for a general advisory council to the Authority, I do not think that there is a strong case for having a body of that sort advising the Postmaster-General and he in turn taking certain action vis-à-vis the Authority. I realise that both the hon. Member and other hon. Members opposite are most keen to have an opportunity not only of asking Parliamentary Questions and that sort of thing, but also of debating the state of television more regularly. I undertook in Standing Committee to discuss this with the Leader of the House. We have started those discussions, but I am not yet in a position to say anything definite to hon. Members opposite. Directly I am, I will communicate with the hon. Member.
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: The right hon. Gentleman has made the most important statement that he sees merit in a general advisory council advising the I.T.A. rather than himself. There are arguments both ways, but, having made this important statement, can he say whether he is in a position to say that he will proceed with the idea of setting up a general advisory council to advise the I.T.A.?
  Mr. Bevins: There is a provision in the Bill which allows the Authority, if it so desires, to set up such a committee. My understanding is that so far no decision has been taken, but my surmise is that a decision will be taken one way or the other—and I hope one way—within about a month or so.
  Mr. Willey: We have not had a satisfactory reply from the Postmaster-General, and I should only like to emphasise some of the ways in which it was unsatisfactory.
  We do not dispute that hon. Members could ask Parliamentary Questions. We are saying that there are many things for which Parliamentary Questions are not appropriate. It would be far better if we knew that these matters were first considered by such a council which felt

  1031
  that they were matters which ought to be discussed on the Floor of the House. That would be much better than the present provision.
  I emphatically agree that there is not an exact parallel with the Press, but we have to take note of what the Press is doing in similar circumstances. The Press has recently been the subject of much criticism and it is not surprising in the light of those criticisms that it should have taken a decision about the Press Council. When criticisms are made, it is far better to provide the forum where they can be discussed. Criticisms which are wounding and perhaps unjustified might be lost in such procedures, but those with point are more likely to be constructively considered than when they are made outside.
  The Postmaster-General asked what such a body could do that the Authority could not do. The answer to that rhetorical question is the Pilkington Report. There has been a great change in commercial television since the Pilkington Report. I am not casting reflections on the Authority, but we have to come to conclusions, and the conclusion which I have reached is that there was no machinery outside the Authority properly to inform it about the effect of its judgments on the programmes which it provided. I do not want to wait for another Pilkington Report and I should like the Government to learn the salutary lesson.
  We leave the membership of the Council entirely in the hands of the Postmaster-General. I should like to
  suggest some people who ought to be on—people from the Corporation, from the Authority, from the programme companies, from the general public. We ought to bring those people together.
  When the right hon. Gentleman shows a certain allergy towards such an advisory committee I remind him that almost every Department shows a similar allergy. But we have to recognise that we have considerably extended the scope of public responsibility and we must not lose any opportunity for providing for a democratic check. While I emphasise the difference from the Press, I would say that such a body might not be more democratic than the Press, for we can set up public authorities as divorced from public opinion as any private institution might be. I am very conscious of this, and I am trying to provide a proper means of communication. In the light of what was said in the Pilkington Report and what has happened subsequently, there is an overwhelming case for providing machinery such as this to enable representations to be made and calmly considered and effectively dealt with.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that discussions with the Leader of the House were proceeding, but I do not think that that will meet the problem. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is able to give us an absolute assurance that he will accept the new Clause or its principle, I must advise my hon. Friends to divide the House in its support.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —
  The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 194.

  Division No. 141.]

  AYES

  [7.57 p.m.

  Ainsley, William

  Callaghan, James

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Forman, J. C.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Chapman, Donald

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Collick, Percy

  Gourlay, Harry

  Baird, John

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Barnett, Guy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Gunter, Ray

  Bence, Cyril

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Deer, George

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Benson, Sir George

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hannan, William

  Blackburn, F.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Harper, Joseph

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

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Bowles, Frank

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Boyden, James

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Healey, Denis

  Bradley, Tom

  Evans, Albert

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Fernyhough, E.

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Finch, Harold

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Fitch, Alan

  Hilton, A. V.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Holman, Percy

  Houghton, Douglas

  Milne, Edward

  Small, William

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Moody, A. S.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hunter, A. E.

  Neal, Harold

  Steele, Thomas

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Stones, William

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Swain, Thomas

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Padley, W. E.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Paget, R. T.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Parker, John

  Thornton, Ernest

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Kelley, Richard

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Tomney, Frank

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Pentland, Norman

  Wade, Donald

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Warbey, William

  King, Dr. Horace

  Probert, Arthur

  Watkins, Tudor

  Lawson, George

  Proctor, W. T.

  Weitzman, David

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Rankin, John

  Whitlock, William

  Lipton, Marcus

  Redhead, E. C.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wiliey, Frederick

  Lubbock, Eric

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  McBride, N.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

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

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

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Short, Edward

  Woof, Robert

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

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Manuel, Archie

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Mapp, Charles

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Mason, Roy

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Millan, Bruce

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and Mr. Grey.

  NOES

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Farr, John

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Fell, Anthony

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Balniel, Lord

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Barter, John

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Batsford, Brian

  Freeth, Denzil

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)

  Bell, Ronald

  Gammans, Lady

  Loveya, Walter H.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Gardner, Edward

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Biffen, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Bingham, R. M.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  McLaren, Martin

  Bishop, F. P.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Gower, Raymond

  Maddan, Martin

  Box, Donald

  Green, Alan

  Maitland, Sir John

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Marshall, Sir Douglas

  Braine, Bernard

  Gurden, Harold

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Brewis, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mawby, Ray

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Bryan, Paul

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Mills, Stratton

  Bullard, Denys

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Burden, F. A.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Clark, William (Nottingham, s.)

  Holland, Philip

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

  Hollingworth, John

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Cooke, Robert

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Coulson, Michael

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Peel, John

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Percival, Ian

  Critchley, Julian

  James, David

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Curran, Charles

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Pitman, Sir James

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Pott, Percivall

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants,S.)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Drayson,G. B.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  du Cann, Edward

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Quennell, Miss J, M.

  Eden, Sir John

  Lambton, Viscount

  Rawlinson, Sir Peter

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Leather, Sir Edwin

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  1034

  1035

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Walker, Peter

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Talbot, John E.

  Wall, Patrick

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Whitelaw, William

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Russell, Ronald

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  St. Clair, M.

  Temple, John M.

  Wise, A. R.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Sharples, Richard

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Shaw, M.

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Woollam, John

  Shepherd, William

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Worsley, Marcus

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

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Smithers, Peter

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Speir, Rupert

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Mr. Rees and

  Stodart, J. A.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Mr. Pym.

  New Clause.—(AUTHORITY TO ENSURE THE SHOWING OF BRITISH TELEVISION FILMS.)

  (1) Without prejudice to the duty imposed upon the Authority by section 3(1)(d) of the principal Act, it shall be the duty of the Authority as from 1st April, 1965 to ensure that in any financial year at least thirty per cent. of the films to which this section applies are of British origin and of British performance:

  Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not impose any such duty upon the Authority in any financial year in which it is not reasonably practicable to comply with those provisions owing to the number or character of the films available or to the excessive cost of such films.

  (2) This section applies to all films which are made specifically for exhibition through the medium of television and form part of the recorded matter included in the programmes broadcast by the Authority, other than films the playing time of which is less than twenty minutes.

  (3) For the purposes of this section a film shall not be treated as being of British origin and of British performance unless it is a film which would qualify for registration as a British film under section 17 of the Films Act 1960 if the provisions of that Act relating to the making of applications for registration were complied with.

  (4) In computing the percentage referred to in subsection (1) of this section no account shall be taken of any film if more than five years have elapsed since the end of the calendar year in which it was first published.—[Mr. Willey.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Willey: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  The purpose of this new Clause is to provide a quota of 30 per cent. for British films. The quota may appear rather low, but it is a figure which we propose on advice. We purposely put it on the low side, hoping that this would make it more attractive to the Government.
  1036
  There is no dispute about the principle here. It is laid down in the original Act that a proper proportion of recorded and other matters of British origin and British performance should be included in programmes. We raised the general question of the quota during our discussions in Standing Committee. We suggested a quota of 90 per cent., but we acknowledged at the same time the good record of both the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. in this connection. We acknowledged that they could claim quotas of 86 and 85 per cent.
  It was clear from our discussions on the general issue that this was particularly important with regard to films, and that is why we are returning to the issue by way of this new Clause. The Assistant Postmaster-General relied on the argument that this affected only old films, and he seemed to be not very interested in whether the old films were American or British. We do not accept that, but I think I said then that even if we were considering old films we should see that a proper proportion of them were British.
  What we are trying to cover here are films specially made for television, and feature films. I do not want to deploy the argument at length, because this matter was fully discussed in Standing Committee. I merely wish to emphasise two essential points in the argument. During our Committee proceedings a good deal was said about exports. In many cases exports depend on having a good home market. If we wish to promote the export of British films for television—which, I think, we all ought to do—we ought to do all that we can to safeguard the home market for these films.
  This is a very good argument in support of the Clause. I think that we

  1037
  should take every opportunity that we can to export British films which may be used in television, particularly in many of the newly emergent countries of the Commonwealth, but to do this we must support the industry in every way that we can.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman gave a quota of 86 per cent. Does he know the comparable figure for films alone?
  Mr. Willey: We are dealing here only with films, and the hon. Gentleman can come to his own conclusion. We are suggesting a quota of 30 per cent. I gave some illustrative figures, taken from the T.V. Times and the Radio Times, of the impact of American films on particular peak viewing hours. The fact that we are here suggesting a figure of 30 per cent. shows that this is where the imported material is predominant.
  The second major argument, which we advanced in Committee and which I emphasise again, is that we are particularly concerned—it is no good disguising the fact—with competition in American films. If we are thinking about American films, we have to remember that we have such an infinitesimal share of the American market that we cannot seriously prejudice British films if we apply a quota here. We have to recognise the special circumstances in which we are acting, the disadvantage which films made in this country for the purpose of television suffer against the imported American film which has the advantage of an enormously large home market before it is offered here.
  In these circumstances, I hope that this approach will be accepted by the Government. I hope that I have made it quite clear that I recognise what has been done generally in safeguarding material of British origin and British performance, but I think that we also recognise that this is a matter in which there are other difficulties facing the film industry and the need for special protection for it. There are precedents for it, and I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will expedite our proceedings by saying that he finds this approach acceptable. I am open to persuasion about the precise quota that we have suggested. If we can improve upon it, let us improve upon it, but I have taken a figure which I thought
  1038
  would enable him to accept at least the principle.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Gower: I dislike, in matters of this kind, to be a sort of little Englander, or to take too parochial a view. My general predeliction is for the free movement certainly of goods and materials and ideas too across frontiers. But I must confess a deal of sympathy what with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said.
  I appreciate that this is not an easy matter to implement. He quite rightly pointed out that the record of both the television groupings, the B.B.C. and the independent television companies, has been extremely good in regard to the whole of the material which they show on television, and he quoted the very high percentages. As he said, these high percentages were mentioned previously in Committee. The question that I asked him—I do not know if he took my point exactly—was: did he know, because I do not know, what is the exact comparable figure for films alone? He quite rightly pointed out that 86 per cent. was the figure of all material of British origin which is shown. He knows that the figure for films alone is very different.
  With regard to the problem of ensuring that a reasonable proportion of films of British origin should be shown, I hope that my hon. Friend will take the point made by the hon. Gentleman that the principle is not at issue. The wording of the original Bill shows what was the intention of the House at that time. I recognise that there are some difficulties in fixing an exact proportion. On the other hand, I should like a basic figure below which we shall not fall—a basic minimum—and I wonder whether the figure chosen by the hon. Gentleman is the most desirable one.
  I am rather surprised at his modesty in assessing this figure at that level. I would have thought that the least we should hope for would be 50 per cent. I feel that if we are not to exceed 50 per cent. we shall be doing rather badly. Some American friends of mine told me recently that although while in London they had seen some quite good films, they also saw some films rarely seen in the United States of a very low and of a poor standard. They told me that they saw a lot of American television in many

  1039
  parts of the United States and they thought that we were getting some of the poorer stuff.
  I do not know whether that is true, but I quote it because it seems material to the argument. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the fact that the House intended that there should be a reasonable proportion and will not deem it unreasonable that we should ensure that we have a basic minimum figure. I think that the hon. Gentleman has set the figure at slightly too low a level for us to be able to succeed in this important facet.
  In the cinema also, as is well known, we have had to impose some such restriction as this for reasons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—the effectiveness of our own industry and the desirability of a good domestic market—to ensure that we shall have a basis on which to try to export our own products. I hope that there will at least be an acknowledgment from my hon. Friend of the desirability of some such basic figure and a slightly higher one than the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
  Mr. Mason: I support the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and press upon the Assistant Postmaster-General the urgent necessity for something to be done in this respect, that there should be a recognised minimum of British films made and produced solely for British television. We are asking that it should be 30 per cent. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) need not be ashamed of being a little Englander. It is about time that hon. Members pressed upon the Postmaster-General that more should be done to encourage the British film industry—and the big four particularly with independent television—to do a little more than they have done hitherto.
  As I said on the contentious Clause 7, if the big four which have the money and which are making the vast profits had poured a little back into programme content and higher standards and had encouraged the British film industry to make more home produced films for British television their profits would not have been as big and Clause 7 would not have been as bad. So the Postmaster-General must recognise that this is not a demand from one side of the House, but from
  1040
  many hon. Members, that more should be done.
  I blame some of the independent television companies that we have not made as much progress in this respect as we should have done. There are far too many cheap, American imported films coming in. First, they are cheap in type, their make-up and their content, and, secondly, we have to see the same kind of film, not the same film itself, time and time again, with the same plot embodied in it, whether of the Perry Mason character or the Cheyenne type. Above all, we have not only to suffer that, but at weekends with A.B.C. television I notice that there are at least five hours of repeat programmes that have been shown many times before, and, for the most part, many months before. Not only are we having this weekend viewing of cheap imported American films which are bad in content; we are having to see them over again.
  It is about time that we gave the British film industry a boost. The big four should be encouraged to do this, if the Postmaster-General will not meet our demand to see that this provision is inserted in the Bill. The industry would then have a great boost. This would also go a good way towards safeguarding the jobs of the British film technicians and also the jobs of some of those in television, including creative artistes. We should try to limit by Statute the import of American films for television.
  We should see that more films are made in this country. We want British history, tinged with drama and excitement. Let us make our people more accustomed to what has happened in our history, instead of showing them how the West was won in the United States. We ask that a minimum of 30 per cent. should be inserted in the Bill. If the Assistant Postmaster-General will not accept the Clause as it stands, I hope that he will be sympathetic to our demands and try to do something, first, to limit the import of this cheap American stuff, and, secondly, to give our own film industry a boost.
  Mr. Shepherd: I sympathise with the purpose of the new Clause. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) in his view that we ought to have more British film material on television. I suspect of that of the 14 per cent. of foreign material, film

  1041
  material ranks high, for obvious reasons. But implementation of this proposal would be extremely difficult. If the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) will summon up some courage he may be able to do something to help the industry to help itself. He did not have much courage when he spoke earlier this afternoon.
  I can tell the House what the basic difficulty is in producing films for British television. The simple economics of the matter are that if a company wants to produce a fairly ordinary, run-of-the-mill, half-hour series, it will cost about £10,000 a time. If it sells that series over the network it will realise about £2,500. That means that it will be about £7,500 or £8,000 down over every half-hour series it makes. This is not a very attractive proposition, in commercial terms.
  I do not ask the House to accept this as gospel, but I believe it to be true that only one series made in this country has made money, and that is the one we have all heard of, about Robin Hood and his merry men. We have to face the problem not of trying to enforce a statutory minimum, in terms of a quota, but of making this wretched business pay. We cannot enforce a statutory minimum upon exhibitors or television companies if it costs between £8,000 and £10,000 to produce something for which there is a return of only £2,000.
  This is where the hon. Member for Barnsley can help. One of the basic difficulties now facing British television producers and the whole of our film industry is the grossly unreasonable attitude of the unions. A short time ago, despite the poverty of work in this field, we lost an excellent series to be produced by M.G.M. They wanted to produce the series here, but the unions put up a series of impossible demands. [Hon. Members: "Which unions?"] Equity, supported by the A.C.T.T., which is a very bad union.
  They demanded that exactly the same salary should be paid to British artistes as was paid to artistes in the United States, and that the same re-run arrangements which obtain in the United States should apply here, although they normally do not. As a result of these impossible demands that film series is now being made in France. We have lost this business—which we could not afford to lose
  1042
  —because of the impossible attitude of the unions.
  Mr. Maurice Edelman: The hon. Member says that the film is being made in France. Does he mean that it is being made in English or in French?
  Mr. Shepherd: It will probably be made in English, besides French and Dutch. I am not sure what the arrangements will be, but I can tell the hon. Member that they are flexible. The point is that this film, which M.G.M. intended making in this country, was driven out by the impossible demands of the union. If what the hon. Member for Barnsley wants, and what I want, is to be achieved, namely, more British films made for television purposes, he must do something to contain the inordinate demands of these unions.
  I go further than that, and say that if something is not done there will be a real breakdown in film production generally. Film producers will not take the risk, inherent in the existing situation, of spending great sums of money which they cannot get back very readily now, because there is a great line up of films waiting for exhibition. They will not continue to operate under conditions in which they are harried by one irrational demand after another made by trade unions in the film industry.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley knows me well enough to know that I am not an enemy of the trade unions; I am a supporter of them. But I am disappointed to see that in this industry the most impossible conditions are being laid down by the trade unions, and that if they are allowed to continue to adopt this attitude they will damage the industry in which they work. I want to see a situation in which more British television films are made, but this will never come about when we have a situation in which only £2,500 is recoverable out of £10,000 spent in the production of a half-hour series.
  The only way in which we can bring about this situation is to co-operate with other countries, so that we can have co-operation with the Americans and others. But if hon. Members opposite want to see better conditions brought about they must try to persuade the trade unions that they must not stand in the way of British film production, but must be more reasonable.
  Mr. Edelman: I shall intervene only briefly, because I believe that I am the only Member present tonight who has written scripts for television films. Therefore, I should immediately declare an interest.
  I have the greatest sympathy for the proposal of my hon. Friend. At the same time, I can see certain dangers in it. Obviously, one of the reasons why so many cheap and nasty American films are shown on British television is that they can be imported very cheaply. They are old films. I am astonished at the patience of the British viewing public, night after night, and especially on Sundays, in being prepared to see these extraordinary, old-fashioned films.
  They are old-fashioned not merely in technique, but in their presentation of what purports to be contemporary work, and it says a great deal not so much for the intelligence of the views as for the hypnotic effect of the "goggle-box" that they are prepared to look at the images passing in front of their eyes night after night merely because they are images and irrespective of their content.
  If we are to produce adequate films for television, merely to lay down a quota to which television companies will have to adhere will not do the trick. First, there must be a lively and active industry which is prepared not simply to try to compete in terms of comparable wages for technicians, performers and writers but is prepared to recognise that television is now an international industry and trade. All over the world countries which now have their own television networks are more than eager—they are yearning—to have films of high quality which we are capable of producing. As they command the market and because they have this backlog of cheap films the Americans can export their products all over the world.
  8.30 p.m.
  As I see it, the future of the television industry does not lie in some sort of national restrictive practice in which we impose a quota which will result simply in the exclusion of the exports of other countries. That is to go the wrong way about it. I think it absolutely necessary that we should so develop our own television film industry that we are capable of capturing the markets of the world.
  Not long ago I was in Japan, and on the many television networks—at least half a dozen—night after night there were American films which had been exported to Japan and dubbed in Japanese dialogue. They were being successfully played to the Japanese television viewers. I see no reason why British television film industry—if I may so call it, though it is not a specific industry but a branch of television—should not try to capture this market both for the commercial interests of Britain and because, as a by-product of such commercial activity, we should be able to develop and raise our own standards of production for the domestic market. I see this as a great opportunity.
  I am not wholly appraised of what is meant in the Clause by showing British television films. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will be able to enlighten me about what is meant by a film. Does it mean something which has been filmed in the conventional way by the cinematograph industry? Does it mean something which has been tele-recorded, or something which is put on tape, which is the modern technique of recording television as distinct from the old method of using physical film?
  Built into the whole of television is this modern technique of tape recording. I think that most television plays, and I have written a number of plays for television, are automatically recorded on tape whether they are performed live in the studio or pre-recorded. The great advantage about tapes is that they are capable of being circulated throughout the world.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) that the quality of the imported old American films has been low and I believe that the public has been stupefied by the marvellous fact that these are films which can be shown on television. It is an appalling criticism of the patience of the British public that it has been able to put up with such rubbish for so long. The moving of this Clause is salutary, because it means that we shall take another look at what is shown on television and see what can be done.
  I do not agree with the economics of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) regarding the poor T.V. companies which have to produce a half-hour play, or whatever it is, for £10,000 and get only £2,000 for one show.
  Mr. Shepherd: I was not talking about plays. I was talking entirely about films.
  Mr. Edelman: I ought perhaps to tell the hon. Gentleman that nowadays the difference between plays and films—the old-fashioned "movie" as the Americans call them—has been completely blurred. In other words, play and film are completely the same thing. Pre recorded television nowadays, whether called a play or a film, is precisely the same artistic, and virtually the same economic, activity. There is a producer who has a director who assembles a cast and produces a half-hour or an hour play. I say that so far from the cost running into about £10,000, judging from my own observation the cost of production is considerably less—
  Mr. Shepherd Mr. Shepherd rose—
  Mr. Edelman: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to conclude—and when he says that the company receives £2,000 for a network show, he is leaving out of account all the advertising advantages which the company receives for its production in the form of advertisement revenue.
  Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman persists in his error. I tried to make clear in my previous intervention that I was not referring to individual plays which are produced and which may be tele-recorded, as I well know. I was referring to a film series which, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, cannot be produced for less than about £10,000 per half hour.
  Mr. Edelman: I leave the House to judge on this mattter. But from my own observation—if I may call it in aid again—I say that even with a series, the technique of production is almost exactly the same as with the production of a single play. There is a director who composes the cast. He has a script, supplied by a very much underpaid script writer—I can say that with certainty—and, finally, the thing is run off as a series.
  1046
  I believe—I revert to my original point—that we are now in a period in the development of the television industry in the production either of single plays or films or a series of films, when the real challenge is not the national one of whether a play, a film or a series can be produced economically compared with the American industry on purely domestic terms. I believe that there is an international challenge and an opportunity. If we start to impose quotas on overseas material, America, Japan, France, Italy, Germany and all the other countries in the world concerned with television, will impose reprisal quotas. That would be bad for the television industry, and especially bad for our country. I am opposed to artistic restriction, and even to the kind of commercial restriction which may restrain the energies of those engaged in the television industry, so I fear that I am unable to support the Motion.
  Mr. Gower: Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that in future a good many of such films made in this country may be made by companies which are not television companies, but companies specialising in the production of such films? Is not he limiting his argument when he speaks of "television companies"?
  Mr. Edelman: At the moment when they start specialising in films of this kind they will, to all intents and purposes, become dependent on television companies.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: I wish to intervene only briefly to cover one simple point. As has been said by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), the B.B.C. and the Independent Television Authority rightly recognised their public duty to take 86 per cent. or 87 per cent. of their overall products from Britain. As has been said, much of American production is of an incredibly low standard, but there is a very high standard of American educational films which we have not had an opportunity of seeing in this country, and from which we would all benefit immensely.
  As we have 13 per cent. or 14 per cent. of the total intake by the B.B.C. and the Independent Television Authority from overseas, the natural reaction of both those bodies is to concentrate more

  1047
  on the popular mass audience type of programmes. It would be helpful to the country as a whole and to our benefit if the B.B.C. and I.T.A. did not take too rigid a view and, perhaps, excluded from these calculations altogether the educational type of film, which I think it would be a benefit to be shown in this manner.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby): The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) had a little fun at my expense at the beginning of this debate by suggesting that in Standing Committee I discarded the whole of his arguments on the basis of saying that this matter affected only old films. If he rereads what I said in Committee, he will see that that was far from the truth. I was replying to the late Sir Leslie Plummer, whom we all miss. He said that he raised the point because he had had a surfeit of old American films on television. I said that if the result of altering the amount of films shown meant ending the showing of American old films and bringing in British old films that would not help anyone much, particularly the film industry in this country.
  A number of hon. Members have asked what the position is at present. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) was particularly concerned about this. I can report that the I.T.A. states that about five hours a week of British television films are shown on Independent Television compared with a weekly average of eight hours of American television films. The British share on Independent Television, therefore, is nearly 40 per cent. The B.B.C. stated that for the quarter, October to December, 1962, 93½ hours of television film was shown, or rather more than seven hours a week, made up of American 65 per cent., other foreign films 1 per cent., and British 34 per cent. This is a point which must be made and repeated.
  There is a point which comes very seriously into our consideration. The Corporation states that this could give an unbalanced picture because certain types of programme, if American in origin, are imported on television film, but, if produced in this country, they are more likely to be transmitted live or electronically recorded. This brings me
  1048
  to the point raised by the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), who asked, "What are films?" This is important in our deliberations. I consider that films in this respect would be actual films which were produced as films, not those produced by electronic devices on tape, such as are used for recording programmes by the different programme companies. There is this basic difference between the two. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) of the series produced on film and then sold to programme companies refers to those which are usually films as opposed to the normal programme which is pre recorded on tape.
  The difficulty here—again I agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, North—is that this sort of attitude certainly cannot be sufficient if we are to attain our objective of building up the output of first-class British films and finding markets for them not only in this country on Independent Television, but throughout the world—I repeat what I said in Standing Committee—trying to export the British way of life. It is important that people in Japan and other parts of the world should be able to see what Britain is doing and what Britain stands for as well as seeing "Laramie" and other American productions.
  Here is a matter in which a rigid British quota could bring all sorts of problems. The Pilkington Committee argued against the imposition of quotas and in favour of flexibility. The Government have not proposed any change to Section 3(1,d) of the principal Act. We resisted in Committee an Amendment to impose a 90 per cent. British quota on television programmes as a whole. The flow of programme material between countries is important, and not least to British producers. There is a real danger that the imposition of specific quotas will invite counter measures in the way of restrictions on the use of British material in other countries.
  8.45 p.m.
  The I.T.A., with the B.B.C, has managed to achieve a creditably high proportion of British material in the total programme output. This being so, the

  1049
  sensible course is not to hamstring the Authority in the exercise of its responsibilities for the content and balance of programmes by imposing a specific and selective quota of this kind, with a proviso giving it a let-out but which is likely to lead to endless bickering and argument The onus of proof would be put on the Authority to show why it had not selected certain films and why the contractors—not the Authority itself—could not afford them.
  That would be an impossible position. In any event, television films in series are not available as a whole series. A pilot film is made, and if this finds favour with a prospective purchaser, the series and contract are made. How, then, does one determine whether films are "available"? Should a prospective series come into this? Even a pilot film will cost a considerable amount.
  On the question of costs, programmes which are filmed are far more expensive than programmes which are recorded or live. The effect of the proposed Clause might simply be the disappearance of filmed material from the television screen. A quota applied specifically to films is in any case arbitrary. A similar programme may be filmed or electronically recorded, depending upon technical and other considerations.
  However, my right hon. Friend has taken note of what was said in Standing Committee and has already written to the I.T.A. and also to the B.B.C. Drawing attention to this and to the representations which he has had from the Federation of British Film Makers, and asking them to bear in mind, in so far as television films are used in their services, the possibility of assisting the British television film industry.
  I believe that the hon. Member has performed a service in again drawing our attention, and the attention of all those outside who are involved in this great industry, to this important matter. As the hon. Member for Coventry, North pointed out, this needs a dynamic approach by everyone concerned. Because we have already achieved more than the level which the hon. Member has set, and because of what I have said, I ask him whether he will withdraw the new Clause.
  Mr. Willey: I agree with the Assistant Postmaster-General wholly on two mat-
  1050
  ters—first, how much we miss Sir Leslie Plummer, who was always a delight in a discussion such as that which we have had, and, secondly, in his statement that I over-simplified the case which he put in Standing Committee.
  I appreciate a good deal of what the hon. Member said. I do not accept the figures—I say this in no derogatory sense—about the proportion of British films, but perhaps that illustrates the difficulty of the subject which we are discussing. I am certainly convinced by what he said that we ought to be more ambitious. May I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) that there is a real distinction between tape and films, and the difference in cost is a factor which affects our discussions. My hon. Friend is an artist and would sympathise with the Pilkington Committee's Report on this subject. But I do not accept the view of that Report that one can airily say that art has no frontier and that we should take no action. Perhaps we are considering not unfair competition but unequal competition. We should be realistic about it.
  Having said that, I much appreciate what the Assistant Postmaster-General said. I am glad to note that our discussions in Standing Committee have had an effect, and I hope that the contributions made from both sides of the House today will help him in the representations which he makes to the Authority and, in turn, will help the Authority. In view of what he said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  New Clause.—(PROGRAMME PAPERS.)

  (1) The Authority shall appoint a person (hereinafter in this section called "the publisher") who, under contract with the Authority and in consideration of payments to the Authority and subject to the provisions of this section, shall publish a periodical paper for sale to the public giving details of programmes to be broadcast by the Authority.

  (2) Programme contractors shall make avail able to the publisher (upon such terms as are referred to in subsection (3) of this section) details, times and all other relevant information relating to programmes to be provided by them to the Authority.

  1051

  (3) The financial and other arrangements relating to the supply by the programme contractors to the publisher of the information referred to in subsection (2) of this section shall be agreed between each programme contractor and the publisher and, in default of agreement, shall be determined by the Authority.

  (4) It shall be a condition of the appointment by the Authority of the publisher that

  (a) the Authority shall control the editorial policy of the paper, and

  (b) the publisher shall not be, or have any financial interest in, any programme contractor appointed under this Act or any other supplier of programmes to be broadcast by the Authority, and shall not be controlled by any programme contractor or programme contractors appointed under this Act.

  (5) The contract between the Authority and the publisher shall provide for payments to be made by the publisher to the Authority representing what appear to the Authority to be such sums as shall meet the expenses incurred or to be incurred by the Authority pursuant to this section, and such additional payments, fixed from time to time, as will adequately reflect the value of the public concession which the publisher enjoys.

  (6) From and after 30th July 1964—

  (a) the Authority shall without charge supply newspapers with details of programmes to be broadcast by it, and

  (b) no programme contractor appointed under this Act shall publish or cause to be published any such paper as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section giving details of television programmes to be broadcast by the authority, and, except with the approval of the Authority, programme con tractors shall not supply to any newspaper details of programmes other than the times and titles thereof.—[Mr. Tiley.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Tiley: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Sir Robert, you have given the Clause an ominous number—new Clause 7. I hope that we shall not have the same dissension about the Clause as we had on Clause 7 of the Bill. I hope, too, that we shall not need to spend as long on it.
  Hon. Members will see that the Clause stands in my name only. This is not because it lacks support. It is because I have not in any way lobbied the Clause. In a Bill which has seen so much lobbying it is remarkable to find a Clause which has not been lobbied. Indeed, I have not even tried to persuade my right hon. Friend to accept it. The Clause will stand or fall, as it should, on its own merits.
  The Clause represents a new thought. The House has not discussed this prob-
  1052
  lem before. It represents progressive thought. It is an attempt to use common sense now so that we may avoid future difficulties. All I ask is that both sides of the House should listen to the argument and not be prejudiced one way or the other. The Clause represents principles in which I firmly believe. It does not set out to achieve a minor change. It represents a major alteration. It is almost worthy of a Bill itself.
  I have no interest to declare. I am not engaged in any way in commercial television, nor in printing—I say this as it affects this Clause specifically—in magazines. I do not think that I have any great personal friends in any of those ventures. I know that the Clause has incurred a little displeasure since I tabled it.
  In effect, the Clause follows the policy and principles outlined in the main Bill. It is no more and no less than that. I am surprised that, when the Bill was drafted, some thought was not devoted to this thought of mine. It is consequential on the Bill.
  Put briefly, the Bill sets out to evoke stricter supervision of programmes and programme planning. For the first time, the I.T.A. is given direct authority for the planning of programmes. Secondly, the Bill supervises for the first time in greater measure the profits which flow from commercial television. That is exactly what the new Clause would do as regards commercial television magazines. The Clause would bring to an end the monopoly which now exists in the programme magazines of commercial television. The magazines are fairly well known. They are the T.V. Times, the Viewer, the Television Weekly, the Television Post, Look Westward and Wales, West and North T.V. The main magazine—we all know this—is the T.V. Times, which is owned almost in a complete monopoly by Associated Rediffusion
  I make not the slightest criticism of Associated Rediffiusion for this position, because it could not avoid it. The position of monopoly which arises has merely dropped into Associated Rediffusion's lap as careful businessmen in the new field of commercial television purely as a result of legislation. I am not criticising the monopoly which has been created. It is interesting when dealing with a

  1053
  monopoly of this type to realise that the profit from the monopoly is not the brainchild of this one company. It was thrust on it. It is more of a monopoly than normal because of the copyright which exists in the programmes.
  I hope that the House will forgive me for one or two minutes if I briefly describe the Clause, because it is a new subject on the Notice Paper, Subsection (1) of my proposed Clause would give the I.T.A. power to appoint a publisher—and in this connection the whole sphere of printing and publishing would be left in the hands of private enterprise—who would be responsible for the publication of a weekly magazine for sale to the public in which details of all commercial television programmes would be included.
  Subsection (2) would compel programme contractors to give all the necessary information to the publisher about the programmes to be transmitted by them. This is by no means new, for the contractors are doing this already. The other programme contractors are giving to Associated Rediffusion all the details required for inclusion in the T.V. Times. Thus, there is no hardship or compulsion of a political nature involved here.
  Subsection (3) of the Clause would ensure that contractors were paid for the right to use the information supplied, just as they are at present. There is no difficulty about this, because the precedent has been set by the present methods. Subsection (4) gives the Authority the right to control the editorial policy of the magazine. This is one of the principles involved in my new Clause and I welcome the inclusion of words giving the Authority this right.
  Television, commercial and otherwise, is concerned with moral standards and education. If we are to improve our programmes in the way we all wish, as foreshadowed by the Pilkington Report and as the public require, the I.T.A, must be given the tools to do the job. One cannot have higher standards and greater emphasis on programmes which provide those standards unless the I.T.A. has control over the editorial policy of the magazine.
  I must make it clear that this is not Government control of a new type. There is no reason why anyone should object
  1054
  to what I suggest because in many other walks of life a similar control or inspection is permissible. The Minister of Education has laid down certain principles. Her Majesty's inspectors of education have the right to enter all private schools to ensure that Government policy is being fulfilled. The same applies in private hospitals.
  The Bill, in Clause 2—and I would be grateful if the Postmaster-General would tell me how the duty contained in that Clause on the Authority can be carried out unless the Authority has the responsibility I wish to give it for the sort of national magazine I am suggesting—states:
  "(c) to secure a wide showing for programmes of merit."
  That is an important thought and an equally important part of a new duty being placed on the Authority.
  Unless the Authority controls the publication of this information, how can it ensure that the programmes are of merit and suitable for the tastes of the public? Subsection (4) of my Clause states:
  "(b) the publisher shall not be, or have any financial interest in, any programme contractor…"
  Subsection (5) of the Clause is important because it carries out the profit supervision being exercised under the Bill. This subsection lays it down that the profits of the new publication shall be put to meeting
  "…the expenses incurred or to be incurred by the Authority…"
  in connection with this part of the Bill, plus any further payments according to the profit which the publisher may make.
  9.0 p.m.
  We were taught a lesson some years ago when we granted commercial television licences without this saving clause. Never again must public concessions be given to private firms thereby creating a monopoly, without the precaution of "vetting" from time to time the profits being made. How much happier would the whole sphere of television be, both in its effects on the companies and on the country, if we had thought of this when commercial television came into being.
  Those are the important details of the new Clause. There would be one national magazine, with area editions, and it is important to note that the Clause would

  1055
  make no difference at all to the comments, articles and details published by the Press. My purpose is to assist in the formation of higher standards of programme and higher commercial television standing, and I think that it helps in this respect—
  Mr. Edelman: I understand the whole idea of the hon. Gentleman's Clause is that private monopoly should be limited, and the hon. Gentleman has described—improperly, perhaps—a number of papers concerned with the advertising of programmes as regional private monopolies. Is it his purpose now to establish a single national monopoly in the hands of an individual capitalist who will have the sole ownership of the only paper concerned with advertising television programmes?
  Mr. Tiley: I must be explaining the Clause very badly if the hon. Gentleman has come to that conclusion. My whole argument is that we have already created these monopolies almost exactly in the way enunciated by the hon. Gentleman. We have no powers whatever to direct the editorial policies of those magazines into the channels we wish to see them in order to supply these more enlightened programmes, nor have we any power over the profits made.
  Where a private enterprise monopoly has been created by legislation we should exercise this financial control which the Bill seeks to create over commercial television generally, and this side-line of the magazine—
  Mr. Donald Wade: Do I understand that the publisher referred to in the Clause will operate in competition with any existing journals or magazines?
  Mr. Tiley: It will be the sole magazine with the right to announce commercial television programmes. I will deal further with the hon. Gentleman's point in a moment. We would have the B.B.C., with its two programmes and the Radio Times,and the one mass-circulated national magazine, with area editions, for commercial television. There is no opportunity for the successful launching of another commercial television magazine, and that will be one of the problems facing those who accept the responsibility, if the Govern-
  1056
  ment decide that they should all have it, of establishing another commercial television line.
  I should like to give the House a few figures. In 1955, the Radio Times had a circulation of 8,800,000. There were then 14 million radio sets and 4½ million radio and television sets. Between 1952 and 1962, the number of television sets grew from 4½ million to nearly 14 million, but the circulation of the Radio Times fell from 8,800,000 to 5½ million in 1962
  There was then in being the T.V. Times and others in the commercial field with a circulation of 4 million. That surely suggests that as the channels increase the value of a programme paper giving details of one channel falls. Let hon. Members therefore imagine the problem which would confront a third paper in a monopoly situation where the reins are so tightly held and there is copyright in programmes. It is doubtful whether such a paper would ever succeed. If the Government agree to the request, which is made mainly from these benches, for another channel for commercial television it is doubtful whether sufficient circulation could be achieved to sustain a magazine in the monopoly situation which now exists.
  Another point which is worth bearing in mind is that instead of creating a monopoly I wish to destroy one. I wish also to destroy another monopoly in that all the magazines, except the Radio Times and the T.V. Times, are owned by the King group. Mr. Roy Thomson said some time ago that it is now impossible to launch a new mass magazine. We are not to see a new national paper launched, for the same reason, and the position in the magazine world is ossified. Here is a chance, with this Clause, of launching a national magazine into competition in the magazine world.
  If such a magazine were launched on this scale we should have the opportunity not only of fulfilling the virtues of the Bill, but also of seeing a magazine of some standard established. I shall not engage in lengthy criticism of the T.V. Times and similar papers, but not even their best friends would suggest that they are magazines of high literary reputation. If the Clause were accepted there would be a chance of a

  1057
  new magazine entering this monopolistically controlled world and of fulfilling in addition to the functions of the Bill the other functions which I have mentioned. I hope that the House will accept the new Clause.
  Mr. Mason: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley), in introducing the new Clause, has outlined the monopoly position which exists whereby Associated Rediffusion publishes the T.V. Times and there are the other regional papers which are incidental and have relatively no circulation. The Postmaster-General should give sympathetic consideration to the arguments of the hon. Member. There is no more opportune time than now to do so. The right hon. Gentleman has plenty of time to invite the necessary tendering before July 1964 and to consider change.
  The hon. Member has said that the new Clause is in line with the general purpose of the Bill. On the basis of the Exchequer receiving a levy from the programme contractors, would it not also seem right either to impose a levy on the present Associated Rediffusion publishers, because of their existing monopoly position, or alternatively to consider sympathetically the hon. Member's point that an outside publisher should be appointed who would pay a rent for the publishing concession he received? It is stressed in subsection (5) of the proposed new Clause that a nominal rent should be paid to the Authority by the new and outside publisher, and secondly that from time to time additional payments should be fixed
  "as will adequately reflect the value of the public concession which the publisher enjoys."
  What the hon. Gentleman is trying to do is to take away the private monopoly position of Associated Rediffusion, to allow some non-interested publisher, away from television altogether, to be able to publish this national Television Times, who in turn will pay a rent to the Authority and will from time to time make an additional payment in lieu of the public concession that he is enjoying. That seems to me to be generally in line with what the Postmaster-General has been doing in Clause 7 of the Bill, which is the "guts" of the Bill anyway.
  I support in great measure what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do. It is taking the matter out of the hands of a private
  1058
  monopoly within the television industry and which is enjoyed by one of the big four, giving it to some person with no interest in the television industry and asking him to pay a rent according to how he enjoys the public concession. I hope the Postmaster-General will consider this Clause sympathetically.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I have some sympathy with the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley). Since he put down this proposed new Clause many people have tried to laugh it out of court. Many Conservatives will, no doubt, say that it is rank Socialism to think of doing any such thing.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Cooke: I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) saying "Hear, hear". Perhaps he has not considered some of the advantages to be gained from some sort of change in the status of the magazine or magazines which publish these programmes. In the present circumstances we are told—and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), who is a director of a company, will correct me if I am wrong—that Associated Rediffusion controls the biggest, indeed the only really important, magazine giving programme details.
  If, when we come to the question of a second commercial channel and, as many of us hope, we see a completely new lot of companies competing with the existing companies—perhaps another big four in the distant future—will those companies be obliged to have their programme details published in this magazine owned by one of their competitors? The present situation may be all right with the existing companies, but, looking into the future, there will be some difficulty.
  I do not like the way in which my hon. Friend's proposed Clause is drafted and I cannot support it in its present form. There is, however, a way which occurs to me of solving our problems. I suggest that the programme companies should be obliged to supply their programme details to the I.T.A. sufficiently far in advance, and also notify changes as they occur. That material would be available, just as HANSARD is available

  1059
  as a record of the proceedings of the House of Commons.
  Then anybody could come forward and take in those details, compile a magazine of television programmes and see whether he could make a commercial go of it. In that way the existing monopoly would be destroyed and we could let private enterprise have a free run. As things are at present, it is like having the Parliamentary proceedings reported in only one daily newspaper, such as the Daily Telegraph, and goodness know where we would be if that situation existed. The I.T.A. could be furnished with the details, the programme companies being obliged to send them in, and there they would be for anybody to take and make good use of. This would solve many of our problems.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I have a great deal of sympathy with the intentions of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley), and I can understand the drift of his argument on the new Clause. We have created a monopoly on top of a monopoly. As a result of the second monopoly, for which no rent is paid to the State but which is a consequence of the first monopoly conceded by the State, the people who publish T.V. Times are able to make a very fat profit out of it. This is equally true of some of the other journals, which are extremely profitable enterprises, a source of profit never intended when we passed the first Television Act.
  We must bear in mind that 80 per cent. of the programmes of all the commercial companies in the country will, under the Bill, be determined by the Authority. The Authority will now decide what goes into the network, and, as the network provides at least 80 per cent, of the programmes—in many areas 90 per cent., and in some areas 92 per cent.—the main bulk of the country's programmes will be in the hands not of the individual programme contractors but of the I.T.A. presiding over the network committee.
  Therefore, the contents of the programme magazines will be determined not by the contractors, but by the I.T.A. In this sense, there is a case for the I.T.A. itself—this is where I differ from the hon. Gentleman—taking over the publication
  1060
  of a programme journal covering the whole country, with the advantage coming to the Authority and, indirectly, to the Exchequer.
  But I go further. I look at it from the standpoint of the viewer. Why should the viewer have to buy two journals to know what is being made available for him, through the exercise of powers granted by Parliament? Why should not we have co-operation in this matter between the I.T.A. and the B.B.C.? In other parts of the Bill, we have imposed co-operation between the I.T.A. and the B.B.C.
  Mr. Hirst: Suppose it were given to the Daily Herald.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not mind who runs it. For goodness' sake, let us try to be tidy in our organisation and not wasteful. Let us try to get the best advantage for the nation rather than for individual exploiters. In my view, the viewer ought to be able to buy one journal in which he can find information about the commercial programmes available to him and the B.B.C. programmes. That would be the tidiest way of doing the job. Neither of the journals is there to publish opinions. Their main function is to publicise programmes.
  I hope that the Postmaster-General, in considering this matter and the injunction he has laid upon the I.T.A. and, as he will do, upon the B.B.C., to co-operate in exploiting their physical assets, will go a step further and ask for an exploration of the possibility of one programme journal being published to cover both commercial and public television programmes for the whole country.
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: I do not go quite so far as my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), but I think that there is an unanswerable case, if one publication is to have access to all the programme schedules, perhaps with local editions catering for programme contracting companies in different areas, to put it in the hands of the Independent Television Authority itself rather than have another concession to another private publisher, the Authority appointing a competent editor and staff to run the magazine.
  It seems to me that if the programme contractors were to be required to furnish

  1061
  programme schedules in the way suggested the magazine using them would inevitably put out of business any other publication publishing only part of the programme schedules. The T.V. Times would disappear, and this would not be any great loss either to the viewing public or anyone else. One would again, be left with a monopoly situation. If we were to be left with a monopoly situation it would be better and simpler that the publication covering the independent television programmes should be in the hands of the I.T.A. and edited by a member of that staff.
  Mr. Bevins: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) for confining the length of his new Clause 7 to a much smaller piece of paper than my Clause 7 and I am also grateful to him for refraining from lobbying me on his new Clause 7. My hon. Friend and I so often agree that I dislike very much on this occasion to have to disagree with him. I hope that he will forgive me.
  My hon. Friend asked me one pointed question, namely, how, in the absence of a change of this sort, it would be possible for the Authority to secure a wide showing of programmes of merit. I think that that arises quite independently from Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill and I do not think that it is necessary for the I.T.A. to take the new powers in this Clause in order to make sure that we have a wide showing of worthwhile television programmes.
  I take as the starting point of what I want to say the fact that television programmes are different in every part of the country; not different at all times, but every programme is different at some time during the week. Therefore, there must be separate publications.
  At present, there are about 14 separate publications and whatever we decide to do or not to do the idea of ever having a composite publication for commercial television is completely unrealistic. At present, we have separate journals in the form of the T.V. Times for London, for the Midlands, Northern, Anglia, Southern, the Border and Grampian, and, in addition, there are, as my hon. Friend knows, three journals run by the Dickens Press for Scottish Television, Tyne/Tees and Westward.
  1062
  Finally, there is a separate journal for Ulster Television.
  I agree entirely with my hon. Friend in one respect. He argued that his proposed reform was consistent with the main theme of the Bill, and in theory I agree that it is. It is compatible with the principal theme of the Bill that the Authority itself should assume a more commanding position in the affairs of commercial television, and I think one may fairly add too, that, for various reasons, which it is not necessary to enter into at this time of the evening, possibly the Authority has not quite projected its personality to the public as it might have done over the last few years. It is conceivable—I concede this to my hon Friend—that control of the T.V. Times, however many editions, would possibly help the I.T.A. in this.
  Having said that I ought to add, I think, that since I have been in my present office I have never had any criticisms as such from Members of Parliament or the public of the T.V. Times. It is quite true, of course, that the Radio Times has a greater sale than the T.V. Times. This is partly due to the publications run by the Dickens Press, and also in part due to the fact that the number of people who can receive B.B.C. television only is greater than the number of people who can receive commercial television.
  If the Government were to accept the new Clause, it goes without saying that it would be bitterly resented by certain interests with financial interests in the T.V. Times, as is perfectly natural. But there are two reasons why the Government do not feel able to recommend the new Clause to the House, and I must be candid.
  First, several hon. Members opposite have suggested that the Authority itself ought to undertake this responsibility. That, of course, is not in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West. Whether it were done by the Authority taking over responsibility itself, or on the basis of the new Clause, does not matter a great deal, except from the point of view of ideology.
  What matters from the Government's point of view is that the Independent Television Authority has an enormous amount of work on its shoulders now. It has to draft new contracts with entirely new provisions for 14 or 15 companies;

  1063
  it has to decide which companies those contracts are to be given; it has to assume the control of networking for the first time in its history; it has to secure balance in programming and it has to undertake reforms in advertising. Heaven forbid that we should clutter up the Authority with further burdens of this kind at the present stage.
  Mr. Mason: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not using that as an argument. The I.T.A. should have been doing its job previously. In the Bill we are asking for the first time that it gets on with die job. This would not be an additional burden, because the Clause suggests that this task should be done by an outside publisher and that the I.T.A. would get the rent for it and that later the additional payments which would come in lieu of the concession would go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Bevins: Of course I was using it as an argument. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman thinks I was using it as if not as an argument. It is an argument that in the circumstances in which the Authority is at present operating there are things even more important than assuming responsibility for the T.V. Times—networking and things of that kind—which ought to come first and engage the full and undivided attention of the Authority.
  The second reason why I do not take kindly to my hon. Friend's suggestion is very simple and it is that in fixing the scale of the levy we rightly took into account—
  Mr. W. R. Williams: I have been trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Although I would not go so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), and say there is nothing in it, if it is impossible for it to be done now, if it is inopportune to do it now, if the Authority is too busy now, will not the right hon. Gentleman accept the suggestion in principle, when we will allow him to introduce it when the Authority is less busy?
  Mr. Bevins: The hon. Member is not usually so impatient. I am usually the one who is impatient. I was coming to that.
  I was saying that in fixing the scale of the levy the Government took into
  1064
  account the value of the whole of the commercial television concessions to the companies, and that that clearly involved the money currently being made out of the T.V. Times which, after all, is derived from the concession. If a company were to be deprived of the profits accruing from this venture, it would be necessary in fairness to adjust the scale of the levy. We certainly do not want to do that after what we have been through during the last few months.
  My own view about the suggestion of the hon. Member for Openshaw is that, in principle, there may be something to be said for the proposal embodied in the new Clause. I think that this proposal requires an enormous amount of thought and examination before any hard decision is taken about it and if my hon. Friend would be so kind as for the time being to withdraw his new Clause, I would undertake to have further conversations with the Authority in the future.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Tiley: I think that it is better to have got my right hon. Friend's Clause 7 rather than my new Clause 7. In view of my right hon. Friend's speech, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2.—(AUTHORITY'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROGRAMMES.)
  Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, after "education", to insert "instruction".
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, but I do not propose to press this to a Division, if he does not because I do not think that the inclusion of this word would materially affect the provisions of the Clause, although I think it would be an advantage to make the Amendment.
  The Clause at present provides that it shall be the duty of the Authority
  "to provide the television broadcasting services as a public service for disseminating information, education and entertainment…"
  We suggest that it should also provide instruction, for this reason. There has been a good deal of discussion over the past few months about the rôle which television might play as an aid to education in the sense of instruction, and we

  1065
  would like this to be made clear in the Bill.
  Reference has already been made to the proposed Anglia series to be called "Dawn University", and we appreciate what was done in Ulster in the programme "Midnight Oil". Ulster is at the moment most anxious to have an education channel which would be used primarily for the purpose of instruction. I had the privilege of meeting Sir Robert Fraser to discuss this matter, and I was very much impressed by the interest which he and his colleagues showed in it. I met some members of the Authority who showed a great interest in the possibility of using television for instructional purposes as a direct aid to the educational services.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, because it would make it quite clear that, as with defining the duty of the Authority afresh in the present Bill, it is the intention to encourage it in its present endeavours and to make it quite clear that if it feels it right and proper to provide services for instruction it should do so.
  Mr. Mawby: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North has referred to two programmes which are along the lines of his Amendment, and one naturally hopes that there will be a continuation and extension of these activities, but the purpose of the words "information, education and entertainment" was to place the description of the objects of the I.T.A. services on the same footing as that of the B.B.C., as set out in the Preamble to the Corporation's Charter.
  In the principal Act, the only reference to the objectives of the I.T.A. service is in paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule where the I.T.A. programmes are referred to as
  "a medium of entertainment, instruction and information"
  No significance really attaches to that choice of words.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that the insertion of the word "instruction" would give a specific lead to a teaching service, but the words "information and education" are sufficiently embracing to cover instruction. Indeed, the Authority already does what the hon. Gentleman wants in the context of schools broadcasting and in such programmes as
  1066
  French language instruction. In our opinion nothing would be gained by the addition of this word, but this short debate will obviously give more publicity to what we should like to see happen in the future.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) withdraws the Amendment, may I ask him whether he saw the excellent article in The Times which referred to what is being done in Italy and the great tributes paid by the Italian people to the facilities provided in the way suggested by my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Willey: Like my hon. Friend, I have seen that and many excellent articles. I am glad that this is being seriously considered by those responsible for television. I would be quite prepared, if I had the opportunity, to suggest that the duties of the B.B.C. might be defined in some more embracing manner, but, as the Assistant Postmaster-General said, its attention will be called to the short debate that we have had on this point. I hope that the Authority will be encouraged to pursue the inquiries it is holding into the possibility of educational television in the direct sense of a teaching service, and that soon we shall have some experiment along those lines. We should then be better able to evaluate the service television might render to education. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out "merit" and to insert "artistic merit and serious purpose".
  This is a point that we have discussed previously. We have tried to improve the definition. We recognise that it was difficult to do this, but we are now making proposals in the light of the discussions that we have had on the Bill.
  We have in mind that there is some real anxiety, which we ought to recognise, particularly in the minds of producers and others directly responsible for programmes. We have further Amendments, which we shall reach in due course, centring on this point. There is some apprehension that there might

  1067
  be a tendency to economise at the expanse of the better programmes. We thought that we ought to take the opportunity to make it quite clear that we regard it as the duty of the Authority to see that this should not happen.
  We thought that a possible way of doing this would be to widen the definition of "merit". There may be programmes of merit defined in isolation which would not cover the point that we have in mind. We suggest that instead of "merit" it might be better to have the wider definition "artistic merit and serious purpose". If we place the responsibility and duty on the Authority to see that there is a wide showing of such programmes, this would go some way to allay the fears of those who believe that there is a possibility that there might be a deterioration of programmes.
  Mr. Edelman: I am very dubious about the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It seems to me that far from widening the definition of "merit" he has, on the contrary, restricted it. Who, for example, is to decide what is "artistic merit"? Who is to decide what is "serious purpose"? All these are matters of judgment, and I should have thought that the term "merit" being comprehensive conveys the general intention of those who are presenting the Bill. But it seems to me that the Clause itself—in seeking to secure a wide showing of programmes of merit—is in itself somewhat redundant. Surely the assumption in the whole purpose of the Bill is that the object of the I.T.A. will be to produce programems which will be of value to those who will ultimately see them.
  In recent times we have seen how, in the matter of artistic definition, it is possible for a coterie to impose its judgments merely because they are fashionable and are associated with a group of critics who at any given time have a dominance by association with, or by a collectivity of interest with, certain leading critical newspapers. We have seen, too, in matters of censorship—especially in the case of Lady Chatterley's Lover—how all of a sudden a whole new class of censors is brought into being. In the
  1068
  matter of Lady Chatterley's Lover these censors were really speaking for the defence. In other words, we have a whole group of people conjured up and claiming to be experts in the matter of artistic judgment.
  It is my submission that while, in matters of criticism, it is at times possible for certain people to establish standards of value, there is absolutely no guarantee that these standards will be of any permanence. Once we introduce, in a statutory form, a term like "artistic merit", we are demanding that there should be people who will be able to establish certain standards of artistic merit, and who will be capable of being referred to, and called as witnesses, in connection with the Clause. If we accept the Amendment the definition of "merit" will be narrowed not only unduly but unworkably. I could not support a phrase of that kind.
  As for the question of "serious purpose", who will decide what that means? Presumably, in any programme of entertainment—in any artistic production—there is an underlying assumption that the person who is creating the programme does it either for money or because he has a serious purpose. Generally speaking, whether he does it for money or for art, I assume that his purpose is serious.
  If we accept that "serious purpose" in the positive sense is meaningless, we can proceed to the counterpart: if a person were to present a satirical programme, would it be regarded, ipso facto, as not being of a serious purpose? Might not the effect of the introduction of the term "serious purpose" be to drive any form of social satire, or criticism in the form of comedy, from the screens?
  Taking the Amendment all in all, it seems to me that on the one hand it shrinks the interpretation of the term "merit" and adds nothing of any constructive value to the serious purpose which we enjoin on the Authority. All in all, so far from reinforcing the term "merit", it dilutes it, to the detriment to the purpose of the Bill.
  Mr. Chapman: I am sorry to hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). We

  1069
  spent a long time in Committee trying to establish that it is important to write into the Bill a positive duty upon the Authority to set up rather better standards than those which have been prevalent in the past. I am sorry that when we seek to insert words to carry into effect our wishes my hon. Friend should oppose them. Hon. Members on both sides worked hard in Committee, and there was no real division on this matter.
  I tried to introduce certain words in Committee, which I admit I pinched from Pilkington. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Johnson-Smith) can screw up his face, but at least I had a try in Committee. He sat there and said nothing. I say that this attempt goes some way towards meeting the point of view expressed by Pilkington and others.
  My hon. Friend asked whether the phrase "serious purpose" might prevent the showing of satirical programmes. I do not see why it should. Apparently my hon. Friend has not read that part of the Clause to which the Amendment applies. It enjoins the Authority to give wide publicity and a wide showing to programmes of serious purpose. It does not stop the Authority showing any other programme. It merely provides that in this field, where there might be a tendency to be too restrictive, and not to have a sufficient sense of adventure in putting on these programmes, the Authority has a special duty to do so.
  9.45 p.m.
  It is a positive enforcement, it is not a negative prevention of any programme, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend made that point. I do not think that there is much in the other point he made about artistic merit. Whether merit or artistic merit, it implies the same thing. Finally, my hon. Friend asked who is to make all these decisions. We setup the I.T.A. to make all the decisions. That is what the phrases already in the Bill are all about. Already the Bill states that the programmes to be shown by the Authority are to
  "maintain a high general standard in all respects, and in particular in respect of their content and quality, and a proper balance and wide range in their subject-matter…"
  We set the Authority precisely this sort of instruction and we are making sure about
  1070
  cases where the Authority may be tempted not to have that kind of policy.
  Mr. Edelman: My hon. Friend is defining artistic interests and calling in aid the I.T.A. as being a qualified body to decide what is artistic merit. Is he now saying that the I.T.A. is capable of exercising, if not a censorship, at least a decisive voice in determining what is artistic merit?
  Mr. Chapman: Of course not. There is nothing negative about this Amendment. It is not telling the Authority to select a pattern of artistic merit and enforce it upon us. But in its selection it has a special duty to watch out for items of artistic merit and make sure that they do not have too restrictive a showing. That is all we seek to do by this Amendment, and my hon. Friend is exaggerating.
  We were, I think, all impressed with some of the remarks made by Mr. Carleton Greene when he tried to broach the idea of the B.B.C. Giving the Sixth Bishop Bell Memorial Lecture, he said:
  "As you will have understood, much of what we do is 'educative' rather than 'educational' in the narrowest sense: it is a by-product of entertainment and information. But we do not for a moment accept the proposition that in the conscious pursuit of either educative or educational aims we are ramming—or should be ramming—anything down anyone's throat. We do, however, believe that the great majority of people have, at any rate potentially, a real and active interest in the world they live in, and a capacity for enjoying arts and skills, and ways of thinking and looking at the world from which they may have been shut off by the merest accidents of birth and education; for, after all, it must be remembered that 90 per cent. of our present population left school before they were fifteen."
  "Hear, hear", a thousand times! This is the sort of spirit we want behind our television programmes: not ramming anything down anybody's throat but opening new worlds of experience. That is what the Amendment tries to do, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not agree with it.
  Mr. Bevins: I am not without sympathy for the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and his hon. Friends. But I do not wish to debate the definite meaning of the words "artistic merit"; nor, for that matter, the meaning of the words "serious purpose".

  1071
  I wish to tell the House that, as drafted, the Bill requires the Authority to secure a wide showing for programmes of merit; that is to say, programmes that are worth while, because they are serious or informative, or it could be simply because they happen to be good television. I should have thought that "programmes of merit" is the widest possible expression. Once we start adding to the expression, no matter what words are used, the House must necessarily qualify and narrow the wording in the Bill. There can be no question about that.
  As drafted, the subsection leaves to the Authority the function of determining what is merit without any qualifications. I think it better that that should be so.
  Mr. Willey: I heard what the Minister said and, of course, I shall pay attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) said, but I found it difficult to follow his argument. I emphasised that this Amendment was suggested because some anxiety has been expressed by producers. They thought it might be possible to use words more emphatic than "merit" to strengthen their hands in providing better programmes. This was the major reason why we sought to extend the definition of "merit".
  All that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North said about subjective decision depending on the words that we are proposing would depend also on "merit". If we applied merit it would be subjective. What we have to have in mind the whole time is why this provision appears in the Bill. We know that it appears in the Bill for two reasons. One was the argument which ran through the Pilkington Report, that there was too much that was trivial on television. So the Government said, "We will make it the duty of the Authority to provide programmes of merit."
  The other argument is different. It is that the Authority should provide programmes for minority interests. I think that there is something in the argument that merit by itself does not carry us much further in this direction. We might have programmes of merit which would not meet the point, made repeatedly in the Pilkington Report, that one has to make provision for some minority interests. Again, the definition was inadequate to indicate those meritorious
  1072
  minority interests which ought to be catered for and a duty placed on the Authority to provide such programmes.
  I appreciate that this brief discussion has illustrated the difficulties—we had some difficulties in Standing Committee—about the definition.
  For these reasons, having ventilated this matter, I am quite willing to hope that in another place they may pay attention to our proceedings and do better than we have been able to do. Meanwhile, I settle for the original proposal that we should ask for programmes of merit, and, in view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end to insert:
  Without prejudice to die provisions of the principal Act, the Authority may in pursuance of their duty under this section (themselves arrange for the provision of (other than by programme contractors) or, if need be, themselves provide programmes or parts of programmes to be broadcast by the Authority.
  I should think that on the law of averages it is about time the Postmaster-General said "Yes" to something. I have an idea that I shall be dealing with something now which everyone will understand. There is no question of any adjudication on merit—[Interruption.] This is a straightforward proposal to everyone except the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who can make everything intricate. We are getting down to this matter at a very late hour. I am sorry about that, because it is important. In the interests of brevity, I confine myself to asking the Assistant Postmaster-General to consider a few points which I shall put to him.
  Those of us who have read the Pilkington Report will remember that the Committee wanted an entirely new structure in which the Authority would be responsible for the programmes. It would let them out to the companies, and the companies could opt for some other programmes if they so desired. Pilkington said that the Authority should be in a position to make and produce its own programmes. We have been unable, for one reason or another, to go all the way with Pilkington on this important issue.

  1073
  In the Bill there is a tendency to go to the other extreme and to make no provision whatever for the Authority to produce its own programmes. We feel that there must be a halfway house which will commend itself to the Minister and the House. That is the purpose of this Amendment. What we provide is that the Authority should have the power to produce some programmes if it thinks that there is a need for it to do so.
  Much has been said in Committee and in correspondence to the effect that in certain events some of these programme companies may fall down on their job if they are not given certain rates. It may, therefore be necessary for some reserve power to be given to the Authority to make it possible for it to maintain the highest standard of programmes. Under the Bill the Authority has no such power. We want to give it. If, on the other hand, all or some of the programme companies are not as co-operative as the Authority wishes, our Amendment would provide the Authority with a method of dealing with the problem.
  I think that the situation is obvious. We want to give the Authority a little more power in a direction which could make it more influential with the programme companies and which would be of considerable benefit to television.
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: It is conceivable, and listening to some of the things which Mr. Norman Collins and some of his colleagues have said recently it seems almost probable, that some companies may find themselves in such great difficulties over the next few months, particularly when they face the competition of the second B.B.C. channel, that they are unable to carry on.
  In that event, what would be the position as the Bill stands about the provision of programmes by somebody else? Suppose that Mr. Collins' arguments are proved to be correct and one of the smaller companies, or perhaps his own company, packs up under the terrible extortion which is to be introduced by the Postmaster-General. Is there any machinery by which the programmes could be provided for commercial television? Is the Authority empowered to provide programmes in such circumstances or would the Postmaster-General have to
  1074
  send for Mr. Carleton Greene and ask the B.B.C. to come to the rescue?
  Mr. Mawby: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) has raised a number of hypothetical questions and has had a little fun at the expense of Mr. Norman Collins. Many exaggerated statements have been made, but all I can do is to repeat what my right hon. Friend has said all the way through—that from the best information that we can get the things that Mr. Norman Collins says are likely to happen will not, in fact, happen. In any case, there is an opportunity for any programme contractor next year, before the levy comes into operation, to decide whether to relinquish his right to operate the franchise in future. This problem would not, therefore, arise.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) reminded us that the Pilkington Committee suggested that we should be drastic with the I.T.A., that the Authority should be the producers of programmes and that the contractors should act as contractors and supply the Authority with programmes. The Government took the view that this was a recommendation which we should not carry out and that we should continue with the I.T.A. as the controlling authority and the programme contractors carrying out the day-to-day duties.
  Under Clause 2 the Authority has the following duties:

  "(a) to provide the television broadcasting services…for disseminating information, education and entertainment,

  (b) to ensure that the programmes…in each area maintain a high general standard…in particular in respect of their content and quality, and a proper balance and wide range in their subject matter…

  (c) to secure a wide showing for programmes of merit".

  The contract with the programme contractors will be designed to ensure that the latter will provide the necessary programmes to enable the Authority to meet these requirements.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Proceedings on the Television Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Bevins.]
  Question again proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.
  Mr. Mawby: As I was saying, the Amendment implies that the companies might not produce what was necessary. In that event, the Authority under the Amendment would have the power—a permissive one—to step in and itself arrange for the provision or itself provide programmes to meet the requirements of the Clause.
  With regard to balance, under Section 2(2, a) of the original Act the Authority already has the power to arrange for the inclusion in the programmes of items of particular classes which in its opinion are necessary for securing a proper balance in the subject matter of the programmes and which cannot, or cannot as suitably, be provided by programme contractors.
  Thus, the Amendment is hardly necessary on this count, although the 1954 provision does not cover the Authority itself providing programmes. It is unlikely, however, that the Authority would itself need to enter into the programme production field, and if it had to obtain programmes from other sources it would no doubt specify its requirements and ensure that the programmes came up to its specification.
  Mr. Willey: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could deal with two circumstances in which the powers we seek to provide for the Authority might be very relevant and important. First, he will appreciate that in the present atmosphere there is a good deal of dissatisfaction about networking and some apprehension felt by some of the regional companies. Those companies would be much more satisfied if they knew that, if necessary, the Authority could intervene and provide them with alternative programmes or assist them in playing a part in getting into the network in one form or another.
  Secondly, there is also some apprehension—I have expressed this on a previous Amendment—by producers. Some producers feel that there should be some support from the Authority towards programmes which would benefit research in production and originality in production. For these two reasons, there is a good deal of topicality in the Amendment and, if it were accepted by the Government, it would allay the fears of some regional companies and some producers.
  Mr. Mawby: We have paid particular attention to the networking point in the Bill to try to make certain that the I.T.A. has full powers to call for the networking of programmes of merit, wherever they are produced within the programme companies. It is specifically designed to give the small programme companies producing a programme of merit the opportunity to go on to the network where the I.T.A. can bring this about. It is a power which the I.T.A. will have in the future. It will have the right to demand that a particular programme produced even by the smallest programme contractor, if it is a programme of merit, shall have networking opportunities. Therefore, this problem is already covered in the Bill.
  As to producers, I do not think we should make the position any better by specifically writing in a power for the Authority to produce programmes when we know full well that the object of the exercise is that the Authority should not surround itself with all the equipment which would be necessary if it was to be a producer in its own right. We have tried to give the I.T.A. sufficient power to ensure that it can call on those capable of performing the job if it is thought that the task is not being performed.
  This reserve power under Section 2(2,b)) of the 1954 Act, as amended by the Bill, enables the Authority to arrange
  "…for the provision…or, if need be. themselves provide, programmes or parts of programmes so far as may be necessary by reason of any temporary lack of suitable persons able and willing to become or continue as programme contractors on suitable terms and to perform their obligations as such, or by reason of any interval between the expiration or termination of one contract with a programme contractor and the commencement of another contract with that or another programme contractor."
  I should have thought, therefore, that sufficient power already exists for the Authority to take appropriate action. I do not believe that it needs to be strengthened by this sort of Amendment, although one is, naturally, impressed by the arguments that have been adduced and, obviously, we expect the I.T.A. to take full note of them.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: It is interesting to note that the Assistant Postmaster-General considers that there is something in our arguments. Unfortunately, he

  1077
  does not say anything more than that. All we are asking is for permissive powers for the Authority to deal with certain eventualities. We know that these would not be used very often. However, we want the Authority to have these powers should certain eventualities take place. Being dissatis-
  fied with the hon. Gentleman's reply, I must ask my hon. Friends to take the matter into the Division Lobby.
  Question put, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill: —
  The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 179.

  Division No. 142.]

  AYES

  [10.7 p.m.

  Ainsley, William

  Hayman, F. H.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Healey, Denis

  Pursey, Cmdr, Harry

  Awbery Stan (Bristol, Central)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)

  Rankin, John

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Redhead, E. C.

  Baird, John

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Barnett, Guy

  Hilton, A. V.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Bence, Cyril

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)

  Blackburn, F.

  Hunter, A. E.

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

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hynd, H, (Accrington)

  Short, Edward

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

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Bowles, Frank

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Bradley, Tom

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Small, William

  Callaghan, James

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Kelley, Richard

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Chapman, Donald

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Steele, Thomas

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Lawson, George

  Stones, William

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Deer, George

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Dodds, Norman

  Loughlin, Charles

  Thornton, Ernest

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Edelman, Maurice

  McBride, N.

  Tomney, Frank

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Wade, Donald

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Watkins, Tudor

  Evans, Albert

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Weitzman, David

  Fernyhough, E.

  Manuel, Archie

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Finch, Harold

  Mapp, Charles

  Whitlock, William

  Fitch, Alan

  Mason, Roy

  Wigg, George

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Millan, Bruce

  Wilkine, W. A.

  Forman, J. C.

  Milne, Edward

  Willey, Frederick

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Williams LI. (Abertillery)

  Calpern, Sir Myer

  Neal, Harold

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

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

  Grey, Charles

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Griffiths, Rt Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Oram, A. E.

  Woof, Robert

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Padley, W. E.

  Yates, victor (Ladywood)

  Cunter, Ray

  Parker, John

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Parkin, B. T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hannan, William

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Harper, Joseph

  Pentland, Norman

  Mr. Ifor Davies.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Probert, Arthur

  NOES

  Allan, Robert (Paddington S.)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Bryan, Paul

  Doughty, Charles

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bullard, Denys

  Drayson, G. B.

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Burden,F. A.

  Eden, John

  Barlow, Sir John

  Chataway, Christopher

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Barter, John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Emery, Peter

  Batsford, Brian

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Farr, John

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Biffen, John

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Finlay, Graeme

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cooke, Robert

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bingham, R. M.

  Cooper, A. E.

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

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Coulson, Michael

  George, Sir John (Pollok)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Craddock, SirBeresford (Spelthorne)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Box, Donald

  Critchley, Julian

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Braine, Bernard

  Curran, Charles

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Brewis, John

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Gower, Raymond

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Brooman-White, R.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Green, Alan

  Gresham Cooke, R.

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

  Sharples, Richard

  Gurden, Harold

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Shaw, M.

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Maddan, Martin

  Shepherd, William

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

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

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Smithers, Peter

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Mawby, Ray

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Speir, Rupert

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Mills, Stratton

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stodart, J. A.

  Holland, Philip

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Hollingworth, John

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Talbot, John E.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Charles

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Taylor,Frank(M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Temple, John M.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

  James, David

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, w.)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Percival, Ian

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Turner, Colin

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Pott, Percivall

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Pym, Francis

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell

  Leavey, J. A.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Walker, Peter

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rawlinson, Sir Peter

  Wall, Patrick

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Whitelaw, William

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Rees, Hugh

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Wise, A. R.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Woollam, John

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Ronner, Col. Sir Leonard

  MacArthur, Ian

  Russell, Ronald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McLaren, Martin

  St. Clair, M.

  Mr. Peel and

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Mr. Gordon Campbell.

  Mr. Mawby: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, at the end to insert:
  (3) The Authority may, in the discharge of their general responsibility for programmes other than advertisements, impose requirements as to standards and practice for such programmes which go beyond, or relate to matters not covered by, the provisions of the code; and the methods of control exercisable by the Authority for the purpose of securing that the provisions of the code are observed, and for the purpose of securing compliance with such requirements which go beyond, or relate to matters not covered by, the code, shall include a power to give directions to a programme contractor (or any other person providing such programmes) imposing prohibitions or restrictions as respects items of a specified class or description or as respects a particular item.
  The Amendment is consequential upon my right hon. Friend's acceptance in principle of an Amendment submitted by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). That Amendment was felt to be defective in that it did not say to whom directions were to be given, nor did it make clear whether the directions were to be for the purpose of reinforcing the code or for covering matter not in the code.
  This Amendment makes provision for (i) requirements as to programme stan-
  1080
  dards or practice to be imposed upon the programme company, or anybody else providing programmes, which go beyond the code or relate to matters not covered by the code. It also provides for directions to the I.T.A. to secure compliance with the provisions of the code and the requirements mentioned in (i). It does not confer on the I.T.A. power to give positive direction requiring anything to be included in a specific programme, that is the I.T.A. is not given power to intervene in production.
  The effect of the Amendment will be that there will be a code which will give guidance on various matters, including violence, backed by powers to the Authority to secure observance of the code, to extend the code to a new matter, to impose requirements as regards a new matter, and to give directions banning or restricting the showing of particular items or items of a particular class.
  Mr. Willey: May I indicate our thanks to the Government for the action taken? It is greatly appreciated and we are sure that it will improve the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3.—(SUBMISSION TO AUTHORITY OF PROGRAMME SCHEDULES.)
  Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out from "if" to "as" in line 12 and to insert:
  "they think fit to do so in view of any change of circumstances occurring after a programme schedule has been approved by them, permit the programme contractor to make such alterations in that programme schedule".
  The Amendment derives from an undertaking which I gave in Standing Committee on 26th March. I then referred to an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), which he withdrew, to seek an explanation of certain words which had been used. We have tried, but it has not been found practicable, to specify the precise circumstances which might require a change in programme arrangements to be made at short notice, but the Amendment makes clear that the power to approve changes can be exercised only if circumstances have changed since the programme schedule was approved.
  I hope that the Amendment commends itself to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Willey: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the line that he has taken. We commend the Amendment and hope that he will note that we are making excellent progress.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5.—(ADVERTISEMENTS.)
  Mr. Mawby: I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:
  1082
  (1) Schedule (Rules as to advertisements) to this Act (which reproduces, with additions and amendments, the rules regarding the broadcasting of advertisements contained in Schedule 2 to the principal Act) shall have effect in substitution for the said Schedule 2; and accordingly in section 4 of the principal Act (which relates to advertisements) any reference to the said Schedule 2 shall be construed as a reference to Schedule (Rules as to advertisements) to this Act.
  During the Committee stage Amendments which proposed that Schedule 1 of the Bill and the Second Schedule to the Act should be combined were rejected because the drafting was faulty. The principle behind the Amendments, however, was accepted.
  This Amendment to Clause 5 provides for the combining of the two Schedules and includes a consequential provision for the interpretation of Section 4 of the principal Act. The effect of the Amendment will be to carry the Second Schedule of the Act into Schedule 1 of the Bill, with the amendments and additions made by the original Schedule 1 of the Bill as amended in Committee.
  The purpose of the combined Schedules is to simplify working from the Acts. There is no change in the provisions on advertisements as agreed in the Standing Committee. Clause 11 was amended in Committee to ensure that the I.T.A.'s contracts would include provisions for securing compliance with both the Acts.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, at the end to insert:
  (c) to secure that the proportion of recorded and other matter of British origin and British performance in the advertisements broadcast by the Authority shall not be less than 90 per cent.
  This is returning to a point that we have already discussed this afternoon and to a point which we discussed in Standing Committee, and that is to ensure that a proper proportion of the material shall be of British origin. We have discussed programmes, and we feel that we ought to make express provision for advertisements also.
  I realise in anticipation that there will be an answer to our specific proposal of 90 per cent.—that it would be unrealistic to make this provision as we have not made it in the case of the programmes. But the point of substance is that we feel there should be a similar provision affecting advertisements as that affecting programmes.
  This point is made with particular force at the moment because we are disturbed about it. There is some evidence that some of these advertisements are being made abroad. Without entering into any controversial matter with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), I am sure that he will accept in principle that this practice is undesirable, and it would be better to make the point here. We feel that there is a danger that more of these advertisements may be made abroad and it would be as well to take this opportunity to provide that advertisements shall be in the same position as programmes.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I should like to say a word or two in support of the idea behind this Amendment, although per haps for different reasons from those mentioned by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).
  It is important that we should deal with this matter from the point of view of the question of quality. We see quite enough imported material in the programmes, and when we look at our television sets nowadays I have a suspicion that some products are being advertised with advertisement material that is imported with the products. I have noticed
  1084
  some advertisements which appeared to be almost exactly American in character, very careless, slipshod sort of stuff such as I have seen on American commercial television. Although I may be wrong there, I should be very worried if this were to become a growing practice. Advertisements ought to be made here. After all, it is the British public at which the producers are aiming their products. I cannot see why we should be assailed by sales talk of a foreign kind.
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), who offers support from an unexpected quarter, which is none the less welcome to us on these benches. I attach even greater importance to this Amendment than I did to the new Clause dealing with the foreign content of programmes. Indeed, I was not over-enthusiastic about that new Clause because I looked forward to the growing internationalisation of television programmes with the extension of pooling arrangements like that operated by Eurovision now.
  Advertisements come within an entirely different category. I speak conscious of the fact that I am closely associated with a consumers' body, the Advertising Inquiry Council, which takes a great interest in these matters. That Council, in common with a growing section of the public, has become concerned at the "Americanisation" of advertising techniques and the use of American copy, and it would be very alarmed by the possible extension of the use of American commercial advertising on British commercial television.
  I very much hope that the Postmaster-General will give us an effective assurance that the commercial television screen in this country will be protected against the inroads of foreign advertising techniques, particularly the techniques which we associate with the United States.
  Sir W. Wakefield: There is one thing which bothers me a little about the Amendment, namely, the possibility of retaliation. It would be a serious matter if other countries, because of the Amendment, retaliated against us. We want to

  1085
  do everything we can to export our goods and, with the exporting of our goods, perhaps the appropriate advertisements to be shown in other countries, where that is possible. I fear that we might unduly restrict our producers, exporters and publicity people in their efforts to get our goods advertised on other stations if the Amendment were adopted. I quite understand what is said by hon. Members in support of the Amendment, but I ask them to bear in mind that there could be retaliation which might adversely affect us in this country. I should like the Postmaster-General to give us his views on this particular question. Has he consulted the Board of Trade or other people who are, very rightly, concerned in expanding our exports and in using in every way possible our commercial television activities in this country to that end? Has he anything to tell the House about it?
  Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is mistaken in attributing to me the remarks which he did. I got into trouble through having some remarks wrongly attributed to me last week, and I do not want a repetition.
  I regard the point of the Amendment as somewhat unreal. The people who undertake television advertising in this country spend quite a lot of money on it. The impact of the advertisement is of very short duration. Therefore, it is immensely important that it should be directed precisely to the market at which it is aimed. In these circumstances, it is highly unlikely that anyone would save money to any material extent by using imported advertising material. Therefore, while I should like to see British advertising material used 100 per cent. on our television screens, I feel that there is no real danger of a substantial amount being imported.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Mawby: I can quite understand the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) pursuing this matter throughout all the productions of independent television, but, as hon. Gentlemen have suggested, there are a number of points which one must seriously consider. The most important thing is to get this into perspective. Of the more than 7,000 advertisements re-
  1086
  ceived in the course of a year only about 100 have been made abroad. Many of those are of the cartoon variety and originated in Europe. Of course, the dubbing and editing of the advertisements create work in this country. In fact—and this is the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield)—more British commercials are exhibited abroad than are brought in from abroad for exhibition here, and that is an important point and one probably not very well known.
  It is a matter which the Authority watches very carefully. It would be wrong to write in hard and fast proportions in this matter. We are not living in a world of our own, and, as has been said before, exports are vital. A good way to sell exports is to advertise in foreign countries. Some countries have already shown that they resent quotas in respect of television programmes and have drawn attention to the need to liberalise thought and to exchange materials. We cannot afford to run the risk of hampering trade development in future markets that we cannot necessarily foresee at the moment by inviting a retaliatory ban on our own advertisements.
  This is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the Authority, which has already shown that it is conscious of the need to watch the position carefully and will certainly take note of what has been said in the debate on this subject. It has in any case a duty under Section 3(1d) of the principal Act to ensure that a proper proportion of recorded and other matter included in programmes is of British origin and of British performance. This of course applies to advertisements just as much as to programme items. Again, therefore I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would think about withdrawing his Amendment.
  Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the Assistant Postmaster-General. To the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), I would say that I thought he was saying that for the reasons he gave work such as this was to be imported, but if I misunderstood him I apologise. To the Assistant Postmaster-General I must say that I indicated that, in view of the fact that our Amendment for making a similar

  1087
  provision for programmes was withdrawn, we should be obliged to take similar action in this case, but I am obliged to him for the information that the Authority does have this under review, and that it does pay attention to our debates. That probably is where it ought to be left. It is probably a matter which ought to be left to the discretion of the Authority, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, at the end to insert:
  (6) In exercising its powers under this section it shall be the duty of the Authority to keep under constant review the amount of time given to advertising, and to seek to reduce it to a minimum that is consistent with the proper performance by the programme contractors of their duties under this Act and the principal Act.
  This Amendment asks the Government to do what I asked them to do through an Amendment I moved in Standing Committee and withdrew. I again ask the Government to face absolutely squarely—and squarely for the first time, I think—the issue of the instruction to the Authority about the amount of advertising which it is to allow in every hour. The amount of advertising per hour has been steadily reduced, as I said in Committee, from eight and a quarter—or whatever it was—to seven, to an average of six minutes per hour. There is no instruction, either in the principal Act or in the Bill, by which that decision to reduce the amount of advertising from eight to seven to six minutes in the hour could possibly have been taken. The only instruction in the original Act is the instruction that the amount of advertising should not be so great as to detract from the value of the programmes as a medium of entertainment and so on.
  No one could pretend, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not try, that in reducing from eight to seven to six the Authority was suddenly becoming aware that eight minutes of advertising was detracting, as compared first with seven minutes and then with six. That could not have been the main consideration which moved the Authority. These downward steps of one minute could not have been taken in any one year because it was found that the
  1088
  earlier amount of advertising was detracting from the value of the programmes.
  Clearly, what has happened in recent years has been that the Authority has made a more commonsense approach—that there should not be more advertising than really necessary. It should not go so far at the one extreme as to be a bonanza of advertising and detract from the value of the programmes and should move steadily downwards consistently with the Authority's other general duties. I am arguing that we should give that legislative force.
  In Standing Committee, I approached this subject from another angle. I confess that I approached it too negatively. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was right when in summing up our long debate he said that the trouble with my Amendment was that it was too negative. I then talked about the nuisance to viewers caused by advertising and my hon. Friend pointed out that that was too negative and that the word "nuisance" had a strict legal connotation which it would be difficult to interpret. I also talked about reducing the amount of advertising until it was only enough to ensure reasonable profits for the programme contractors and hon. Members opposite asked what I meant by reasonable profits—I still maintain that I can answer that, but I shall not press it.
  I have now tried to approach the general idea in a more positive fashion. Let us face the issue positively and squarely and clearly say that we cannot allow the Authority to go on without a clear instruction about what is in our minds. We are all happily tolerating the fact that advertising is coming down by one minute an hour, but there is no legislative force to that either in the Act or in the Bill.
  My Amendment simply says that it shall be the duty of the Authority in using its powers about the amount of advertising to keep it constantly under review, the plea made by the Pilkington Committee. In paragraph 228 of its Report, the Pilkington Committee said that the Authority should, in particular, keep the maximum under review
  "to see if it can be further reduced."
  In paragraph 273 it went further and said that the amount should not be increased. Many would like to see it less,

  1089
  and we hope that it will be still further reduced. Are not we all hoping that if, consistent with its general duties, it proves possible, the I.T.A. will cut this down to five minutes? This would be all the more power to its elbow, and we ought to give it a general duty in this matter instead of leaving it without any justification to act.
  I said in Committee upstairs, and I repeat it now, that it is improper to envisage profits on this scale of £20 million to £30 million per annum from this medium for the contractors. This has been called a licence to print money. That is just what it is, and it is no answer to say that the Government are to have half of this by the introduction of a levy. To say that is merely to say that the viewer is watching television for the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and this is not good enough. It means that the viewer is not being put first when this matter is under consideration.
  The original justification for the introduction of commercial television was not to provide viewers with a channel which would provide as much advertising as advertisers could get away with. The idea was to have a channel with the minimum amount of advertising necessary to enable it to pay its way and avoid any increased payment by the viewers. The only justification for allowing advertising was that it would allow the medium to pay its way without increasing the licence fee.
  Let us stick to that. Let us keep it down to the minimum consistent with the performance by the Authority of its duties, and consistent with the idea that was put forward in this House when commercial television was originally proposed.
  Mr. Mawby: As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) said, we had a long discussion on this point in Committee upstairs. I said then that there had been a progressive reduction in the number of minutes per hour, which in fact had gone from eleven to eight, and then to seven, with an average of six minutes being maintained.
  As the hon. Gentleman also said, this is very much a matter of balance, for the future of an independent television contractor will depend on the amount of
  1090
  revenue that he receives. I told the hon. Gentleman in Committee upstairs, and I tell him again tonight, that the I.T.A. has this continually under review and that its desire is to bring about a situation in which there will be the possibility of a contractor remaining properly viable and at the same time to ensure that the programme companies carry out its requirements. That is in paragraph (2) of the Second Schedule to the original Act, which we amend by this Bill, which says:
  "The amount of time given to advertising in the programmes shall not be so great as to detract from the value of the programmes as a medium of information, education and entertainment."
  Surely this is the correct criterion. The first White Paper pointed to the fact that the Pilkington Committee had accepted that an average of six minutes an hour and a maximum of seven minutes an hour of advertising was reasonable. The Committee added, however, that the Authority should keep the maximum under constant review, to see whether it could be further reduced. The Government accepted the Committee's recommendation that there should be no legislative provision in regard to the amount of advertising.
  10.45 p.m.
  Now that the Authority has the power to examine programme schedules and to exclude advertisements from specified broadcasts, it will be in an even stronger position to ensure that advertisements do not detract from the value of programmes. It will therefore be the natural function of the Authority to give continuing scrutiny to the amount of time given to advertising. It is important for us to remember that this new power which the Authority now has is not concerned with counting seconds, as the hon. Member is tending to do, but with trying to make certain that the advertisements do not detract from the value of a particular programme. As I said in Committee, there are viewers who prefer the advertisements to the programmes.
  Mr. Chapman: In what sense is this anew power? It is in the original Act. It is said that in any programme the amount of advertising should not be such as to detract from the value of the programme.
  Mr. Mawby: That is true, but the Authority now has an extra duty placed on it, and additional responsibilities in connection with the examination of programme schedules to make certain that there will be a proper balance of programmes in advance of the programmes appearing. Therefore, it is obvious that it will be able to exclude advertisements from specific programmes where it believes that advertisements at that point in time, if inserted into the programme, would detract from the value of that programme. That is why I say that the Authority will now be looking at the matter in advance rather than from hindsight. This is an important provision, and will enable the Authority to pay more attention to the particular problem of advertising causing distraction or detracting from the value of a programme.
  The duties of the contractors are not spelt out directly in the Acts. They are laid down in the contracts given by the Authority under duties laid on it in the Acts. The Amendment does not say who is to determine whether the contractors have given a proper performance of their duties. This is another important point.
  The Authority will keep this matter under continuous review. It will obviously restrict advertisements where it feels that they would detract from the value of a programme or a particular performance, and will obviously take note of what the Pilkington Committee said, and seek to reduce the amount of time devoted to advertising, consistent with the knowledge that only by accepting advertisement revenue can a programme company remain a viable organisation and so continue to give a service to the viewers.
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: It might be easier for my horn. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, as the Assistant Postmaster-General suggests, if the hon. Gentleman would give a slightly more specific assurance about the intentions of the Authority in this respect. I will put a direct question to him, because his answer might make it easier for us, but I must first tell him how astonished I was to hear from him that there are viewers who prefer the advertisements to the programmes.
  Mr. A. R. Wise: I do.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I was even more astonished to hear the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Johnson Smith) say that he would be the only customer for the "blab-off" device in reverse. He will be aware that there are available to viewers of commercial television a device whereby, when a commercial comes on, they can, by pushing a button, switch it off and go and make a cup of tea. No doubt he would prefer this device, working in the contrary direction. But I cannot believe that he is not in a minority of one in this respect.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Would not the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) agree that if all the Esso advertisements were sent out together in one programme it would be better than any political programme he has ever heard?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. Member has obviously been showing too much loyalty in watching political broadcasts. If he watched those given by hon. Members on this side of the House he would take a different view.
  Sir W. Wakefield: Would not the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) agree that advertisements invariably inform, frequently entertain and usually educate? Therefore, what is the reason for desiring to reduce them to a minimum? Are they not a means of ensuring a balanced programme for information, entertainment and education?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: It is the desire of many millions of viewers and organisations representing them that advertising should be exactly what the hon. Member suggests. Because unfortunately the practice of the British advertising industry falls so lamentably short of that criterion, we express anxiety from this side of the House. I think many viewers would take the view that on their present standing almost all advertisements on commercial television detract from the programmes. This illustrates how the whole of this question is a matter of interpretation. I.T.A. could interpret the present wording to mean that it should exclude all advertising.
  It appears that the Assistant Postmaster-General has indicated that it will now be the desire of the I.T.A. to

  1093
  reduce the amount of time given to advertising. Is that so? Have we understood him correctly? If we have, I think it will assist my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman).
  Mr. Chapman: I would not dream of being so offensive as to accuse the Assistant Postmaster-General of being dishonest, but the sort of approach he is making to the problem is not the square one for which I asked. I do not believe—and I ask him to believe me—in all honesty that the I.T.A. is reducing the amount of advertising from seven to six minutes, and possibly now to five minutes, because it has just discovered that one minute more is detracting from the programme as a medium for education. The fact is that in its commonsense approach the Authority is taking the view—an extra-legislative view, for there is no authority for it to do so—the extra-legislative commonsense view which I take in this Amendment, that by keeping advertising down to a minimum it will enable the contractors to do their duty.
  Mr. Mawby: I said it.
  Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman can say it until he is blue in the face, but it does not mean anything until it is written into the Bill. It is not in the original Act. The only instruction is that advertising must not detract from the medium. I challenge the hon. Gentleman. He cannot swear to the House that someone has discovered that six is happier than seven and seven is happier than eight minutes. I think it is very dishonest to the House not to write the precise instruction in the Bill.
  We are going on muddling over this issue and not telling the Authority what it should do. I quite understand the reason why the hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment. He does not want to give offence to the advertisers, the people behind this medium. It is going on merrily because they are not to be offended by writing this provision into the Bill and because the Government would look as if they were giving way to the Opposition in its clamour about the amount of advertising. The Government fear that would only give offence to the people who support them, the programme contractors. That is the
  1094
  real reason for rejection of the Amendment. I do not intend to withdraw it; I prefer that it should be negatived.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 6.—(COMMITTEE AND PANEL TO ADVISE ON ADVERTISEMENTS.)
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, after "committee" to insert:
  "the chairman of which shall have no interest in or association with the advertising of goods and services".
  It may be convenient to the House to deal at the same time with the following Amendment, which I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) would find agreeable. That is the Amendment in page 5, line 31, after "shall" to insert:
  "be appointed after consultation with the Postmaster General and shall".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is that convenient?
  Mr. Bevins: Yes, please.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: We suggest this because it is our desire to help the House to proceed rapidly. The Amendment deals with the appointment of the chairman of the expanded committee which will police the advertising appearing on commercial television. The Postmaster-General will remember that the composition of the committee was discussed at some length and that he gave several assurances about the implementation of which we hope to hear a little more on the next group of Amendments.
  The Amendment deals simply with the question of the chairman. We on this side of the House have no objection whatever to the person of the new chairman, who the Postmaster-Genera) was good enough to inform us has recently been appointed—Professor D. T. Jack. We understand that in all respects he is an impartial and independent chairman, and we wish nothing that we say to be interpreted as in any way reflecting on him.
  Nevertheless, in the past the consumer interest has been very inadequately represented on this committee, which has been dominated by the advertising interests, and we believe that that has been reflected in the inadequate policing of

  1095
  advertisements appearing on commercial television, which has obliged hon. Members to raise complaints about advertisements, taking up the time of the House, sometimes finding it difficult to work their way round the rules of order, and calling on the Postmaster-General to take action which should have been the responsibility of the I.T.A. We therefore hope that the committee will be strengthened, and we want to see the independence of the chairman written into the Bill.
  My hon. Friend's Amendment, which provides that the chairman should be appointed after consultation with the Postmaster-General, has been suggested partly because of the impression we had in Standing Committee that I.T.A. was being very difficult indeed about the composition of this advisory committee and did not wish to meet the legitimate desire of consumers and the general public that they should be represented by a majority on the committee. As we attach importance to the independence of the chairman, both now and in the future, we think that this appointment should be the subject of consultation with the Postmaster-General.
  Mr. Bevins: The effect of the second Amendment would be to require the Authority to consult the Postmaster-General before making any of its appointments to the advertising advisory committee. I am not keen to advise the House to accept it. It has never to my knowledge been the practice of the Authority to consult the Postmaster-General before appointing the members of any of its committees, and it would be creating a rather unhappy precedent if the organisations in the broadcasting world were not free to make their own appointments as they consider it either necessary or expedient. The Authority and the B.B.C. are the people who are running their own house, and I do not understand why they should have to go to the Postmaster-General, before making any appointment, in order to have consultation.
  11.0 p.m.
  Probably the more important Amendment is that in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and other hon. Members. As the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-
  1096
  Baker) rightly said, the I.T.A. has recently announced the appointment of Mr. D. T. Jack as Chairman of the Advertising Advisory Committee. This gentleman has no connection whatever with the advertising world and I am sure, as indeed is the I.T.A., that he will make an admirable and impartial Chairman of that Committee.
  The hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree that the wording of the Amendment is very wide indeed. It does not make clear whether the word "interest" means financial interest—that is, the holding of shares—or simply being a partner in a company acting as an advertising agent or anything of that sort. In fact, it is so wide that one would be entitled to say that the words—
  "shall have no interest in…the advertising of goods"—
  might even act as a bar to me if I were so ambitious as to want this post if I dared to watch advertisements on independent television. However, I understand the purpose of the Amendment, and I think that the purpose is entirely laudable. The I.T.A. has given evidence recently that it intends to honour the spirit of the Amendment. If it would help the hon. Gentleman and the House, I am perfectly willing to give an assurance that, not only for the present, but for the future, the spirit of the Amendment will be honoured by the Authority.
  Mr. Willey: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to go a little further? He has explained the difficulties of definition. Would he look at this between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place and see if it is possible to get a satisfactory form of words?
  Mr. Bevins: I certainly have no wish to die in the last ditch over this. If we could find a suitable form of words, I should be willing to acquiesce in the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Shepherd: I urge my right hon. Friend to take up this suggestion seriously, in the interests of advertising itself. If the chairman has any interest, the better elements of advertising very often cannot get adopted what they seek to get adopted. If there is an independent chairman, it is possible for people in the advertising world—the better

  1097
  people in the advertising world—to press vigorously for the adoption of ideas. This is very difficult if the chairman is involved in the advertising world. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay special attention to this point.
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: In view of the two assurances the Postmaster-General has given—first, that it will be the practice of the I.T.A. to do all the Amendment seeks to suggest, and, secondly, that he will seek before the Bill goes to another place to incorporate in the Bill what we are trying to do, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, after second "be", to insert "mainly".
  Mr. Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we discuss the Amendments in line 33, after "(b)", insert:
  "with the said representatives of the public as consumers comprising at least one-half of the membership of the committee";
  and in line 33, after "(b)", insert:
  "and shall include persons chosen from voluntary consumer organisations".
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that will be convenient.
  The purpose of the group of Amendments is to ask the Postmaster-General what the I.T.A. has done since our discussions in Standing Committee about the composition of the committee which advises it on advertising, about which very grave doubts were expressed upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was serious dissatisfaction, not only among Members of the Standing Committee—I believe, as the short intervention of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has shown, that this anxiety existed on both sides of the Committee—but also among the general public, at the fact that the previous committee was over-weighted with representatives of advertising interests and that the consumer was very seriously under-represented.
  On the previous committee which advised the Authority on advertising, the most effective defender of consumer interests was, we understand, a representative of the retailers, Mr. Roger Diplock of
  1098
  the Retail Trading Standards Association. I say this without having access to the minutes of the deliberations of that committee, although we asked for them to be provided in Standing Committee. Although that request for the Committee's minutes was turned down, Mr. Diplock's activities in other spheres are well enough known to make it plain that he would have taken the same stand inside the Advisory Committee.
  Consumers as such were not effectively represented. We were shocked to be told that the assurances contained in the White Paper which preceded the Bill and the wording of this Measure itself, concerning the representation of consumer interests, were to be interpreted merely by the addition of one female member to the existing committee. We thought that that was altogether inadequate. We now understand that two ladies have been invited to join the committee, one the Director of the new Consumer Council and the other associated with the Federation of Women's Institutes. I would be grateful if the Postmaster-General would tell us if this is correct and what other members he is proposing to represent consumer interests.
  I repeat the plea made in Committee upstairs that there should be bodies on the committee which are directly connected with appropriate consumer interests on the grounds that an individual who has behind him the resources of a voluntary body which takes a continuous and organised interest in the subject is bound to be more effective than an isolated individual who has been picked for his personal qualifications, however excellent they may be.
  A good precedent for this has recently been set by the President of the Board of Trade, who has asked—to the delight of a number of my hon. Friends—Mr. Aubrey Diamond to join the Consumer Council. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the Advertising Inquiry Council, a consumer organisation with which I am associated. The precedent having been set in the much wider sphere of the Consumer Council, it is to be hoped that it will be followed by the appointment of people who are directly concerned with bodies whose function it is to watch the content of advertisements on commercial television. I hope, therefore, that the Postmaster-General

  1099
  will give us more satisfactory assurances than he could when we were discussing this matter in Committee upstairs.
  Mr. Chapman: I thank the Postmaster-General for his courtesy in sending me and other hon. Members a copy of a letter which he wrote on 20th May last to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about the Advertising Advisory Committee and the whole question of the insertion of advertisements and advertising breaks.
  It may be appropriate—at this time of night when not so many hon. Members are present and when the newspapers have gone to "bed"—and less embarrassing to some hon. Members if I say in all sincerity that I do not think that any hon. Members of the Opposition could have been more courteously treated during the passage of a Bill than the way in which the Postmaster-General has treated us. I am extremely indebted to him personally for all he has done. This letter explains the action he is taking, but shows that behind it there has been a great deal of work, as well as care, in the composition of the letter itself. I say again that I am most grateful. It is a very high standard of courtesy such as I hope each of us would seek to emulate in his own life.
  The letter is rather brief on the present point, and my reason for tabling my Amendment seeking to bring in the Postmaster-General was that I sensed from that very brevity that a tussle was going on behind the scenes between the Independent Television Authority and the right hon. Gentleman on the membership of the Advisory Council, and that the right hon. Gentleman did not say much in case it led him into passing comments and promoting opinions that he ought not to put into writing but rather should hammer out privately.
  That part of the letter states that an additional lady member has been appointed to this committee and, as the Postmaster-General says, that is a step in the right direction. I hope I am right in sensing that the right hon. Gentleman is more with us than with the I.T.A. in this matter; if so, more power to his elbow in prodding the Authority
  1100
  continually to improve the representation on the committee.
  This series of Amendments, and mine particularly, says that representation of consumers should be at least half the membership. The right hon. Gentleman has said that things are moving in the right direction. We now have four representatives of consumers, four representatives of organisations concerned with medical advertising, and four representatives of advertising interests, and we have no further representative. To use the Postmaster-General's favourite phrase, I shall not die in the last ditch over a representation of one-third or one-half. I hope that in the end we shall get a majority of consumer representation pushed on to the committee in the teeth of the Authority's opposition.
  With his letter, the right hon. Gentleman kindly forwarded a copy of the letter from the acting chairman of the Authority, and I do not think that I am betraying a confidence in saying that it appears from that letter that the Authority has thought carefully about the idea of appointing someone from the Consumer Council—the publishers of Which?—and had come down against it. That part of the acting chairman's letter rings less true than any other part of the whole correspondence.
  The idea of having on the committee someone from Which? as a consumer representative was that there should be included an active sceptic, well versed in the checking of excessive claims. This does not seem unreasonable to us. It is not that we propose bringing in someone to act against all the qualities of the other members; someone who would be a perpetual thorn in their side and make a bear-garden of their proceedings. I am sure that such a person, chosen in an individual capacity, would bring to the committee a healthy, sceptical knowledge in dealing with very important matters.
  I am immensely disappointed in that letter from the acting chairman. I hope that among the things that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to press on the Authority will be the idea of including on the committee someone from Which?. That would be a very healthy next step in the direction the Postmaster-General is commending to us. However, as I say, we shall not die in the last ditch over this

  1101
  point. If the effect of all we have done in the Standing Committee, in private correspondence and today is to push things in the right direction, I do not grumble—so far. I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for what has been more than courtesy to us in this matter.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Bevins: I sense that it is not proposed to press the Amendments, and I thank the hon. Member for his kindly words, which are really a token of appreciation of my advisers and supporters in the Department, the Post Office, rather than of me. I am fully conscious of the views of hon. Members. Although I realise that they are still not satisfied with the present composition of the committee, we have made some progress. If one feels able to regard the representatives of the medical and other allied organisations as having at least some sense of consumer interest, we get near to a not unreasonable composition, all told. There are 13 members of the committee. The chairman is not connected with advertising. There are four representatives of consumer interest unconnected with advertising, four representatives of medical and similar professions, and four representatives of advertising interests. This is an improvement. It does not go all the way to meet the views expressed, but it probably would be more helpful if we were to leave it at that at the moment.
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not having mentioned one point. We were puzzled in Standing Committee about the proposal to retain the medical members in view of the fact that the I.T.A. is setting up a special separate medical panel to deal with medical advertising specifically and we were left under the impression that the composition of the main advisory committee was to be reconsidered. Is it the intention of the I.T.A. now to move these medical people on to the panel, or will they be duplicated and will there also be other medical people on the panel?
  Mr. Bevins: The intention of the Authority is to retain four representatives of the organisations concerned with medical advertising on the main committee, as at the moment. That is required by the 1954 Act.
  Mr. Willey: I join in expressing appreciation through the right hon. Gentleman to his Department and also in thanking him personally for the letter which he wrote, and not only for the information which he gave us but for the care which he took to investigate the points which we raised in Committee. The committee and its composition reminds me that I once had a school report which said, "Conduct much improved". That was a cautious exercise in relativity. In the same sense we recognise that the composition of the committee is much improved and that what is important is the relationship between the committee and the Authority. We do not wish to impair that but we hope that with experience what we set out to attain by legislation will be attained in practice.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 7.—(RENTAL PAYMENTS BY PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS.)
  Amendments made: In page 6, line 31, leave out "gross".
  In page 7, line 9, column 1, leave out "gross".
  In line 13, column 1, leave out "gross".
  In line 14, column 1, leave out "gross".
  In line 38, leave out "gross".
  In line 45, leave out "gross".
  In page 8, line 3, leave out "gross".
  In line 20, leave out "gross".
  In line 34, leave out "gross".
  In page 9, line 7, leave out "gross".
  In line 27, leave out "gross".
  In line 38, leave out "gross".
  —[Mr. Bevins.]
  Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Bevins.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), to be further considered Tomorrow.
  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved,
  That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Mobility for the Disabled (Report)
  Mobility for the Disabled (Report)
  Assistants, General Practice (Salaries)
  Assistants, General Practice (Salaries)
EMPLOYMENT
  East Kilbride (Emigrants)
  East Kilbride (Emigrants)
  School Leavers, Dunbartonshire
  School Leavers, Dunbartonshire
  School Leavers, Ayrshire
  School Leavers, Ayrshire
  School Leavers, Midlothian
  School Leavers, Midlothian
  School Leavers, Angus
  School Leavers, Angus
  I.L.O. Conference (Republic of South Africa)
  I.L.O. Conference (Republic of South Africa)
  Aberdeen
  Aberdeen
  Pottery Industry, Stoke-on-Trent
  Pottery Industry, Stoke-on-Trent
  DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS (VIENNA CONVENTION)
  DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS (VIENNA CONVENTION)
  WORLD FOOD PROBLEMS (COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION)
  WORLD FOOD PROBLEMS (COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (RECOMMENDATION 356)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (RECOMMENDATION 356)
  UNIFICATION OF PRIVATE LAW (COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION)
  UNIFICATION OF PRIVATE LAW (COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION)
  ABERDEEN TRAWLER "MILWOOD"(DETENTION)
  ABERDEEN TRAWLER "MILWOOD"(DETENTION)
  FISHING LIMITS
  FISHING LIMITS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Poultry Meat
  Poultry Meat
  Fowl Pest and Fowl Plague
  Fowl Pest and Fowl Plague
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Laminar Flow (Flight Experiments)
  Laminar Flow (Flight Experiments)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Agricultural Workers (Farmer's Lung)
  Agricultural Workers (Farmer's Lung)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Criminal Appeals (Report)
  Criminal Appeals (Report)
  Booklet (Streatfeild Committee's Recommendation)
  Booklet (Streatfeild Committee's Recommendation)
EDUCATION
  Youth Service Projects (Grants)
  Youth Service Projects (Grants)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Synthetic Detergents
  Synthetic Detergents
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Expatriate Officers (Salaries)
  Expatriate Officers (Salaries)
TRANSPORT
  Road Safety (Council of Europe Recommendation)
  Road Safety (Council of Europe Recommendation)
COAL
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester

REPORT OF COMPANY LAW COMMITTEE
2.35 p.m.
LORD CROOK: 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, in view of the Question and Answer of February 14 last, whether they have yet completed their examination of the Report of the Company Law Committee, presented a year ago.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have not yet completed their study of this Report, which covers a wide field and contains a large number of recommendations some of which raise complicated and controversial issues.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord? I appreciate the position and would not at this stage ask any supplementary.

THE YEMEN
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether a statement will be made on the incident in the Yemen?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I was just about to say that at about 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Foreign Secretary will be making a statement on the Yemen.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
2.37 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 1 [London boroughs]:
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (4), to omit all words after "section". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this first Amendment has been put down by my noble friends because we were not satisfied with the attitude to this particular matter that was shown by the Government on the Committee stage. We were not at all satisfied that the rigidity in the Bill, and in the attitude of Ministers, is one that should be allowed to prevail in the organisation of Greater Landon in the future. We think it is wrong that the organisation of councils, of these units of local government, should be set up without, apparently, any relationship to the size of the electorate. This point of view was put pretty plainly from our Benches on the Committee stage, but I make no apology for repeating what I said before: it is the essence of good local

3
government that the elected councillors should be in close touch with their electors.
That view was, in fact, only repeating what the Royal Commission said in their Report, and I would remind your Lordships that on page 62, paragraph 234, of their Report the Royal Commission state, as the first of the activities expected of a councillor, that
"He must know his people, those who have elected him, their needs, desires and fears."
They go on to say that, of course, he represents not only those who voted for him but those who voted against. He represents all those in the unit by which he was elected. He must know their needs, desires and fears. This means that there is a strict physical limit to the size of the area which can be represented by one councillor.
Various factors come into it; not only the number of electors, but the size of the area, the ease of communication within it and, in fact, the extent to which the area is a homogeneous community of its own. He must know about housing conditions, schools and education facilities, and the arrangements for the welfare of children. He has to be accessible to his electors. They must be able to go to see him about anything that worries them. They may want to complain about the hours of opening of the public baths or the public libraries. They may be worried about road safety and want the councillor to represent their interests in protecting them against the traffic. When they get to know about development plans, they must be able to go to him if they think their interests are going to suffer. The councillor, must have an intimate knowledge not only of the people, but, if he is to give proper judgment to any plans for development, of the buildings, of the bricks and mortar, and the roads within the area. All that shows that the size of the area to be represented by every councillor must be adjusted to the extent to which he can make himself acquainted with the people and the physical conditions in the area.
We maintain that the present proposals take no account of the size of the area. In fact, in looking over what was said on Committee stage, I think my noble friend Lord Walston put his finger on it
4
as well as anybody when he said that the present proposals seem to have been framed, not from the point of view of democratic representation of the electors, but for the administrative convenience of those who have to run the local authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, when replying to our speeches on Committee stage, complained that we had accused Ministers of taking no account, in their Second Reading speeches, of the human side of local government. I have read those speeches again, and, although the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, certainly referred to the personal services—the local government services more particularly affecting people—it was always from the point of view of the administrator, of the efficiency of the service, and there was hardly any evidence that Ministers were looking at the problem from the point of view of the individual elector. There is nothing more important, if we are to keep local government healthy and in good condition, and at the same time allow it to keep pace with modern developments, than to put oneself in the place of the citizen who wants the help of his councillor in airing a grievance, or whatever it may be.
The comparisons with county boroughs, which the noble Lord used in his speech, are not, to my mind, relevant to the problem. It is not comparing like with like to compare a unit of a quarter of a million citizens in the Midlands—an ancient city like Nottingham or Leicester; or Cardiff, or any other such unit—with a part of London. Their whole history and traditions are different. Those big cities have a long history of their own. They are homogeneous. In London, these divisions are bound to be artificial—indeed, the new amalgamations of boroughs are even more artificial, probably, than the older metropolitan boroughs, urban districts and boroughs.
Finally, I must acknowledge that the Government have, in accordance with the request made by my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, given us the figures for comparison; the figures of the London boroughs as they will be, the number of electors and the number of electors per councillor. We are grateful for that information: it is illuminating. I think I should say that the reason why my figures differed from those of the noble Lord was

5
that I was using the 1960 register and he was using the 1963 register. That brings out a not uninteresting point, which is that nearly all the inner London boroughs, the metropolitan boroughs, have lost an appreciable number of voters over the last three years, so that the total electorate of the inner London boroughs is declining. That surely indicates the probability—I will not say more, because I have no evidence on the subject—that the outer London boroughs are increasing their electorate. In other words, the electorate is not static; and that emphasises our point that the scheme must be flexible. The exact figures do not matter: the point is that the principle of local government demands that the size of the council shall be flexible, and for that reason we have moved to delete the part of the subsection which enforces the maximum figure of 60. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out from ("section") to the end of line 23.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend, may I first say to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, since we had some dispute upon figures on the Committee stage, that we were, in fact, speaking with different figures before us. In my case, I said that I was dealing with electors, but in fact I was dealing with population. The fact that my figures showed a much higher comparison as between a councillor and population does not in any way reduce my argument. In fact, it emphasises the case, because the size of the population dictates the type and size of service that has to be provided by the council—the schools, the hospitals and all the other things that make up local government. As I understand it from the Government, they feel that 60 is about the right number of councillors for these new boroughs in London. I think we shall agree with the Government that we do not wish to see local authorities with too small a number of councillors—so small that a councillor cannot give proper service. And we must remember that it is not only in administration that a councillor is useful: perhaps his most important function is that of being freely available to see the men and women of his particular district. Therefore, we should not wish to see so small a number that contact would be reduced nor, on
6
the other hand, should we wish to see too large a number of councillors which would make the council unwieldy and perhaps not give councillors the opportunity to devote time and energy to their duties—the individual councillor may feel slightly frustrated because the duties are spread too thinly over the number of councillors. We should not disagree with the Minister if he said that 60 was perhaps the right number, but I am quite sure that the Minister will not get up this afternoon and say that 60 is always the right figure. He will recognise that throughout the country there are variations.
If the noble Lord would again look at the figures from outside London that he produced, he will see that in the case of Nottingham there are 51 councillors, giving an average number of 4,057 electors per councillor; in the case of Sunderland they have about the same number of councillors, 54, with an average of 2,292 electors per councillor. One could go right through the lists and see that there is a considerable variation between the different authorities, not only in the numbers of electors and population, but in the number of councillors whom the local authority have chosen—and I would stress the word "chosen"—with the approval of the Minister, to represent the electorate. In the case of Stoke, in order to obtain an average of 2,500, they have a council of 72. I would not wish to say that that was too many; but obviously the Government, in their mind of today, would regard that number as too high; but that situation has arisen after the Stoke authority had approached a particular Minister, made a case, and the Minister had approved of it.
This is the first point that I wish to put to the House this afternoon. We are treating these new London boroughs quite differently from any of the other local authorities in the rest of the country. We have heard time and again from noble Lords opposite, when we put a particular problem of London before the House, that we must not treat this authority any differently from authorities in the rest of the country. I think it is correct to say that, apart from the present inner London boroughs, there is no other local authority, he it parish council, rural district council, county or I borough council, that is limited by Statute

7
as to the number of councillors that should be on that particular authority; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will agree with me on that point.
Why do the Government wish to see this figure written into the Bill? I can only believe that this is in the spirit of 1963. If the Government make the case that we must treat these local authorities in a similar manner to the rest, then on that account alone they should accept this Amendment. All that it does is to retain the position which exists in the rest of the country: that the authority should go to the Minister, in the first instance, to negotiate and then to have a decision as to the number of councillors there should be on the local authority. As times change and as local authorities change the authority should be able to go to the Minister to ask for an amendment upwards or downwards in the figure.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, when he gave us these figures, left out, I think, one of the really important factors that have to be taken into consideration: the size of the authority. In the case of Bradford we have an authority with 25,500 acres; it has an electorate of 198,000; and it has 60 as the number of its councillors. It has, in fact, an average of 3,310 electors per councillor. I would ask the noble Lord to consider the case of Croydon, Purley and Coulsdon. This authority will have, according to the noble Lord's reckoning, an average of 3,798. That is 500 up on the City of Bradford. It will have, however, an acreage approximately that of Bradford.
Let us come back to the point I have been making. In the case of Bradford they would be able to go to the Minister to obtain an increase in the number of councillors and, if the Minister was satisfied, he could then make an adjustment. In the case of Croydon, Purley and Coulsdon, because of the way the Bill is now drafted, if their average increased to 4,000 or 4,500, the Government would have to come forward with a Bill to amend the present provisions in order that there should be an increase in the number of councillors. I should have thought that that was really quite unnecessary.
I would suggest to the Government—and here we will not argue too much
8
on what the figures should be, because as I have said I do not believe you can look at all the authorities as one and have the same rule-of-thumb measure for them all—that if they would accept this Amendment they would then be putting these local authorities in London, with all their varying problems and differences, in a position to negotiate from time to time with the Minister for an adjustment, both ways—let us face it, both ways. They may wish to reduce the number of councillors from 60 to 50; or they might wish to go to the Minister and say, "We need to create, for efficient local government, an extra ward, which makes it necessary for us to have three more councillors." As the Bill now stands, they will not be able to do that.
I would make one last plea to the Government. I do not think myself that these wards should be allowed to become too big, not merely on the question of administration or of loss of contact of the councillors with their electorate and population, but because I am sure that the House will recognise that healthy local government rests, as does national government, upon the healthy participation of political Parties and other interested people in affairs. If you allow wards to grow too big you will create such difficulties and such tasks that the sort of minority interests which have always had a part to play in local government up to present are unable to take part. The bigger the authority becomes the more exclusive does it become of political Parties. As a member of a political Party, I recognise that they must play a part; but I do say that the part of political Parties should not be to preclude the minority and local interests, which are essential to local government. Therefore you should have local government so constructed that all interested parties should be able to play their part. I believe that this Amendment is essential if this Bill is to be what the Government wish it to be for local government.
3.0 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, there are two questions to be answered in connection with the Amendment. The

9
first, of course, is whether it is necessary to have a maximum in the Bill. That is the main point of the Amendment, which is designed to strike out that maximum. The second question is, assuming that we are going to have a maximum, is the figure of 60 the right one? May I deal first with the main point of the Opposition's Amendment? The Government believe that the maximum is needed as a guide when the first new councils are being set up. At the moment, the total number of councillors of the various councils affected—county boroughs, boroughs, metropolitan boroughs and urban districts—is 2,900 and, as I said in Committee, under this Bill that number would be reduced by some 1,000. That is a considerable number, and without some clear guidance on this point we feel that there would be a strong temptation—and a very human temptation—for existing authorities, who will have a big say in drawing up the proposals for the wards of the new boroughs, to try to preserve the present arrangement so far as possible.
For the same reason, we think, that a limitation should stay in the Bill for future guidance, because, as the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, pointed out, as time goes on, inevitably there will be changes and shifts in population, both in size and distribution, and the ward boundaries will have to be altered. Again there would be a natural temptation to make adjustments in such cases by adding an extra seat or two and not interfering with existing ward representations, instead of reducing the number, as probably ought to be the case, when the distribution becomes different from what it is now.
We feel that without any limitation there might well be a tendency, as the years pass, for councils gradually to increase in size. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has put forward the persuasive argument that we should at least consider having greater flexibility, and he made it all sound very reasonable. But if we were to write this into the Bill at the present stage, flexibility would become the rule rather than the exception, and councils, knowing that they need only apply for a greater number of representatives to get them, would tend to apply unnecessarily. We think that this temptation should be resisted at this stage.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it not the fact that if a council decides to
10
have 50 members they will need to have the Minister's approval? Therefore, whether it is 70 or 50, it will still be subject to approval by the Minister.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, it will be subject to approval when these changes are made in the first place, that is true; but I do not see the point the noble Lord is making. The noble Lord said that it would be absurd not to put this flexibility in the Bill and then have legislation later on. If the Bill really proves too restrictive, although we do not think it will, it would be for the boroughs, or the Greater London Council on their behalf, to ask for a new maximum figure by way of a Private Bill. But we feel that it is unnecessary to make that possible at the present stage.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, before the Minister leaves the point he is making, may I ask whether the Minister is not completely safeguarded against excessive numbers by reason of the fact that a council has, in any case, to seek his permission and approval of the number they recommend?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, we feel that at the moment the number of 60 is right as a maximum with which to begin. This, as noble Lords opposite know, has the support of the local authority associations. They think it would be a good thing to write this figure of 60 into the Bill. We had a letter from one council concerning Borough No. 15, which is the amalgamation of Romford and Hornchurch. Romford want only 45 councillors, and in putting forward their reason for this they said they preferred the smallest number which is practicable to run the new authority. They consider that in this way members can be more intimately concerned with the running of the authority, which tends to become more impersonal the larger the authority becomes. I think this is an interesting example.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, recognised that we could have too many. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, emphasised this matter of personal contact with electors and tried to make out that the proportion of electors to councillors is too high. We have produced a chart, which is available in the Printed Paper Office for the inspection of noble Lords

11
interested. It has been produced at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who asked for these details in Committee stage. It shows that the previous Amendment, in which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, suggested the figure of 3,000 as being about right, has been met by the present Bill in at least two-thirds of the boroughs. So I do not think a very strong case can be made by noble Lords based on these figures.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, drew some distinction based on acreage, and though I think it was a clever point, if I may say so, I am not sure that it is altogether valid. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said that we could not compare the position in London with provincial cities; we had to compare like with like. I would point out to him not only that the changes we propose in the number of councillors to electorate are much in line with those of the 13 towns of comparable size, shown in Appendix B for comparison, but also that the provincial councils concerned actually have wider functions than will be carried out by the new London boroughs and have more committees; therefore one would suppose that, if anything, they would require more members to deal with the work than would be required by the London boroughs. So if we are to compare like with like, then I think the argument would be rather on my side than on the side of the noble Earl. I hope that I have given fully enough our reasons for believing that the number of 60 is about right, although admittedly it is arbitrary. But it has been agreed to by the local authority associations.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord proceeds, may I say that I think he will agree that one of the associations say that this is subject to the Government looking at the matter again. In other words, it was only from experience that they could make their final judgment.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right and I said that on Committee stage. The Metropolitan Boroughs Joint Standing Committee wished to see the figure of 60 put in the Bill but thought that it might
12
be necessary to revise it at a later stage. I have said already in my reply that that could be done by private legislation, and that is the way the Government prefer that it should be done.
I have given my reasons for resisting the main argument and purpose of this Amendment, and also a reply to the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that we should treat the London boroughs the same as the rest of the country. The reason why we are not doing it is because we feel we have exceptional circumstances in London. After all, the metropolitan boroughs which form the core of inner London have always been limited to 60, and only 10 of the 28 have ever felt it necessary to go up to the maximum number. We feel, as we are extending London, that the precedent created by inner London is a reasonable one. In the exceptional circumstances, and due to the fact that there seems to be a substantial reduction in the number of councillors overall, we believe it is wiser to put it in the Bill and to keep it in the Bill for present and future guidance, and to treat any exceptions later on by private legislation, should that ever become necessary. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot hold out hope to noble Lords opposite that we should look at this again, and I would ask the House, if noble Lords do not wish to withdraw the Amendment, to reject it.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could I ask him to clarify the position? Am I right in making this assumption?—because I do not want to make a false assumption. Both the Government and we on these Benches agree that 60 is likely to be the best figure, but it is not in any way irrevocable and may have to be altered. The question at issue, therefore, is: what is the best way to alter it? We say that we should trust the Minister to decide, whereas the Government say they do not trust the Minister to make the correct decision and insist on the complications of a Private Bill, if alterations should be needed. Is that a fair way of putting it?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, perhaps, also, I could say a few words before the Minister sits down—that is a Parliamentary phrase which

13
means that the Minister has sat down. I agree with the point that my noble friend behind me has raised. I suppose one ought to welcome the Government's distrust of the Minister, but in this case we do not. We are obliged to the noble Lord for having arranged to put in the Printed Paper Office the statistics about London and the Provinces and how many members a councillor represents. That, I admit, up to a point, disconcerts our argument from the point of view of provincial experience. But there has to be remembered not only the argument about the number of the members a councillor is called upon to represent. It is important, of course, that it should not be too many, because there are so many domestic things that crop up day by day, probably rather more than in the case of a Member of Parliament. That is an important point. But there is a further point, which is not less important, and that is the size of the ward electing the councillors. So far as the electors are concerned, it is not desirable for the ward to have too many electors: otherwise, that involves difficulty both at the election and in keeping contact with the councillor.
But I cannot see why the Government could not have accepted this point. Let the 60 plus 10 (because it is plus 10; and it is plus co-options to committees—in fairness we must remember that) be left in the Bill, but then say that the Minister has power, either on application or not on application, to vary the figure in any way that seems to him to be fit and appropriate to the circumstances of the case. I cannot see why the Government should not do that, because the Minister would still have the ball at his feet: he would be in control of the situation; he need not vary up or down if he does not see fit, and the 60 would remain. Anybody wanting to vary would have to make a strong case to the Minister that it was the right thing to do. I am not clear why that suggested compromise, which I should have thought would meet anybody's argument, should not be accepted.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I cannot help feeling sorry that the Government are tying themselves up so tightly in this matter, because the circumstances in many places vary greatly, and I am bound to say that this Bill is regarded
14
in some of the suburbs with great apprehension. Therefore, the more flexibility the Government allow themselves, even if they do not choose to exercise it, the easier it will be to get this Bill accepted in places where it is going to be applied. I live in Twickenham. Twickenham has an ancient history of which it is extremely proud and which is both interesting and amusing. We are going to be joined up, I believe, with Richmond, another place with an ancient and quite different history of which it is extremely proud.
I do not ask the House to accept my figures, but I gather that we are going to be a borough of some 300,000 people, to be represented by 60 councillors. It is a long and widely separated area, and it has features which also obtain in the centre of London. It has small communities which are very proud of their village status. Richmond, I think, is particularly in that situation; but Twickenham also has its share of those small communities. It seems to me that where you have places with quite diverse feelings and interests, separated by a river, the more flexibility you allow yourself, at the beginning at any rate, the more likely you are to get these places to join and work happily together. In fact, the Government's attitude in this matter reminds me of what I think is one of the most pathetic things in the whole of British history, and that was dear old George III in conversation referring to the last time he was in his strait-waistcoat and the prospect of having to don it again. That seems to me to be the attitude of the Government over this matter. I hope that they will find some way of allowing themselves a little more flexibility.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I have listened with care and attention to the arguments of noble Lords opposite and of my noble friend Lord Hastings, and I agree that they all have much conviction in them. What worries me particularly is my noble friend's reference to Private Bills. I have not had much experience of these, and I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought that Private Bills of this nature would take up a good deal of time and expense. While I agree that in a Bill of this kind a certain number of arbitrary things must be laid down, there

15
is, as my noble friend Lord Saltoun has just pointed out, the need for considerable flexibility. Epsom comes off quite favourably under these arrangements; but Croydon is a very different matter. Here the two large areas of Purley and Coulsdon are being tacked on to another large authority, a matter which is bound to bring added problems of town planning and other matters. I should have thought that, rather than rely on the expense and time of introducing Private Bills, it would be quite easy to draft a permissory clause into this Bill. I should not have thought that it would cause any real difficulty, or anything of that kind. I think that, on balance, noble Lords opposite have made out a cogent case for these permissory regulations to be made. I rather regret the Government's stubbornness, if I may say so, in keeping to this arbitrary figure which is, as I see it, quite unnecessary.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, may I, before sitting down, so to speak, reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston? I shall not reply to any of the others, because I think they were separate speeches, except that of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who followed on the noble Lord, Lord Walston. The difference is not quite so simple as the noble Lord made it out to be, and we definitely require a figure in this Bill so that there should be some guidance as to what is considered a reasonable size for a council. I am told that in the long run the size of councils is subject to the control of the Home Secretary, because he deals with all matters concerned with elections; and it is difficult to exercise that sort of control without any guidance, and leaving it to the Home Secretary to say what he personally thinks is the right size. Therefore,
it is very useful to have a figure laid down, because people (and I think this was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth) must make out a very strong case if they are going to exceed that figure. To that extent, the difference is perhaps somewhat wider than was indicated by the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I think we can take it that the Government's mind is completely closed on this matter. In spite of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, I thought that everything he said indicated that flexibility was desirable in setting up this new organisation. He showed little faith in the good sense of local councils. He seemed to think that, unless there was a rigid limit, a ceiling (he called it a guide, although I do not quite know why; because it was, in fact, putting a ceiling on it, an upper limit), councils would, if they had a chance, try to claim more and more seats. Why I cannot imagine, because he went on to quote one borough which had applied for a much smaller limit, because it preferred a smaller council. I think everything the noble Lord said shows that tastes and circumstances differ in different parts of the area. We have support from the Cross-Benches, and from behind the noble Lord himself, in believing that the right principle in this Bill would be to allow flexibility, and to allow the Minister, on the application of individual boroughs, to vary the number. Accordingly, I think we must ask the House to decide by voting.
3.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Saltoun, L.

Albemarle, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Samuel, V.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amwell, L.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Archibald, L.

Lawson, L.

Sinha, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Summerskin, B.

Auckland, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Manchester, L. Bp.

Williams, L.

Champion, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williamson, L.

Chorley, L>

Rusholme, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Fortescue, E.

Milverton, L.

Atholl, D.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Molson, L.

Boston, L

Hastings, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chesham, L.

Hawke, L.

Monsell, V.

Clwyd, L.

Home, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Conesford, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Newton, L.

Cowley, E.

Howe, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Just, L.

Derwent, L.

Lambert, V.

Salter, L.

Devonshire, D.

Long, V.

Sandwich, E.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lothian, M.

Soulbury, V.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Stamford, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Mansfield, E.

Twining, L.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Westwood, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Mills, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.32 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "1964"and insert "1965". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. The Bill provides that the first elections for the London borough councils shall be in April, 1964, and that the first elections for the Greater London Council shall be in May, 1964. This Amendment deals with the London boroughs and suggests that the year should be moved from 1964 to 1965. It seems to me that we have an exceedingly strong case for this Amendment. If the Government are lucky, this Bill will receive the Royal Assent at the end of July or the beginning of August this year. If they are not so lucky, they may have to continue it into the autumn before the new Session of Parliament, and while this Session of Parliament lasts. In either case the period between the date of the Royal Assent to the Bill and the elections to the London borough councils will be a mere matter of a limited number of months; and, of course, the number will be more limited if the Bill does not receive the Royal Assent until October or November, as the case may be.
This is a very short period, much shorter than was given under the Local Government Act, 1929. That was a major Act of local government reorganisation, but it involved fewer complexities than does this Bill. So far as London was concerned, that Act transferred the powers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and most of the powers of the boards of guardians, to the London County Council, and a limited number of other
18
powers to the metropolitan borough councils. This was a mere transfer of functions. It is true that a transfer of staff was also involved, but this Bill creates entirely new authorities with many new functions to discharge. The Greater London Authority is different from anything we have ever had before in London, or have in the provincial parts of the country, in Scotland or in Wales. The London boroughs are a new type of authority, something between a non-county borough and a county borough, but covering very large areas with very large populations.
In these circumstances, the preparatory work for the new authorities to get going will be materially greater than was the case under the Local Government Act, 1929; and that took quite a time, as I know, because I went through it with the London County Council at the time and was in touch with my friends on the metropolitan borough councils. Indeed, at that time, in leading a deputation of the London Labour Party and the Labour boroughs to Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the Minister in charge, we argued that outdoor relief could go to the metropolitan boroughs provided that there were suitable arrangements for restriction on scales and proper equalisation arrangements. He resisted our suggestion and insisted that the powers should go to the London County Council. In fact, during the history of the Conservative majority on the County Council and the Conservative Government, in fact, right through this century, all new powers were, rightly or wrongly, conferred on the County Council rather than the boroughs. Therefore, this new line of the Government that they want to put the boroughs on top and the Greater London Council underneath is a new

19
departure in Conservative and Governmental policy.
The amount of administrative preparation needed under this Bill before the new boroughs can take over and exercise their functions is very much greater than anything that happened either in London, the Provinces, Scotland or Wales under the Local Government Act, 1929. There are staff, committees and standing orders involved. The sorting out of staff itself will be very considerable, with references to who shall do this or that. The changes will also involve the appointment of chief officers and the preparation of a vast new scheme of public administration.
The second point is that in the running of our democracy, whether Parliamentary or civic, the political Parties in our country play an important part. Sometimes they are not quite as responsible as they ought to be—and I am talking of all of them—but in the main they are faithful adherents to our democratic system. They realise that they have an important function to conduct—that of educating the people. Some of it may now and again be regarded as beyond the limits of education, and a bit within the limits of abuse or denunciation; nevertheless, they are conscious that in an unofficial sense, it is part of our pattern of Parliamentary and civic democracy. But from the point of view of the successful running of our democracy it is important that the political Parties should do their job as well as they can, and that they should have adequate time in which to educate the electorate from their point of view. The period in the Bill is not enough for the education of the electorate, and I beg your Lordships to agree with me that it is vitally important that the people should know what they are voting about, what issues and what principles of policy are involved. The time at present allowed does not give any of the political Parties time to prepare that.
Moreover, the organisation of the political Parties ought to change in relation to this Greater London area, in relation to the London boroughs. Neither the Conservative Party nor the Labour Party organisations, nor I imagine the Liberal Party organisation, is shaped to meet the conduct of elections
20
under the new conditions. Therefore, they ought to be given time in which that shaping can adequately take place. Here I am not talking mere Party politics. I am not trying to drag in what some may regard as unscrupulous and untruthful political machines. I am arguing in relation to the successful functioning of our democracy, which is a non-Party argument. Electors in the new boroughs have got to be informed, educated—if possible persuaded from the point of view of the rival political Parties—as to what are the principles involved when they go to the poll in the new boroughs with much extended powers compared with metropolitan boroughs and indeed non-county boroughs and urban districts, and the political Parties will want time in order to conduct that education of the people from their respective points of view; and indeed not only the electors, but they will need to educate their own active members who may do canvassing, public speaking, and so on.
All that is necessary, and the Party organisations will have to adapt themselves to the new boroughs and to the Greater London area, which is no mean task, and nothing of this needed to happen in relation to the Local Government Act, 1929. So I say that if the Government resist this, if they insist upon going forward with these dates, Her Majesty's Government are acting as the enemies of our democracy. They are afraid of the people knowing what they are voting about; they are doing their best to prevent the people from knowing what they are voting about, and I say this is deliberately cheating democracy on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and I think it is a shameful, disgraceful and wicked thing to do. They have even got this in their heads. I forget whether it comes up on Amendment, but there is some point about making the two elections within 12 months. We can argue that later on, but it is a mad idea. They even have an idea of letting the elections come on the same day—entirely mad. That is an idea imported from the United States of America, who make it work somehow, but I do not believe we should.
The important thing is that this is too short a period. The Government started this Bill with the motive of political gerrymandering. That was the primary,

21
fundamental reason for this Bill—political jobbery and gerrymandering in order to legislate out of existence a Labour majority on the London County Council. Now they are trying to rush the elections so that they can get their gerrymandering complete as soon as possible. I ought to admit that it is true that the Bill does not fully operate until 1965, but the councils are constituted side by side with the existing councils in 1964. Another curious provision—the actual administration does not come in until 1965. That is not good enough. It is this rush at 1964. Therefore, we propose that "1964" should become "1965" in both classes of authority, and that the physical operation of the Bill should not take place earlier than 1966.
I got a little worked up in moving this Amendment, but nevertheless I hope that your Lordships opposite will forgive that. Put it aside; vote upon the merits of the case, which merits I have plainly put before your Lordships, with a little bit of colour added which you can forget. This is a test of democratic motives and practical democracy. The British have been good at the practice of democracy, probably better than any other country in the world, except some of the British Commonwealth countries overseas, and in the interests of this I would urge your Lordships, even beg of you, with very great sincerity, to vote for this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, leave out ("1964") and insert ("1965").—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)

INCIDENT IN THE YEMEN
3.45 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I am not going to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. I am sure he will forgive me for intervening, and I hope I shall not lower the temperature too much between his speech and the reply which he will get from the Government later on, but I thought the House would like to know of an answer to a Private Notice Question on events in the Yemen which has been made in another place.
At 3 p.m. local time on Saturday, June 22, a party of 44 Servicemen and
22
Service women, officers and other ranks, all from the Headquarters, Middle East Command, set out in the state of Lahej, which is part of the Aden Federation, for an exercise forming part of the normal programme of training. I think your Lordships will see in the newspapers that this is called adventure training". I think that is a little misleading; it is really routine training which takes place from time to time.
Their planned route, if it had been followed, would have kept them well away from the frontier with the Yemen. Unfortunately, while moving along desert tracks during the night they took the wrong turning. This brought them into Yemeni territory at about 9 p.m., where they were fired upon by tribesmen. The party split up and eighteen members, including four women, escaped. The remainder were pinned down by fire and later surrendered. One Royal Marine and three soldiers were killed and two others were slightly wounded.
The four women captured and the bodies of those killed have now been returned, leaving 18 male prisoners in Yemeni hands. Negotiations for the return of these prisoners are continuing.
The Minister of Defence has asked the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East, to carry out a full inquiry into this incident. In the meantime, I know the House will wish to join me in extending sympathy to all the families concerned.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to thank the Foreign Secretary for making the statement, and I am sure all parts of your Lordships' House would like to be associated with the last words of sympathy with the relatives of the men who have lost their lives and also those who are in course of anxiety concerning the present incarceration of the eighteen male prisoners. This apparently is a very unhappy affair. The responsibility upon the Aden Command in such a case is very great. There are surely in the Aden Command quite large sectional maps, pretty responsibly drawn, of an area such as they have under their control, and it seems unbelievable to me that a body of 44 persons should be sent out to do training and not have the necessary instructions to keep the proper distance from the boundary. We have no information at present as to

23
whether they were armed for border warfare or whether they were going on another kind of training in which they would not be armed at all.
Of course we are glad to know that there is to be a full-scale local inquiry into this matter, and we hope the findings of the inquiry will be made known to us and to the country as rapidly as possible. But, in the meantime, I should like to know whether the relatives of the five men who have been killed and certainly the relatives of all those who are still confined to the Yemeni territory have been notified, because it is a time of great anxiety for the relatives of those 44 persons. It is now over 48 hours; we had news of it yesterday. I hope very much something can be done about them. I do not know whether the Foreign Secretary has any information as to when the names of the persons concerned will be published in the Press.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should have made clear at the start that I was making this statement on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carrington, who has to be away to-day. I should not like to pass any judgment on the Aden Command and the arrangements made for the training exercise until we have had more of the facts, and I agree that an inquiry is very necessary into this matter. As to what arms the party was carrying, they were carrying only their personal arms, nothing else. So far as the information to the relatives is concerned, the relatives of those persons who have been named have been informed, and as soon as we get the full information all the relatives will be informed of those people who may be now prisoners in the Yemen.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, could we have any information, say within a day or two, as to what representations are being made to the Yemeni authorities with regard to those still being held?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I can say that straight away. We have asked the Americans, who, as the noble Earl knows, are represented in the Yemen now and have recognised the Yemeni Republican Government, to make representations on our behalf to the Yemeni authorities, so that they may exercise any influence they have in that area to see
24
that the prisoners are released. I should say that there is no information whatever that the Yemeni troops as such were involved. This was a tribal affair, and I cannot say whether the tribe is one which is loyal to the Yemeni Republicans or one loyal to the Royalists.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
3.52 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has returned to the attack on the question of the dates which are written into the Bill for holding the first elections and, subsequently, for the transfer of functions. The Government believe that there is a principle involved here which is quite basic to the whole argument. That principle is whether, when changes have been decided upon, they should be carried into effect as soon as possible, having regard to the need to safeguard the operation and the standard of the services affected. In a situation like this, of course, there are always two opposing forces at work: on the one hand, the desire to have as long a period as possible in which to make the preparations, and, on the other, the need to end as soon as practicable the period of uncertainty, which is liable to damage the services or at least slow down or arrest their development. There are two distinct dates which must be considered separately: the date of the first elections (and that is the subject of this Amendment), and then the date on which the new authorities will assume responsibility for their functions—a matter that is the subject of a further two Amendments, if not three, later.
Dealing with the possibility of holding elections in April, 1964, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, referred at the end of his speech to "this rush at 1964". It is my duty to prove, I hope to the satisfaction of noble Lords opposite, that it is quite possible to hold elections at that date. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe explained during the Committee stage what the programme was to be, or was likely to be, and I also, in a later Amendment at that stage, discussed the same matter and elucidated a few points which had been brought out subsequently. Perhaps I may repeat, very briefly, why we

25
think it possible to hold elections in April, 1964. In the first place, the draft ward proposals have now been received from nearly all the new borough groups. These proposals will be published as soon as possible after the Bill has been passed.
LORD SHEPHERD: Can the noble Lord give an indication of what he means by "as soon as possible"? Our experience in this House has been one year, two years, one week.
LORD HASTINGS: Very soon indeed, almost immediately after, provided that all ward proposals are in, as we reckon they will be by that time. A period for objections will, of course, be allowed, and where representations are made which call for a public inquiry then any such inquiries will be held in about October and November. Wards should be settled and included in the incorporation instruments, Royal Charters or incorporation orders, by January of next year in time for the elections in May.
At Committee stage I think some noble Lords thought that the time allowed for inquiries was insufficient. I would point out now that such inquiries do not have to be held by the same person. Even supposing inquiries were needed in all 32 of the London boroughs, there is nothing in theory to prevent all 32 being held together by 32 separate commissioners appointed by the Home Secretary. I hope noble Lords will realise that there is no insuperable difficulty about holding proper inquiries in good time That really is the case for the possibility of holding elections by April, 1964. We see no point in delaying it and a great deal of damage in fact might result if we did delay.
I am not quite clear whether it would be the wish of noble Lords opposite, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that I should refer in detail to the question of the transfer of functions. He mentioned this matter generally in the course of his speech but he did not go into a great deal of detail; and, of course, Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 deal with that more specifically. I would ask him whether I should reserve my remarks on that particular aspect for those Amendments, or whether it would be the wish that I should deal with the point now.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I think that, as there are specific Amendments
26
down, which is why I did not deal with it at length, it would be better if the noble Lord would reserve his remarks until those Amendments come up.
LORD HASTINGS: I thought that might be the case, but I did not want to weary noble Lords with the same sort of speech on two occasions. Therefore, we are dealing simply with the quite straightforward point of whether elections can be held in April, 1964—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am sorry to interrupt. It is not so much a question of whether elections can be held by then as whether they ought to be held by then, which is a different matter.
LORD HASTINGS: I think I have proved that they can be held by then. The noble Lord's comment that they ought not to be held then brings us to the argument he was making about the politics of the matter. He felt that the Government were acting against the interests of our democracy because it was too short a period—and it is rather difficult for me to keep off the further argument on transferred functions which I shall be developing later. The fact is that we feel that the sooner this operation is put into effect the better. It is in the interests of all the local authority staffs who are involved to cut out the uncertainty, and also in the interests of the services involved; and we feel that nothing will be gained from putting off the original initial elections by yet another year, which would mean a date getting on for two years from now. We see a lot of disadvantages in that, and the sooner the matter is got on with, the more it will be in the interests of everybody concerned.
So far as the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth is concerned, about people having to be educated in regard to what is involved in London local government, I really feel that, following up another comment he made, they are the most educated and sophisticated people so far as Parliamentary democracy is concerned, and they are not likely easily to be fooled by politicians, of whatever Party. I do not think there is any danger that the people of London will not be able to understand what London government is about and what

27
the new aspects of it will be when the Greater London Council is appointed. From that point of view, I do not think the argument that they need an extra year to understand is in any way valid. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will agree with the Government in withstanding this Amendment, which is basic to the whole Bill and the efficient way in which we hope to see it carried out.
4.2 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it is really quite astonishing and amazing that the Government should continue upon the particular path they are following. Obviously, this is a dying Government. It is a Government which is discredited in the country at large. It is following a course which is directly against all the desires shown by municipal elections on this matter in the boroughs and the Greater London area. The Government know full well that their hopes of remaining in office are so tentative that they may have a General Election this autumn; they will certainly be much more likely to have one by the spring, in the midst of these other elections. Then, in respect of a completely unmandated piece of legislation that they are putting on the Statute Book, they are going, if they can, to force the local electorate to answer these questions at the same time. I think that is wholly unreasonable, and, in regard to political questions I think it is not particularly honest. As I say, the whole thing is unmandated.
So far as they have been able to understand it, the electorate have, in the last two municipal elections, county and borough in London, been against it. Yet here we are now debating this question on the Report stage—we are the second House to consider it—and with all the political atmosphere around and about us at the present moment pointing to an early death of the Government. In the country the Government have made no gain anywhere for years now in a byelection—they are losing ground. They have what I might almost call the insolence to say to the London electorate, "We know that we shall not be here long and "—using the words that no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, was thinking of in another sense—"the
28
sooner it is done the better." That will be interpreted by the mass of the electorate as an attempt to get this rather shady piece of legislative change through Parliament and on to the Statute Book while they are still in office, but knowing that they are most likely to go out.
I hope that if the Government propose to adhere to this course of action, other parties who are interested in local government in London boroughs and the Greater London area will see to it that, if this Bill is put on the Statute Book in these circumstances, it will be repealed altogether at the first opportunity.
4.5 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said that he set out to prove that elections could be held. I would not dispute with him that the mere mechanics make it possible to hold these elections in April. But the question that my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth put was whether they should be held. My noble friend took the line, as my noble Leader has done, that this Bill is completely unmandated, and I said on the Committee stage that the only people who in fact have a mandate are those who are opposed to the Bill—the Surrey County Council and the Essex County Council; in fact all the major authorities are fundamentally opposed to this legislation.
But the point I would make to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is that that is not the question at all; it is, when elections should be held. You will have your wards properly divided up by the end of January. The full knowledge would then be available to the local political Parties at the end of January. I wonder whether we can take it from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, as it is his department, that the street registers will be available at the end of January. You cannot fight an election properly and give the public the opportunity of knowing all the facts and of being able to decide how to cast their vote unless you are properly able to canvass the district and are able to supply the political literature that is part of a political campaign. Will the street registers be available and when? At the end of January or the end of February?
Then, until we know the size of the wards, how will the local Parties find

29
out who are prepared to be the candidates for the particular wards? We have heard many times in your Lordships' House, not on this Bill but on other matters of local government, about the problem of finding the right men of the right calibre, and, above all, men with the time and opportunity to give service. Until the size of the ward is available and until the character of the ward is known it will not be possible in many cases for the political Parties to decide who should be the candidate. Therefore, we may well find that the political Parties will not be able to appoint candidates until February or March, giving five or six weeks for the candidates to go round a ward of 15,000 electors, to make themselves known as individuals, to be able to put their case to the electors, and then for the electorate to decide. This is the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, must reply.
The question is not whether you can hold an election. Elections can be held in Russia or Czechoslovakia where there is only one list of candidates. But you may find, as you do in borough elections, not only the three main political Parties taking part, but minority interests taking part, too. I have said before, and I say again, that I want to see these minority interests taking part in elections. It may well be that the main political Parties could overcome all the problems that will arise; but whether these small minority
interests, in the time that will be available, will have the opportunity to organise themselves and put forward their candidates is a matter of doubt. It is not a question of whether the Government can set up the machinery for an election. What really matters is whether those who are interested in local government will be able to set up their own organisation, put their case and their proposition to the electorate; and then to give the electorate, those who must decide, a reasonable opportunity to reach their judgment, so that when they go to the polling booths and vote they will clearly know and understand what they are voting about and whom they are supporting.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will not be doing a service to local government or to democracy if, merely to drive this Bill through before the Government go out of office, he denies the electorate the opportunity of taking part, not only by voting but also by understanding the case which is being put. A reasonable time must be given. The time set by the Government is unreasonable, and I contend it is a disservice to democracy.
4.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (Amendment No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Samuel, V.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amulree, L.

Kennet, L.

Silkin, L.

Amwell, L.

Latham, L.

Sinha, L.

Archibald, L.

Listowel, E.

Stonham, L.

Attlee, E.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Walston, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Meston, L.

Williams, L.

Champion, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williamson, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Peddie, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Greenhill, L.

Rusholme, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Albemarle, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Killearn, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lambert, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Long, V.

Boston, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Lothian, M.

Chesham, L.

Grenfell, L.

Mancroft, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hastings, L.

Mansfield, E.

Conesford, L.

Hawke, L.

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L.

Hereford, V.

Mills, V.

Derwent, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Milverton, L.

Devonshire, D.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Molson, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Howe, E.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Dundee, E.

Inchyra, L.

Monsell, V.

Newton, L.

Saltoun, L.

Stamford, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Sandwich, E.

Swinton, E.

St. Just, L.

Soulbury, V.

Twining, L.

Salter, L.

Spens, L.

Westwood, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Greater London and the Greater London Council]:
4.19 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that if, on representations in that behalf made to the Privy Council by the Minister, Her Majesty by the advice of Her Privy Council thinks fit to grant a charter of incorporation of the inhabitants of the Greater London Area, She may by that charter make further provision with respect to the name of the Greater London Area."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friends and myself. I think there will be no political division at all on this. I am sure the House will feel that we should give proper consideration to the incorporation of this new authority, the Greater London Council. It is a new authority which will provide the strategic planning for the development of building, traffic and many other services for 8½ million people. The City of London may claim that it is the centre of commerce for the world, but there are many instances to-day where commerce is leaving the City to go into the West End of London, and also into some of the new office areas around the perimeter of this new authority. Therefore we can say that this new London area ranks in importance with the City in that matter.
If possible, we should like to see this new authority set up by Charter. We have it in mind that this authority should rank in much the same way as a city. A city is set up by letters patent, and letters patent are, in fact, a Royal Charter. Therefore, we feel that, if we are to give this new authority its proper position alongside the cities of Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, and Cardiff, the capital of Wales, this treatment should be given.
I understand that one of the difficulties for the Government is that if an authority has been set up by Statute it is very difficult for the Monarch to exercise her Prerogative in granting a charter
32
to that authority, unless the authority is changed in some way or another. In the early stages of this Bill in another place, this was given by the Minister as a reason for not giving a charter to the inner boroughs of London. But the Government have conceded the very great case that has been made that these inner boroughs should stand in the same order of precedence as the outer boroughs, and they have overcome the difficulty in this Bill—I think under Clause 1—about the inner boroughs ranking with the outer boroughs for a Charter. I do not know whether the difficulty still exists, and whether this particular clause, Clause 1, was necessary so that Her Majesty might give a charter to the inner boroughs, but if the problem still exists and a charter cannot be given to a body that has been set up by Statute, then unless we have in this Bill a proper provision that the Greater London Authority shall be set up by a charter we shall find that, if the authority make a request to the Privy Council for such an honour, they will not be able to obtain it because of this difficulty.
I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, would in any way disagree with me that we should give this new authority its proper status and importance. I think we can say that the grant of a charter does not in any way increase the power of the authority: its power and duty remain. But we have many important visitors, whom we are very pleased to see in this country and in this city. They are honoured by the City, and are also honoured by the County Council, but the County Council has its own tradition which is disappearing. I think, therefore, that when we are setting up the new authority for this increased area, we should try to give it some special dignity. My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth will be speaking shortly, and the title of the head of the Authority would naturally arise. I beg the Government to consider this Amendment favourably. It would merely permit a request by the authority, through the Privy Council to Her Majesty, for consideration of a charter. Then, if Her Majesty thought fit, she

33
could give the charter to the Authority. I said earlier that I believe this clause is necessary, because if it is not put in the authority will not be able to obtain a charter. We should bring it into line with the other main cities of this country, unless the Government themselves change the construction of the authority in such a way as to make the present rulings apply. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is certainly a very difficult subject, and, as noble Lords opposite know, the Government have a lot of sympathy with their argument. We are just as anxious as anybody that the Greater London Council, when set up, should have all the prestige and dignity that it requires, and of which we really feel it is worthy. I think I must just once again briefly run over the difficulties of giving a Charter to the Greater London Council.
Of course, all local authorities are corporations, but there is a fundamental difference between boroughs and other types of authority. In the case of boroughs, of course, all the inhabitants of the area are incorporated, and they are included in the fictitious legal person created by the act of incorporation. The corporation is distinguished from the council. The corporation is the legal person; the borough council is only the executive agent through which the corporation acts. And in the case of boroughs the corporation is created by Royal Charter. In all other cases the council is the corporation. The corporation is thereby created by Statute and not by charter, and embraces the council but not all the inhabitants of the area.
The boroughs, of course, claim a much longer continuous history, than any other of the major authorities of to-day. The right to elect freemen, to use the title of "mayor", and the title "town clerk" for its chief officer—these and the essential creation by Royal Charter are the characteristics of boroughs; and, of course, they are jealously prized by the boroughs, and are not shared by any other type of authority. The Government feel that this distinction between boroughs and other authorities should be respected. It is, of course, an essential part of the Government's proposals for
34
Greater London that here we are dealing with a single built-up area. But it has never been claimed that Greater London should have, or should be given, the same type of government as a borough. A typical borough, after all, has a clearly defined centre which, with the town hall, is the acknowledged hub of the civic, social and commercial activities of the area. Greater London, of course, has so many such centres that we really cannot compare it at all to a borough.
In these circumstances, we feel that it really is undesirable to suggest that all of its inhabitants should be incorporated, just as if it were another borough. I do not think, really, that we need worry greatly that the Greater London Council will lack dignity and honour as the overall strategic authority for the great capital city, and I believe it will attract to itself the prestige which it is expected to have. When we come to the question of comparing it with the cities, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, pointed out, the cities are given Royal Charters, but I think I shall not be wrong in saying that the cities have only one council. Greater London is going to be composed of 32 different borough councils, whereas Cardiff, of course, has one. So, when we use the term "city", although London is a great city, we cannot really compare it with other cities in the country from that point of view.
Now when the noble Lord says that a body set up by Statute cannot be granted a charter, that is in fact an exaggeration of the situation. It is not strictly true. I believe that it can be done if that body applies specifically for a charter. I agree that it is not easy, but there is no actual legal bar to its doing so. So I do not think that setting up the Greater London Council by Statute would in fact debar it from getting a charter in due course if it really thought that was necessary, although I cannot say what would happen if such an application were made.
That brings one to other matters closely connected with this problem, and they concern the matter of the Royal Prerogative in respect of giving the Freedom of the City and in respect of the title of the head of the council, which matters we discussed at Committee stage. There, again, I am advised that it would be better that these matters should be dealt with after the setting up of the Greater London Council, and that when

35
the time comes and the Council decides that it wishes to honour citizens and has a clear idea of the sort of honour it would wish to confer upon any person, then it could bring forward private legislation. It could also ask for letters patent, which would enable it to call its Chairman (if that is the title we are going to keep) "right honourable". In respect of the title of the leader of the Council, I think I can tell noble Lords opposite now that we have an Amendment down—it is the next one, No. 3A—which goes a good deal of the way to meet their points in regard to the Council's title and we have in mind possibly to allow the Greater London Council to apply also to change the title of its leader.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but he said the "leader" of the Council. I think he means the "Chairman" of the Council.
LORD HASTINGS: I am sorry; I am merely using a word. I mean the Chairman. I see the noble Lord's point. We are not wedded definitely to the word "Chairman". I said they can apply for the title of "right honourable", or there might even be the possibility, say—I do not know—of calling him "the Lord Chairman". But these matters, we feel, can be dealt with and are better dealt with after the setting up of the Greater London Council. So, although the Government are not at all unsympathetic in the problems raised by noble Lords, we feel that in fact it is not necessary at the outset to grant a Royal Charter, and that the difficulties of doing so in the present circumstances outweigh any advantage that might be gained by it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will not hide the fact that I am disappointed with the noble Lord's reply, although I am pleased to see that the Minister has some sympathy towards the proposition. The noble Lord did say that I rather (shall I say?) overstated the problem in saying that an authority set up by Statute could not obtain a charter. The noble Lord said that it was difficult, but it could. From my reading of the Committee stage in another place, the position was quite clear. The Minister at that time agreed that the inner boroughs should have a charter, but
36
he could not see his way clear to ensuring that these inner boroughs obtained a charter because of the reasons that I have stated. In order to overcome that difficulty the Minister brought forward these Amendments in this House at the Committee stage. I understand that the wording in Clause 1, subsection (2) has been put in specifically because of the difficulties that I have mentioned.
May I take it from the noble Lord that if, after the Greater London Council have been set up, the Council approach Her Majesty, through the Privy Council, and obviously with the advice of the Minister, there will be no administrative difficulties, no legal tangles, that will exclude the Greater London Council, if they can justify their case, from having their application considered by Her Majesty? Can I really take it that there are no special legal tangles, such as those which I understood existed when I read the Report of the Committee stage in another place, that would prevent this authority from obtaining this special dignity which, in the sphere of local government, is a matter of considerable recognition and pride? That is why I feel so strongly in this matter.
I accept that the Minister has said that no doubt Her Majesty will agree that the chairman of this authority shall be called "right honourable"; but, my Lords, it would be quite wrong that he should be The right honourable the Chairman of the Council for the Administrative Area of Greater London". That is not a title of dignity. If you give the Council a charter, you can make it a corporate body. I think there is a great deal to be said for a corporate body. Unless the people have something to which they can pledge allegiance and loyalty, we shall not get the right service. London is very proud because it has this loyalty; because one can look to London for what it is. But we are now bringing in areas which have never in the past been recognised as London. Therefore, I think we must try to bring in and identify the whole of this built-up area as one body. That will be done more quickly if you can give the whole of the area something to recognise as being a body, a corporation. I think the Government would do a great service

37
to the community of this area if they were to provide this focal point, if they were to give this understanding to this area.
I know that the Minister cannot go very far this afternoon, but I would ask him, between now and the Third Reading, to consider this point again, to see whether there are any difficulties, legal tangles, which might prevent the Greater London Authority, if they so wished, from applying for a charter; and, if such tangles do exist, to come and be honest to the House so that we do not allow things to go forward on the understanding that the Council can have a charter if they wish, only to find, in a year or two's time, that there are so many tangles, so many difficulties, that the Authority are prevented from obtaining the same dignity and status as the other cities. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.39 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(2A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) or (2) of this section, the Greater London Council may with the consent of the Minister change the name of the Council or the name by which the area referred to in the said subsection (1) is to be known or both those names, and any change of name made in pursuance of this subsection shall take effect as from such date as the Minister may by order appoint; and any such order—

(a) shall not affect any rights or obligations of any council, authority or person, and

(b) shall not be taken as invalidating any instrument (whether made before or after the date appointed by the order) which refers to the Council or the said area by the previous name,

but the new name shall be substituted for the previous name in all enactments relating to the Council or, as the case may be, that area and in all instruments and legal proceedings made or commenced before the said date which refer to that previous name, so, however, that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as affecting the title of any Act or instrument."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment would permit the Greater London Council to change its name, or the name of the Greater London area, and it is intended to meet the purpose of the noble Lords' following Amendment, Amendment No. 4. The differences between the two Amendments are as follows. The change we propose may take place at any time, and not only before
38
January 1, 1965, as proposed in the next Amendment. Also there is power to change not only the name of the body but also that of the area. As I said, we will consider adding the power to change the title of the Chairman and we hope to produce an Amendment to that effect on the Third Reading.
The Minister's consent is needed; that is in the Government Amendment. It follows the present powers of county councils and borough councils to change their name, with the Minister's consent, under Section 59 of the Local Government Act, 1958. Noble Lords opposite proposed only consultation with the Minister; but on such an important matter as this the same Ministerial control is, we feel, clearly needed as has already been provided by Parliament in connection with the names of boroughs and counties. I hope this Amendment will meet with the commendation of noble Lords opposite as well as with that of noble Lords on this side of the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hastings.)
4.41 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for having taken a favourable view, in principle of something that was argued and proposed at an earlier stage of the proceedings of the House on this Bill. This Amendment makes it possible for the Greater London Council to submit to the Minister proposed changes in the name of the Council and in the name "Greater London" as the area; and that the Minister may thereupon authorise such change to be made. Our Amendment would have proposed that the Council could do it, in regard to the name, after consultation with the Minister; and we should have preferred it that way, but I must say that it is not unexpected that the Minister should want to retain his power of approval or disapproval; and in all the circumstances I do not think that is unreasonable. Therefore, we are much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues for having given favourable consideration to the point.
Indeed there are advantages about it in that it will give more time for people to think about alternative names. I suggested "The Corporation of Greater

39
London" because I thought there was some dignity about it; but this adjective "Greater" makes it seem, I admit, rather a clumsy affair. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, suggested it should be "The London Council". I did not like that very much, because there are so many London councils, religious bodies, technical bodies, employers' organisations and trade union organisations that it does not sound to me very dignified. If we turned it to "The Council of London" it would be more dignified; but I do not think it is really good enough. The other method would be to retain the name "London County Council", which, incidentally, would save a great deal of printing costs for the new body; and there is a lot to be said for that.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, may I interject? I have received a letter suggesting that we retain the initial letters and call it the London Civic Council.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Yes, my Lords, I had a letter to that effect also, and the gentleman who wrote it was very ingenious about it; but "civic" in this connotation dos not quite stand up. That was the conclusion that I came to, personally. There is this advantage about this Amendment: now it can be left "up in the air", so to speak, and all sorts of ideas may occur. There might perhaps be correspondence in the columns of The Times about it, which could conceivably be useful. Then the new body could consider it and suggest to the Minister such name or names as may occur to them.
I am also very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the title of the Chairman. As the House knows, I was a member of the London County Council for a good many years. I must say, having visited various places in cities where people were addressed as "My Lord Mayor" and in the Metropolitan boroughs as "Mr. Mayor" that this "Mr. Chairman" business is a shocking come-down. It is true that George V kindly gave permission for the chairman to be known as "the right honourable"; but you cannot very well get up in Council and say "The right honourable, the Chairman of the London County Council". Inevitably you say "Mr. Chairman". "Right honourable" is worth
40
having, but it is a great job to find a name. Personally, I wanted it to be "Lord Lieutenant", for the time being. That would have been a good name—I hope the Government will still look into it and consider it. Then there is the possibility of "Lord Chairman", which is better than "Mr. Chairman". It is an improvement. There is "Lord Mayor",—and in Scotland, "Provost" and "Lord Provost"—all very good; but we cannot very well import Scottish designations into London. They would not like it and our people would not like it. Let it be thought about.
This could be managed in an Amendment of about three words, whereby the designation of Chairman of the Council could come into this clause in the same way as the matter with which we are dealing now. I hope that will be done. The Parliamentary Secretary has not quite promised to do it; but he nearly has. I hope it will be considered on Third Reading. If so, I can assure him it will go through expeditiously. I support the Amendment which has been brought forward by the Parliamentary Secretary and I thank him and the Minister for having done so; and therefore we shall not move Amendment No. 4.
LORD REA: My Lords, might I suggest one very simple name: "President of the London Council".
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. There is much I would agree with about "Lord President" although I admit that there is the danger of mixing him up with the Lord President of the Court of Session or with Lord Hailsham, which would be very exciting now and again. "Mr. President" is the title of heads of republics. I agree it is dignified, it would be better; it sounds better; but it can be rather confusing. But by all means let us consider the suggestion of the Leader of the Liberal Party and any other ideas that are about.
Clause 3 [Local government areas in and around Greater London]:
4.48 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the Minister may

41
if he thinks fit, for the purpose of providing for the orderly transfer of functions from the councils of the existing counties of London, Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Essex and Hertfordshire to the Greater London Council, the London borough councils and the Common Council, by order provide that the councils of the said existing counties as constituted on 31st March 1965—

(a) shall remain in being until 1st April 1966; and

(b) shall, until the prescribed date, continue to exercise in their existing areas any functions which were exercisable by them in those areas on 31st March 1965 and which would, apart from this section, have been transferred to the Greater London Council, the London borough councils or the Common Council on 1st April 1965.

(4) In paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection 'the prescribed date' means 1st April 1966 or such earlier date as may be specified in relation to any functions in an order made under this section.
(5) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in pursuance of his powers under section 83 of this Act and under this section the Minister may, in any order made for the purposes of this section, amend this Act by the substitution, either generally or in relation to any purposes or functions specified in the order, for any date specified in this Act of such later date, not being later than twelve months after the first-mentioned date, as he may think fit."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I want to make a special appeal to the Minister to try to find a way of meeting the proposals which are contained herein. There can be no doubt in anybody's mind that the task of implementing the proposals contained in this Bill for the complete reorganisation of the local government services in Greater London present problems of very great complexity. It will be extremely difficult, and may well be quite impossible, to resolve satisfactorily all these problems within the very limited time provided by the Bill. This is not just my own opinion or that of my noble and right honourable friends. The London County Council, who have the bulk of the tasks to be performed, have gone to great trouble to take the opinions of their staff and head of departments. I think it is very important that the opinion of these men should be regarded.
May I quote briefly the opinion on this very important matter of the head of departments of the London County Council? He said that many of the departments have had practical experience of the complexity and difficulty to which the Acts of 1930 and 1948—Acts
42
that fell to be carried out in those years—gave rise. They point out that the difficulties under this Bill are much greater, because those cases were just transfers of functions and the proposals in this Bill are much more complex. There is a fragmentation of areas, as well as a partial transfer of functions within entirely new boundaries, all of which gives rise to complexities of a grave kind. I would draw particular attention to the fact that the head of the administration of the L.C.C. wrote that he conceives it his duty to express in strong terms that "if the proposals of the Bill are to be carried out in the way now provided by the Bill, there is a very grave risk of a complete breakdown of the local services in London."
He goes on to say that, in his view, this risk can be avoided only by such a diversion of staff to the enormously complicated work, implicit in the Bill, of providing for the functioning of the new authority as to endanger the maintenance of existing services, including in that term the planning and provision of new housing, schools and road improvements. It is impossible to exaggerate the seriousness of that happening. The proposed Amendment is drafted with this possibility in mind. It is designed to give the Minister, if his hopes that reorganisation will take place effectively within the time provided are justified, a discretion, in the light of the circumstances then prevailing, to allow an extended period of up to one year for the transfer of the functions required by the Bill. If everything goes well, the Minister need not use this power, but if the time available proves insufficient, then he can invoke the powers provided by this Amendment and give the authorities up to another year.
It is not enough to say that much of the work of the new authorities can be done beforehand, because that assumes that the new elected bodies will behave as rubber stamps and will give approval to actions which they have not fully understood and have not initiated. I do not think that it is at all unlikely that the Minister may find it necessary to have this extension of time. We must bear in mind that the reorganisation proposed by the Bill provides 33 entirely new authorities to be created from the existing authorities in the London area, involving not only

43
amalgamations of authorities, but also the break-up into a different pattern of the distribution of functions between these new authorities. Every new council will have to take over part of the services now administered by the county councils, which are usually organised on a basis which is not related to the boundaries of the new authorities.
The Greater London Council will become responsible for services at present administered by a number of county councils, and in some cases only a severed part of the county area will be responsible for the services now provided. Under the Bill as it stands, within twelve months of the creation of these manifold new authorities they must begin to administer the services which at present are administered by a hundred separate authorities. It seems to me very foolish to risk a breakdown in the administration of all this complicated governmental machinery without the Minister having some power to extend the time in case of necessity.
That some such difficulties might arise was clearly in the mind of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who, when introducing the Bill in your Lordships' House, spoke of the "considerable upheaval" which the Bill would cause in the whole of the services of London. I think the Government recognise that there is a danger of the dislocation of these services and they are relying on the skill and ingenuity of the local government staff to get through. But these are the very people, charged with this immense task, who have given the opinion which I have already quoted. Eight and a half million people are dependent upon these services, and to take a risk of a breakdown is to take a risk which should not be taken. I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment in the spirit in which it is put forward, as a safety measure to ensure some extra time, if it is needed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Wilmot of Selmeston.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is the intention of noble Lords opposite to move Amendment No. 8, which deals specifically with the transfer of functions, out of which this Amendment really arises.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: We shall not be moving that Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: Then perhaps I can develop my general argument on the transfer of functions, which will naturally lead up to the extension of time of transfer which the noble Lord is seeking.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: That would be convenient, and perhaps it might be wise for the noble Lord to include in his reply Nos. 9 and 10, which relate to the same matter.
LORD HASTINGS: I shall move No. 9 briefly and No. 10 is not going to be moved. Here we have to consider two dates, and I think that we should be careful not to get them confused. The first is the initiating date for the transfer of functions and the subsequent period during which consequential problems will have to be sorted out. We know that the change will involve a big upheaval. That is inevitable in any major reorganisation. But this will happen whenever the change takes place—in 1965 or 1966; or it could be 1970 or later. There must be this upheaval at the moment of reorganisation, because the people who are now in the local government services in Greater London are the same people who will be running them, by and large, after the date of transfer. A few key officers will be employed by the new authorities before 1965 on a full-time or even on a part-time basis, but the great majority of the local government staff will stay with their present authorities until March 31, 1965, and then they will start with the new ones on the following day.
While some preparations can be made in advance, there are many problems which cannot be tackled and, indeed, will not even arise until the new system actually starts to operate: for example, the assimilation of staff from different councils into a unified hierarchy; the disentangling of records and the final adjustments. These are all the sort of things which will drag on for a long time, in some cases perhaps even years, before they are finally sorted out. So that there can be no question of postponing the changeover with the hope of solving all these problems for initial planning.
But the long time which it will take to clear up these subsequent problems is quite a different thing from the considerations which govern the right moment

45
for the initial transfer of responsibility. When we come to the date of the actual transfer of functions, we have to consider a balance of pros and cons. Will the advantages of postponing the changeover in the hope of being able to make more complete arrangements be outweighed by the disadvantage of prolonging the period of uncertainty? That is actually what it comes down to. We think it would be a mistake to think that local authorities who know they are going out of existence in a matter of months can possibly ignore this fact when making their forward plans. Uncertainty has a special impact on local government staff, and in this it is quite natural that they should be thinking where they will be better off and where they will be secure in their job. Uncertainty would also prejudice the possibility of filling the many existing vacancies which we know exist now in the complements of the present London authorities if they drag on in their uncertain position unnecessarily long. All these uncertainties must inevitably react upon the public for whom the services are provided. These uncertainties can only be removed when the new authorities are established, when they have taken over their responsibilities and can proceed to take final decisions.
It is for this reason that we feel that the balance of advantage, both for the local government officers and for the public, is to get the new system into operation as soon as practicable. Indeed, it seems to the Government that the spring of 1965 is the earliest possible date on which we can do that; but the Opposition believe that it cannot be done by then. This allows eleven months overlap with the new authorities existing side by side with the old ones, but (and I made this point on the Committee stage) nearly two years' preparation if you take into consideration the work of the joint committees which have been and are being set up now. It will undoubtedly mean hard work, but we have no guarantee that any longer delay would improve the preparations for the initial transfer functions, and we can say with certainty that it would prolong the uncertain period before the new system can get going, before firm plans can be made and before staff can settle down into new positions. Therefore we feel that there is no case for delaying the transfer of functions in
46
accordance with Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 for a full year.
That really brings me to the Amendment now moved by the noble Lord, Amendment No. 6, which has, as it appears, an ingenious device for delaying the transfer of some at least of the functions. One main argument that we feel must weigh heavily against taking powers to the Minister to allow six months' or even a year's delay in certain cases is that that alternative date would very likely become the target of people working towards the changeover instead of pressing on to end the uncertainties as soon as possible. If they felt it was possible to delay the transfer in certain matters, then the inclination might be to work towards that later date rather than the earlier one.
But dealing specifically with the suggestion in this Amendment, which, of course, is aimed at the transfer of the services now administered by the county councils, I should like to tell your Lordships that this possibility and several others were actually considered by the Government when the Bill was being drafted. There was also another variation to this—namely, that all county council functions should be handed over initially to the Greater London Council, to be transferred gradually to the boroughs after 1965. The Government came to the conclusion that the problems raised by these suggestions were so great as to make them really quite impracticable.
Now I will attempt to explain to noble Lords why, in the first place, this Amendment must surely mean retaining the county councils in substantial, if not full, operation for up to a year after the boroughs and the Greater London Council have become fully operative authorities—and that would include the Middlesex County Council and the London County Council, which at the date proposed in the Bill are supposed to disappear altogether. The Government propose an overlap between the old and new authorities of eleven months, but our proposal is different in so far as during this overlapping period only a small skeleton staff of key officers, planning for the date when they will take over both the functions and the staff of

47
the present authorities, would be involved. But the noble Lord's Amendment contemplates having the old and the new systems actually operating together. It is difficult to see how this could possibly work.
In the first place, where will the staff come from? Local authorities in London are already short of staff though only one system is operating. If the present county councils and all the new authorities are to be operating side by side, it is not sufficient to say that the staff will go on with the job. In many cases this may be the case, but the county councils and the new authorities will all need the headquarters and common service departments, containing, for instance, architects, engineers, accountants, lawyers and general administrators. Furthermore, it is difficult to see that local government staff will want to stay with the expiring county councils during the final twelve-months period when new posts are being filled in the boroughs and in the Greater London Council. It is asking a lot of them to do that.
Then, if county councils are to be retained in existence (this is only a small point of detail) it will mean, for instance, that Potters Bar and Sunbury and Staines will not be transferred to Hertfordshire and Surrey in 1965. There are all sorts of difficult technical points of that nature. In some boroughs county services would apparently be provided during this interim period by different counties in different areas. For instance, Middlesex and Surrey would both be responsible for parts of Borough No. 24, which of course would itself be fully operative and responsible and wishing to get its full complement of staff. Hertfordshire and Middlesex would share borough No. 30, and Surrey would retain its responsibilities in part only of borough No. 20, but not in the rest. These seem to us problems which it would be virtually impossible to overcome if we were to accept this Amendment.
Finally, what about local Acts? Reorganisation of London government involves looking at about 500 such Acts, as I explained during Committee stage. Will it be necessary to look at these Acts (I think it is going to be done under Clause 84; I cannot remember, offhand, but noble Lords know the clause well
48
enough) twice and amend them first in 1965, and then again in 1966, as a result of accepting this Amendment? It seems to the Government that the administrative complexities of accepting this Amendment would be enormous, and they would be guaranteed to disrupt the services by introducing a period of up to 12 months when there would be a genuine vacuum of authority: a period in which staff would not be able to settle down in their new posts, and in which administration and forward planning would be at a standstill. No method, we agree, is completely free from problems and difficulties, but the important thing is to place both services and staff with the authorities who will be responsible for them in future so as to bring uncertainty to an end and permit firm decisions to be taken. That is why the Government, although they appreciate what noble Lords are aiming at, do not wish to accept this Amendment, and why we wish to stand on the Bill as drafted at the moment. I hope that in the light of my arguments noble Lords may be able to withdraw their Amendment. If not, I must ask the House to support me in resisting it.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the matter, I wonder whether he would be kind enough to tell us—having declined to give the Minister this elbowroom that he can give to the authorities in the case of need—what he will do if in fact the fears of the chief officers of the London County Council prove to be justified and, to quote their words, "there is the grave risk of the breakdown of the local government services in London if the proposals of the Bill are carried out." This Amendment is only to give the Minister discretionary power. If it is rejected, what will the Minister do?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I think that is a perfectly legitimate question, and in fact it is one I put myself. I am informed that the Department and my right honourable friend are quite clear that this can be done. They do not contemplate that it will not be possible or that there will be a breakdown. That really is the answer.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, surely the noble Lord must anticipate—he has been long enough in the world to know—that "The best laid plans of mice and men, …"—I forget the end of it.
LORD SILKIN: "Gang aft agley."
LORD SHEPHERD: The point is that you can make your plans, and you can assess reasonably that they will go through. But something happens, and then, according to the Minister, chaos may reign because the Minister will not have discretionary power. I should have thought the advantage of this Amendment was that it would provide a safeguard where, over the wide range of transfer of powers, everything moves perfectly satisfactorily except perhaps in one essential service. Take education as an instance. The administration of education plays a very big part. Education is not merely the provision of teachers and of opening the schools in the morning. There is a good deal that goes on behind the scenes; in administration, the provision of books, paper, ink and many other things. If this were to break down, if the local authorities, with the best will in the world, were in difficulty, this Amendment would permit the Minister to delay for a period—it may be only a month, two months or it may be a year. It would give the Minister this degree of flexibility that is in the interests not only of the local authority itself but of the people who will be depending upon the local authority.
I do not know why the Government must be so obstinate in this matter. We are forced to accept this Bill. We are now trying, with no political motive, to see that the transfers take place with the least possible damage to local government. The noble Lord himself has recognised the importance and magnitude of the task. I wonder whether the noble Lord has gone down and spoken to some of the local authority officers—not those high up, like the major or colonel, who say, "Oh yes, we shall be able to deal with it". What really matters is what the sergeant-major thinks.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Not even the colonel.
LORD SHEPHERD: Depending upon the general. But in the end it is the sergeant-major, the sergeant and the corporal. If you were to go down to the local government officers who are intimately connected with providing the services to the electors, you would find that they are deeply worried about the ability to transfer in the time in which the Government permit them to do it.
50
If this Amendment were accepted it would not alter the principle of the Bill; it might not even have to be used. If the confidence of the Government and the Ministers is so great, if they believe that all they have said will go through, they will not have any fear in accepting this Amendment. The purpose of this Amendment is to help them if their confidence goes wrong—and, with the best will in the world, all these plans can go wrong. We do not want to see a breakdown of local government—I do not believe there is a noble Lord opposite who wishes to see that. If this Amendment were agreed to, it would be a great safeguard in preventing any major breakdown, because the Minister would have power to hold, but not for an indefinite period. This is not a wrecking Amendment. It would be possible to hold a particular transfer for a month. I would not have thought, that that was unreasonable, but the Government appear to think it is. I hope my noble friend will press this, and I hope that he will have the support from the liberal-minded Members opposite.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, there seems to be an underlying thread through the Government's attitude towards all these Amendments which, in spite of the light words the noble Lord used at the end of his speech, I think is borne out by one phrase he used, referring to this as a curious device.
LORD HASTINGS: I said "ingenious device."
LORD WALSTON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. That implies that there is nothing particularly ingenious in this as a method of dealing with a straightforward problem. But the fact that he used the words "ingenious device" implies, and the whole of the actions of the Government imply, that they look upon our Amendments put down on this side as a means of undermining the Bill. We have made no secret, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd said, of the fact that we are opposed to the Bill. But we have to accept it. The Government have the force to push it through. That we have to accept. What we are now doing is simply attempting to see that this Bill, which we did not from the beginning like, will work when it becomes an Act. I believe that if the Government accept that, and look on these Amendments in

51
this light, rather than as some ingenious device by which the Bill can be undermined, they would benefit themselves, they would benefit the country, and realise that a good many of these suggestions we are putting forward are not only honest but are extremely competent and sensible.
I do not want to labour the points that my noble friends have made, but we all agree that this is an extremely complicated transaction that has been brought about. Although there are preparatory committees already sitting, we must not lost sight of the fact that we are organising and legislating for a democratic, not a bureaucratic, form of government. So, no matter how many committees may sit now, no final decision can possibly be taken until the democratically elected representatives of the new area have been elected, have sat and selected their sub-committees, and these sub-committees have met. Therefore, although preliminary work will be of value to them, it is entirely wrong and completely antidemocratic to say that much time will be saved or that any decision can be taken until these committees have met.
This is not going to give them eleven months, which is from the date of the actual sitting of the first council, but something more like nine months before these various sub-committees will have started. They will then have a great deal of work to do. I think that it will be little short of a miracle if every one of these complicated functions of the new authority could be settled in a democratic way—assuming that the committees are not going to be a rubber stamp of the bureaucratic committees which are already sitting—or could be settled satisfactorily in the particular period of time which has been laid down in the Bill.
There is also, of course, a further point which I do not think is entirely negligible, which is the purely personal factor of the officers involved in this change-over. Any of your Lordships who have experience of mergers or changes in local government authorities of one kind or another, know perfectly well that for some reason or another, for example, those who are nearing retirement age, there are people who do not want to move out straight away—and there is a difficulty there—and there are those who do not want to take on
52
a new job until perhaps nine or twelve months have elapsed. It may well be that these are people who are suitable for these new appointments, are not available for them within the short period of eleven months but who could easily become available within eighteen months. But those people are going to be pushed out entirely. It is going to make the whole staffing problem very much more difficult—and the noble Lord has already admitted that staffing problems are very difficult—if this rigid figure of eleven months is adhered to.
I believe that if any of us who are interested in the efficient and smooth transition from one form of local government to another look at this objectively, we must agree that it is only right that, while pressing on (as the noble Lord said, and as I agree) as fast as possible with the change-over, there should be scope left to enlarge the time by a maximum of another twelve months. The only argument against that which I can see, as was the case in an earlier Amendment, as I mentioned, is that the present Minister does not trust his successor to make the right decision. If, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd said, there is no need for this to be used, no harm would be done by adopting it because it would simply become a dead letter. If there is a Minister who is trustworthy and reliable, he will undoubtedly refuse all frivolous and unnecessary applications for delay; and I quite accept the fact that there may be such applications, for people do not want to be hurried, and if they are told to do a thing in eleven months, it is rather more comfortable to have fifteen.
It is only a Minister who does not do his job properly and is swayed by invalid arguments who will get into difficulties in this way. Maybe the present Minister does not feel that he will be there and does not trust his successor, if he knows who it is going to be. That is the only reason I can think of. But, surely the ground that you do not believe that the man who is going to come after you and who is going to have to make the decisions is incapable of making them properly is not a very sound reason for refusing a perfectly reasonable and helpful Amendment.
I ask the noble Lord, above all, to clear from his mind this aura of mistrust that he has of everything which comes

53
from this side. We are not here now simply to make things difficult by being ingenious and using this device he has spoken of to undermine this Bill, bad as we think it is. We are here now to make the best of a bad and unnecessary Bill and to hope that some of the Amendments which we put forward will be listened to by the Government, because without them we believe that there
5.35 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on changes made during the Committee stage to what are now Clauses 82, 86 and 88. A series of Amendments was then accepted, the purpose of which was to ensure that Acts applying solely to the present administrative county of London area were adopted or amended by only one procedure, whether they are technically listed as Local Acts or General Acts. The previous Amendments provided that Public Acts extending only to the L.C.C. area should be treated as if they were Local Acts for this purpose, and hence this Amendment provides that such Acts shall not come within the scope of Clause 4, which
will be a great deal of hardship, suffering and inefficiency as a result of this Government measure.
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Greenhill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Henderson, L.

Silkin, L.

Amwell, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Sinha, L.

Archibald, L.

Latham, L.

Stonham, L.

Attlee, E.

Lawson, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williams, L.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Peddie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Faringdon, L.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Fortescue, E.

Milverton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Monsell, V.

Boston, L.

Hastings, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Chesham, L.

Hawke, L.

Newton, L.

Clwyd L.

Hereford, V.

Rockley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colyton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Just, L.

Conesford, L.

Howe, E.

Salter, L.

De La Warr, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Saltoun, L.

Denham, L.

Lambert, V.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L,

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Soulbury, V.

Devonshire, D.

Lothian, M.

Spens, L.

Dundee, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Swinton, E.

Dundonald, E.

Mansfield, E.

Waleran, L.

Falmouth, V.

Margesson, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Ferrers, F.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Westwood, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

deals with the application and interpretation of Public Acts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 44, at end insert—
("and this section shall not apply to any enactment contained in an Act extending only to the administrative county of London.")—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD SILKEN: My Lords, I do not pretend that I understand this, even after the very clear explanation of the noble Lord, but I am informed by those who are in a better position to understand this Amendment that it is defective and I believe the Minister has been so informed. I should be grateful, even if the noble Lord requires permission to explain the Amendment further, if he would go into this question. My informants are people who are in a very good

55
position to form an opinion. Unfortunately I cannot explain what the defects are. They have been explained to the Ministry, and I think it would be right that the noble Lord should ex- plain to the House if there are any doubts about this Amendment, and what they are and what is the answer. I can keep discussion going while the noble Lord goes to the Officials Box to find out. I may say that my information comes from the London County Council, and they are usually accurate and well-informed on these matters. If there is any defect in this Amendment it would be just is well that we should have it cleared up. Alternatively, I would ask the noble Lord to keep this matter in mind and have another look at it, and it can always be put down again at a further stage of the Bill. Perhaps that would be the wisest course. I suggest the right thing may well be that the noble Lord should take this Amendment back and put it down again if he is satisfied and can satisfy the House.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this matter really arises out of previous Amendments at the Committee stage. I remember explaining then that it was a complicated matter, but there are evidently some Local Acts of a public nature which deal only with the L.C.C. area. Therefore it was considered easier that this matter should be dealt with in a different way from our Public Acts and they should be dealt with in the same way as Private Acts applied by the L.C.C. We thought it was sensible to provide that local provisions confined to Greater London should all be dealt with in the same way, and if this Amendment is defective then the previous one was presumably defective. However, my information is that although some doubts have been expressed by the L.C.C., the Department has been into this matter and is quite satisfied that these Amendments are in order. On that basis I think it would be convenient if we could accept this Amendment, but of course I will make further enquiries. If we happen to be wrong I will move it out again at Third Reading, but I am told we are right.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, it may be that that is the only way out. I should have thought from what I have seen of
56
what has been said by the London County Council, the people who have looked at this subject, that there is a complete contradiction between this insertion and the beginning of subsection (4) and subsection (5). The piece that is going in says:
"… this section shall not apply to any enactment contained in an Act extending only to the administrative county of London."
Subsection (4) starts:
"Any existing enactment to the effect that any provision does not apply or refer, or applies or refers only, to the administrative county of London. …"
Subsection (5) begins:
"Where, under any existing enactment which by virtue of subsection (4) of this section applies to Greater London other than the outer London boroughs. …"
I would have thought there is a contradiction in negatives there. But perhaps the right thing to do is to leave this in the hope that it can be looked at and, if it is as wrong, as I think it is, it can be put right at Third Reading.
LORD HASTINGS: I am informed there is no contradiction, and the Amendment refers to whole Acts extending only to London. I will look at it again, but we are quite confident this is right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Alteration of boundaries of or within Greater London]:
5.42 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE)THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE) moved, in subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (c) to insert:
"or

(d) under subsection (3A) of this section".

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it would be convenient to take this Amendment and Amendment 11A, which is linked with it, together. They are both intended to meet the substance of the Opposition Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, No. 11. The Government still believe that the grounds on which that Amendment. No. 11, was previously resisted, both here and in another place, are basically sound, that alterations to local Government boundaries can have so many repercussions for the administration of services, for matters affecting employment of staff, over finance, and even for non-administrative matters such

57
as areas of jurisdiction of courts and coroners, that proposals for such alterations should be made only by the local authorities concerned; because we feel that they are in the best position to weigh up all the consequential effects of possible boundary changes. We do not depart from that basic standpoint.
Nevertheless, I am moving these Amendments for two reasons, partly as a concession to the views expressed here and in another place—this reasonable Government always listens to a case reasonably put, as noble Lords will know. My second reason for moving these Amendments is that save for two places—Epsom and Ewell and Chigwell—the outer boundary of Greater London has not been the subject of detailed consideration; elsewhere the existing local government boundaries are being adopted in the Bill unchanged. We shall expect that any proposals to amend the outer boundary will in fact come through the local authorities. Nevertheless, these Amendments provide another exceptional way in which the matter may be raised through the initiative of the local electors concerned.
I think there are six main effects of these Amendments if they are adopted. The first is that proposals for boundary changes made in this way would be limited to the outer boundary of Greater London. I think that applies to Lord Silkin's Amendment too. The second is that they could not be made before April 1, 1965—that is when the new local authorities come into effective operation—or after April 1, 1970. The Amendments create a special machinery for drawing attention to alleged anomalies in the boundary, but we feel that this special machinery, this sword of Damocles, should not be left hanging over the local authorities concerned indefinitely. I should have thought it right to provide a cut-off date, which is not provided in Lord Silkin's Amendment, and a five year period would seem to be about reasonable.
The third effect is that applications must come from electors living in areas which the proposals would transfer. Here, again, there is a difference between these Amendments and Lord Silkin's, in that his would affect anyone in the borough concerned, not merely the part of the borough which might be transferred. The fourth effect is that the proposals would
58
need the support of 300 local government electors or 10 per cent. of the local government electorate of the area concerned, whichever is the larger. It is only 10 per cent. of the part in dispute, likely or not to be transferred. The extra requirement which we have brought in here has been imported in order to make sure that the organisers of any secession movement do not propose a large area than they want to get out just to get up to the 300 mark.
The fifth effect is that the Amendment is restricted to take areas out of London. The sixth effect is that no such proposals could be made under this new machinery to transfer any part of Epsom and Ewell or Chigwell, although the rest of this machinery would operate there. That is because the boundaries of these areas, unlike all other boundaries, are provided for in the Bill and these have been gone into very carefully. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will accept that these Amendments go at least some way, and I think they go almost the whole way, to meet the point which is covered in his Amendment, and I hope they will prove acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 18, at end insert ("or (d) under subsection (3A) of this section").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I would agree with the noble Earl that these Amendments go some way towards meeting the Amendment which I moved on the Committee stage, but I would not agree with him they go nearly all the way. For one thing, I am still not clear why these two areas are omitted—that is Chigwell and Epsom and Ewell. Why are they excepted? I understand the reason for most of the six conditions that the noble Earl laid down. What I do not understand is why this should be limited to 1970. Circumstances could arise at any time. The case I made on Committee was that circumstances might arise in the future which would make it desirable in the public interest that there should be changes in the boundaries. And although it is true that these changes can be initiated by the local authorities themselves, by the London boroughs, I sought to show that if you could get a sufficient number of local government electors immediately adjoining the

59
boundary they should have the right themselves to make representations. I agree with the noble Lord that it is right that they should be actually resident in the area, and I agree with him that they should constitute at least 10 per cent. of the total electorate. I think I cannot complain about them. What I am complaining of is, first of all, that certain areas are omitted, and, secondly, that it is restricted to 1970. I think those are the two major points on which we are in disagreement.
On the second point, the noble Earl talked about the sword of Damocles hanging over the head of somebody. I was not sure over whose head it was hanging. But, after all, there is already in the Bill machinery for altering the boundaries, and that is not restricted to 1970. Therefore, from that argument the sword of Damocles is still hanging over somebody's head. It is merely one additional method of altering the boundaries at the request of 300 electors resident in the area, and constituting not less than 10 per cent. of the total electorate. I cannot see that that is different in character from the other methods; and I would hope that, even now, while accepting this, the noble Earl would be prepared to look at the matter again and see whether he can explain why these two areas are omitted and why this has to be restricted to 1970.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if I have the permission of the House to speak again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his muted welcome to these Amendments. I should like to deal briefly—I am sure your Lordships will expect me to be brief—with the two points that he has raised. I thought that I had explained why these two districts had been excluded from the effect of these particular two Amendments. In fact it is because they are the only peripheral districts for which the Bill itself lays down new boundaries; these particular stretches of the outer boundary have thus been settled, unlike the rest, in detail by the Bill, and, indeed, they have been subject, and are still likely to be subject, to considerable discussion at all stages in both Houses. In that respect, they are in an exceptional position so far as the whole peripheral area is concerned.
60
As regards the cut-off date, I have explained why I felt that this was an exceptional procedure, why it seemed reasonable that it should not be left hanging indefinitely over the heads of the local authorities—it was the local authorities over whose heads this sword hung. It is quite true, as the noble Lord has said, that there is other machinery which could be invoked for effecting boundary changes; but in those cases, unlike in this particular one, it would be the local authorities themselves who would be wielding the sword. It was for those reasons that we provided for this cut-off date, which I still think is reasonable. I would suggest to your Lordships that we have gone rather further than the noble Lord allowed for in meeting the wishes and views which have been expressed on this point in both Houses, and I am afraid that I cannot promise to undertake to go any further. I think it would be wrong for me to hold out any hope that I should be able to.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 10A. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 41, at end insert—
("(3A) In the case of a London borough contiguous with a county, at any time after 31st March 1965 and before 1st April 1970 proposals for the transfer from that borough to that county of a part of that borough which is so contiguous, not being a part falling wholly or partly within the existing urban district of Chigwell or the existing borough of Epsom and Ewell, may be made to the Minister by any three hundred or more local government electors residing in that part of the borough and together constituting not less than ten per cent. of the total number of local government electors so residing.")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to delete the application of all but Sections 148 and 149 of the 1933 Act relating to supplemental and miscellaneous provisions. The deleted references deal, among other things, with the transfer and compensation of officers, and to this extent the Amendment is consequential upon Amendments that I moved in Committee in your Lordships' House. All such matters come within the terms of what is now Clause 84, like other transfer and

61
compensation arrangements consequent upon the re-organisation of London government. Also deleted are the references to financial adjustments between authorities affected by any order altering boundaries. But this provision is already taken up and applied by Clause 83 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 43, leave out from ("148") to ("to") in line 45 and insert ("and 149 of the said Act of 1933").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The London Boroughs]:
LORD SHEPHERDhad given notice of his intention to move to increase from 4 to 8 the initial number of councillors on the Greater London Council from the new London Borough (1). The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I rise to deal with this particular Amendment and the consequential Amendments. We made a good case on Committee for increasing the number of councillors on the Greater London Council. We put down this Amendment because we felt that the Government might respond to the case that was made; but in view of their obstinate and, I am afraid, disastrous attitude on a previous Amendment in which we were asking for some flexibility in regard to the boroughs, it seems to us of little purpose that we should have a sterile debate on this important matter. Therefore, after consultation with my noble friends, it has been decided that we should not move Amendment No. 13.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House—the Opposition always try to help if they can in this respect—if I were to indicate that it is not our intention to move Amendments Nos. 14 to 33. When the noble Lord at present on the Woolsack, Lord Airedale, rises, perhaps he will put them en bloc and we can signify our intention not to move. That might perhaps speed up affairs.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, Amendment No. 13 is not moved; nor are Amendments Nos. 14 to 33.
5.59 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND moved, in the reference to the new Borough 20, to delete "and the urban district of Coulsdon and Purley". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move this Amendment
62
which seeks to prevent Purley and Coulsdon from being linked with Croydon under this scheme. An Amendment on these lines was moved on the Committee stage but was rejected by the Government. I now seek to raise this matter again. I feel that I shall not get far, but I think I am at least entitled to put forward some points in favour of our case. As I pointed out on the Committee stage of the Bill, Croydon has a population of some 240,000. Added to this, some 90,000 are going to be concerned from Coulsdon and Purley. So far as I know, there was no local inquiry into this change. Croydon do not desire it; Coulsdon and Purley do not desire it. There will be considerable difficulties in administration, because I am informed that there is no civic centre of sufficient size to house what is necessary under the terms of this change. Civic centres cannot be pushed up overnight.
During the Committee stage of this Bill my noble friend Lord Hastings made what I thought was a rather curious statement, when he said that the working population of Coulsdon and Purley mostly travel to London to their place of business. It is quite true that a number do, but it is also the case that a good many people work in Croydon, and many new offices have been set up in that area. I should have thought that it was in the interests of decentralising the population of London for more people from Coulsdon and Purley to work in Croydon. If the sort of argument used by the Minister is to be put forward, one might equally well say that people travel to their work in London from Brighton, from Bishop's Stortford, from Redhill or Eastbourne; yet none of these places is going into the Greater London Authority. Therefore, that argument alone seems to me wildly illogical. Caterham and Watlingham are excluded from the proposals of this plan, but they surely, geographically at least, would form just as much a part of Croydon as would Coulsdon and Purley. We have had few assurances about the Green Belt area. Are the Greater London Authority going to get their hands on the Green Belt? Coulsdon and Purley have a very fine record of local administration, and they are also the second largest authority in Surrey. It is surely contrary to the interests of local government to have this massive authority set up.
I do not propose to delay the House with further arguments, but I should have thought the argument that one should give more incentive to local government would have prevented the Government from introducing this amalgamation which will lead to something like 330,000 people living under this administration. Therefore, I beg the Government at least to think again. I ask my noble friend whether he will consult again with his right honourable friend, bearing in mind the tremendous opposition there is to this plan, both in Croydon and in the two other areas concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 107, line 42, leave out from ("Croydon") to the end of line 43.—(Lord Auckland.)
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I have great pleasure in supporting my noble friend in his Amendment and in agreeing with all the excellent arguments he has put up. One of the most astonishing of all the astonishing things contained in this Bill was the original idea that all these places that string out into the country should be added on to the already large conglomeration that is Croydon. I entirely agree with the noble Lord when he said that it would be just as reasonable for Warlingham and Cater-ham to be added on to Croydon—indeed it was the original intention that they should be in; but they were then struck out. Now we are left with the Purley area straggling along outside this great new, almost city, as Croydon has become.
Only those of your Lordships who have been to Croydon in the last year or two will understand to what extent this very go-ahead place, with its very large population, has made itself a clearly civic-centred organisation. Those of us who have been down to see Fairfield Hall and all the district surrounding will know that there is something which anyone would be proud to possess as a centre—a proper cultural centre, a local government centre, a centre around which one finds the businesses and other organisations. The noble Lord was more than right when he spoke of the new development of these buildings. The Government's plan has been carried out there, if nowhere else, in trying to get people out. The Royal Automobile Club Touring Department now occupies one whole
64
building in Croydon. I cannot see the sense in adding on this other area. I can perhaps see an argument for saying that as one comes on down the main road from Streatham into Norbury and goes on into Croydon one cannot find a break, and therefore it ought to be part of this new Greater London. But when one goes on from there and tries to tuck in a countrified area I find it impossible to visualise any sense in that at all. I support the noble Lord completely in this matter. I hope that he will take this Amendment to a Division.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I do not intend to deploy at the same length the same argument that I used on Committe stage. I would only repeat the essential parts of it. First, the services for which Greater London needs to be treated as a whole are those dealing with the physical environment: planning, traffic main roads, main drainage and certain aspects of housing. These are essentially related to the built-up area, and the main principle upon which the Government have proceeded is that the new system of local government should embrace the whole of what now constitutes the continuous development which is present-day London. It should include all the built-up area within the Green Belt and no less.
The essential question is whether a particular area on the fringe is properly to be regarded as part of the continuous built-up town. Decisions have not always been easy to reach, because around the fringes of Greater London, especially on the southern side, the boundary of the built-up area is not always clear cut. When considering claims from local authorities who urge that their districts should be excluded the Government have done their best to accede to these claims wherever they could; and during earlier stages a number of districts, including Warlingham and Caterham, which have been mentioned, and which the Royal Commission wished to include in Greater London, have now been left out. But we do not feel that it can be said of the developed parts of Coulsdon and Purley that they should not be regarded as part of the continuous town. After all, the development extends in a substantial and unbroken belt southwards from Croydon. I know that there is a lot of Green Belt land in Coulsdon and

65
Purley, but it is all on the outer fringe of the district; the developed area is to the north, and immediately adjacent to other development in London.
I would remind my noble friend Lord Auckland that the Minister has said on more than one occasion that the machinery of Clause 6 will be available for proposing boundary adjustments later, and the Amendment which has just been moved by my noble friend allows 300 electors to make application for what admittedly will be minor adjustments. As regards the developed area, the only break to the north is formed by Croydon Airport, as I pointed out on the last occasion; but most of that airport is now going to be developed and there will not be much of an open space there, which will make the built-up area itself even more unified and solidified than it is at the moment. The Government have never disputed the fact that Croydon does not particularly want to have Coulsdon and Purley joined to it. But, if I may say so, with respect, that is not relevant to the question of whether or not Coulsdon or Purley is part of the continuous built-up area. While we are well aware that local opinion is against us on this point, and although we sympathise as much as we can with that feeling, we feel that we cannot base the reorganisation of local government solely on that one factor.
The noble Lord will remember that during the Committee stage I reminded him of nine factors which have to be considered, and these were: community of interest; development and expected development; economic and industrial characteristics; financial resources measured in relation to needs; physical factors; the size and distribution of the population; the record of administration of the authorities concerned, and the size and shape of the areas of local government. So that, although local opinion is against this amalgamation we could not, as I have said, regard that as a decisive factor. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope to the noble Lord that we are having second thoughts upon this subject. Therefore, I have no alternative but to ask your Lordships to resist the Amendment.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, having thought about this matter, I must say that we have some
66
sympathy with the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved. The area is known to us pretty well; indeed, my noble friend Lord Crook has risen to support the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved. I do not think it is necessary for me to add to the argument. I can only say that I am very glad to be told by my noble friend Lord Crook that the noble Lord has let it be known locally, as was prominently reported in the local Press, that he will go through with the good fight all the way and will press the case. In the circumstances, therefore, if the noble Lord decides to go to a Division I will recommend my noble friends to support him in the Division Lobby. But it is for the noble Lord to decide whether or not he wishes a Division. If he does not, we shall not press it, although we think he is right.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I am bound to say that I am not very impressed with the reply of my noble friend Lord Hastings, although I think he has taken a good deal of trouble over what he has said. I do not propose to press this Amendment at this stage, but I reserve the right to move the Amendment again on Third Reading. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND moved, in the reference to borough 23, to delete the reference to Epsom and Ewell. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage of the Bill this Amendment made history, in that your Lordships were kept sitting until twenty minutes to three in the morning; and if I caused any of your Lordships to suffer from undue lack of sleep on that occasion I apologise. But the hour is nothing like so late now, and I propose to move the same Amendment. I shall doubtless get the same reply from my noble friend, but at least I think it can be said that at the hour of the original moving your Lordships were not perhaps so receptive as at this rather earlier hour. Nevertheless, my Lords, we were defeated by only 17 votes, and in another place the Government secured a majority of only 30 when the Amendment was moved on that occasion.
I do not propose to weary your Lordships with a long catalogue of what I

67
said on the Committee stage of this Bill. I would say only that my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton, who has rendered distinguished service during his period as Member of Parliament for Epsom, made what I thought was a cast-iron case for the Amendment when it was moved on the Committee stage. I would say again that, when there was a meeting in March, 1962, at the Epsom Baths Hall, something like 2,000 people attended and the vote against the three Northern wards of Epsom going into London was unanimous. On a poll 95 per cent. of the local people have set themselves against being incorporated. I know that the Government will argue that pressure groups of this kind are not necessarily reasons for altering laws; and that is, in a sense, a fair enough comment. But these proposals are unique, in that one entire authority is having three wards indiscriminately hacked off and put into another authority, which does not want us anyway.
The repercussions of the change will be considerable. We shall have a loss of population of some 20,000, and this may well have an adverse effect on the rates. Education is also going to be a problem. Earlier to-day I was talking to a man who has lived in Cuddington for the last twelve years. Two of his children go to schools in the area that will remain in Surrey, and there is great concern as to what will happen to children who will continue going to school in the Surrey area, but who will reside in the Greater London Authority's area. I would ask the noble Lord, even if he cannot tell me the answer to-day, to ascertain what will happen to these children—because there is also the problem of school places. Will priority go to those children who will live in the new Surrey, as against children who may have lived for many years in the area which will be under the Greater London
My Lords, there is another point, and that is that the borough of Epsom and Ewell is in the diocese of Guildford, but is this one of them?
Council? There are, I know, a number of safeguards in the Bill for many things, Many people living in these three northern wards have contributed to the building of the new Guildford Cathedral. I know this is a hypothetical question, but
68
what will happen so far as the diocese is concerned to these three northern wards? Will they remain in the diocese of Guildford, or will they go into Southwark? I know there is a lot of local feeling on this, because many, as I say, have had connections with this cathedral. This may not be a practical point, but it is certainly a cogent one. Now I myself lived for four years in Stoneleigh, which is one of the wards which is going to be put into London. I mentioned this point on Second Reading, and I say again that the residents' association there, and all the local people there, are opposed to this move. There was no facility given for a local public inquiry into this. I know that the Government will say, "We cannot have local inquiries into every boundary change", and I agree; but this is a unique case. It is not merely an ordinary, small-scale boundary move: it affects a whole borough. It affects all kinds of things: it affects the people's daily lives, and many of the public services.
So far as the grouping is concerned, Esher was reprieved, although the argument that this forms one continuous area applies to Esher far more than to Epsom. Esher, I am told, has the same planning authority as Surbiton, the same medical officer of health and all kinds of other services. Epsom has none of these things. It is a very self-contained borough, and many of these services are used by people living well outside the area. As I said on Committee stage, Cuddington, which is one of the areas affected, goes back in history to the twelfth century. I know that these are moral issues rather than practical ones, but we as a Government have always been forerunners of local government. But what is local about this? An area going back 800 years in history is going to be impersonally thrown into another local authority.
As I say, so far as the Green Belt is concerned, what is going to happen to the Hogsmill area, where there is this vital line? There are, I think, somewhat nebulous assurances given that the Greater London Authority will bear it in mind that it is Green Belt, but we have already had ominous nibblings into the Green Belt by these authorities. Can the Government give a categorical assurance that this area will be protected?—because it is an issue of tremendous and vital local importance. It seems to

69
me that this proposal is rather like some of the cooks that one knew in the Services, who got hold of a nice, succulent joint of meat and hacked it about indiscriminately—because this is what is happening to Epsom under this proposal.
I know that the Royal Commission recommended this and a number of other boundary changes, but there seems to me to be absolutely no need for this move. It has been opposed by all Parties in Epsom, and even at this late hour I would beseech the Government to have second thoughts. I know I am probably battling against a brick wall, but there has been an almost complete absence of inquiry into this issue. The Minister saw a local deputation, but one of the conditions was that he would not discuss severance. That, my Lords, is the whole point of the objection to this move. Severance is what is not wanted. Also, as I have just said, there has been absolutely no facility for a public inquiry.
Many of your Lordships serve on local authorities, and I would ask that this matter be judged not on Party lines but entirely on the merits of the case. I repeat that 95 per cent. of the people in Epsom—which is not a Socialist borough; anything but—have declared themselves against this move. If no satisfactory answer is forthcoming from the Government, I shall certainly press it to the Lobby. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 10, column 2, leave out from ("Surbiton") to the end of line 13.—(Lord Auckland.)
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I would wish to support this Amendment, and I apologise to your Lordships if I speak rather feelingly and from the heart in this matter, and possibly rather emotionally, because I was privileged to represent Epsom—the finest seat in England, I regarded it, from a political point of view—for a considerable number of years, and I grew to love the place. I grew to realise the civic pride of those who live at Epsom and Ewell, and to see it dismembered in this way fills me with disgust.
On Thursday night last I was going rather late to catch the night sleeping-car train from Glasgow to London, and I was tapped on the shoulder by a man
70
on the station who said, "Excuse me you do not know me, but I live in Epsom. Good luck to you in seeing if you can preserve our borough". That was on Glasgow station, and it struck me very much. This is a plea from the heart to try to save Epsom from being carved up in a quite brutal manner, merely to satisfy some idea of planning, by means of a compass, numbers and population, in a room in Whitehall.
I am one of those who have been brought up to believe—and I think this is so of all noble Lords here—that local government, the mayor, the corporation and civic spirit are all good things. I have been brought up to believe that the touchstone of democracy in our country is really represented in our local government even more than in Parliamentary Government. There is scarcely any one of your Lordships who has ever been to a mayor's banquet or to speak in local elections, or to address primary and secondary schoolboys who has not urged them to take an interest in local government and gather knowledge of local affairs before they go on to wider things. How many times in another place has it not been said, "Why does anybody come to Parliament before serving local government?" which is the best school in which to learn to serve national politics. Yet here we are, quite deliberately smashing local government in a borough contiguous to London, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, says, goes back in history 700 or 800 years. We are smashing it up quite unnecessarily just to suit the planners.
I have often made speeches of this sort; and I hate the fact that Her Majesty's Government apparently regard such appeals to civic pride and local government, and all the rest, as so much cant and humbug—and I use these words advisedly—because that is what is being done. There is not the slightest necessity for Epsom to be dismembered by the Bill, as it is going forward in its plan for a new London government. Our Amendment does not affect the main principle of the Bill in any degree. I would urge, even at this late stage, that Her Majesty's Government should think again, and think of the people in the Epsom division who have unanimously demanded—and in a way in which I am assured by representatives of that borough is quite unprecedented

71
—that they remain together. I am not this afternoon going to argue the exact delineations. It is enough to say that Mr. Chuter Ede, our most famous Epsom citizen, said of them in another place, "The boundary proposed in the Bill would be a laughing stock so long as it existed." Mr. Ede knows more about Epsom and Ewell than any other man living; he said it would be a laughing stock.
I cannot imagine why this proposal is going forward. I think we proved during the early hours of the morning when this Amendment was moved in the Committee stage—and after 2 o'clock in the morning we naturally did not have a very big House—that the boundary between the three disputed wards and Surbiton, to which they wished to send them, was a boundary marked beyond peradventure. There is the Hogsmill river; there is a large Green Belt, which Her Majesty's Government are pledged to continue; there is the Kingston Bypass, which is a death-trap to anybody trying to cross it. Yet those three wards are to be shoved over this barrier and into Kingston. I am afraid I was rather rude, at 2 o'clock in the morning, and said it was adding insult to injury to send people from Epsom and Ewell into Surbiton and Kingston. I did not mean to say anything rude about Surbiton and Kingston. But Epsom does not want to go there.
To amplify what I am trying to say, I realise that problems of amalgamation, delineations and adjustments of local government boundaries always raise sore points; but there should be some overwhelming reason before areas which have come together are broken up. Local government commission regulations in 1938 set out such important over-riding considerations in alphabetical order in their list; and the first of all was that
"Community of interest should be assured."
There is a definite community of interest grown up between the different wards in Epsom and Ewell and the 71,000 people who live there. Therefore, I say it should be some overwhelming reason before that community of interest is broken up. We are one community in Epsom.
I would say, further, that Epsom is the sonly borough that is being treated in this way in the area around London.
72
There are a lot of boroughs around London; they are all maintaining their own position, none of them is being carved up except Epsom and Ewell—one of the most delightful of them all. As the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said, the Government have not been consistent in this matter, because they are treating Esher quite differently from Epsom. I do not urge them to cut out Esher as well; that would be the last thing I would urge. But it makes somewhat of a mockery of the excuses put forward for this arrangement. But may I make an appeal—I am afraid it is a late one and it is difficult to put into words—that having got this community, this civic pride—the pride that makes the crowds come out to meet the mayor when he is elected each year, the pride that gives people an interest in local government, and the pride that has decided our town clerk (and, although he is here, I say that he is one of the finest in the country) to elect to stay there for the last fourteen years, when I know he has had splendid opportunities to go elsewhere, but his civic pride in the place is such that he wanted to serve there—we should endeavour to keep it. But it is all to be swept away.
I beg the two Ministers to talk to their right honourable friend and ask him to get way from the harsh, cold-blooded dissection of communities in the precincts of Whitehall by means of compasses and alphabetical orders and numbers, and get down to the heart of the people. Parliament is nothing if it does not represent the people of this country. The people of Epsom unite unanimously in begging Her Majesty's Government to leave them as they are; to allow them to get on and make as good a show as they are making of their own civic pride, their own boroughs, their own wards and own education and all the things that they endeavour to look after. Let them be! Do not smash them! Do not make a humbug of what we mean by pride in civic spirit in this country.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, if I may say so, with due respect to everyone else who has spoken in the course of the many days we have debated this Bill, the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat has made one of the best speeches to which I have listened. It was "on the nail" and right to the

73
point. It was full of courage and full of informative knowledge. I have had the pleasure of knowing the noble Lord for many years, during the war when he was connected with the Ministry of Labour, when he was M.P. for the next constituency to me, although he holds views of a different political complexion from any I have had. I always knew him to be a courageous Member of the other place; and now he has shown this in your Lordships' House. I should like to say, on behalf of the more limited number of Socialists in the area who have been working with the members of the Conservative Party in Surrey, how grateful I am to him for the support he has given to the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, has moved.
Of course, this is quite an absurd decision. It was even more absurd when it started—though I am not sure that even that is true. It started as a decision to put the whole of Epsom into the Greater London area. Then somebody reminded the, Leader of the House in another place that that would have moved the Epsom race course and the Derby into London, and he thought better of it and looked at it again. Then they took this illogical decision, completely contrary to any single thought that had ever occurred before. Some of us who lived there before the place had a charter remember that one of the things inherent in the application for a charter was that the two parts had to be joined together to make one borough in order to get the charter at all. And 25 years ago last August, our old friend Mr. Chuter Ede became Mayor of this new borough, which has developed more and more in civic consciousness and enthusiasm, some of which we saw when Her Majesty the Queen opened the new wing of Epsom College.
I do not understand this proposal, but then I do not understand many of the things the Government think they are going to do in this Bill. I do not understand the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. I do not understand why he did not divide on the last occasion. I read in the local paper that when he addressed the local Conservative Party the week before last, he said that he was going to do so. I am sure, after listening to
74
the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, that we may have that opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, also referred to education. I would recall that on Committee stage we moved a number of Amendments on education, and we are going to move them again. I would draw the noble Lord's attention particularly to Amendment No. 117, to Clause 30, which was moved on the last occasion by my noble friend Lord Longford. On behalf of Surrey, Conservative and Labour alike, I supported the establishment of an East Surrey Education Authority. The noble Lord will have a chance of righting the anomalies he referred to, so far as education is concerned, when we reach Clause 30 and Amendment No. 117. I congratulate both noble Lords who have raised this Amendment and I hope that fellow residents in Surrey will join them in the Division Lobby, if they take it to a Division.
6.43 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, like certain other matters which we are discussing on Report stage, this Amendment was discussed at considerable length in another place and also at some length during our Committee stage; but, as my noble friend Lord Auckland has fairly recalled, that was at the witching hour—or twisting hour, if that is the more appropriate phrase—of 2 a.m. For this reason, if for no other, I agree that my noble friends have been fully entitled to revert to the charge, even though they took the matter to a Division last time and failed in that Division.
There is another reason why my noble friends are fully entitled to come back to the Government on this matter. I do not think that anybody who has heard my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton speaking to this Amendment will doubt that there is a strong sense of civic identity and pride in Epsom and Ewell. We recognise it, and the importance of it. I must say that I thought my noble friend went a little far in suggesting that these factors were not appreciated by the Government. Of course they are; and of course we know that these proposals have aroused very strong feeling in the locality. But that said, I have no complaint

75
that my noble friends should seek once again to get our proposals rejected. Perhaps I may add, since I have referred to the strength of local feeling on this matter, that so far as I know my right honourable friend has received no communications either from the Council or from local residents since our Committee stage. Nor have I, though I was answering for the Government; and I well remember the amount of correspondence I received on the question of Ullswater, which also aroused a great deal of public feeling. But I do not wish to rest very heavily on that point.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I do not think that that is quite fair. We could easily have whipped up 10,000 letters between Committee stage and Report stage in your Lordships' House. In actual fact, I wrote to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who had made a definite pledge on this subject, which I thought was broken, and I believe that he consulted his right honourable friend, and I got a negative reply. I refer to that by the way, but I do not think it is fair for this matter to go by default because we have not raised a clamour between Committee and Report stage.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have said that I was not resting my case in any way on that, but merely remarking the fact. Now I should like to come to the essential grounds of the Government's case. The essential reason why the three northern wards of Epsom and Ewell should be included in the Greater London area is that the Government have come to the firm conclusion that they must be held to be part of the continuous urban development which constitutes London in 1963. I would ask your Lordships to believe that the Government have come to this conclusion only after the fullest possible consideration and indeed after a great deal of earnest reconsideration.
I should like to go over the history of this matter. I know I may be repeating some of the things I said in Committee, but I do not think I shall be repeating them parrot-wise, because I have reconsidered this matter myself with some care between the Committee and Report stage. Your Lordships may
76
recall that the Royal Commission originally proposed that the whole of the borough should be included in Greater London, and it can be argued that there is a fairly strong case for this. If one takes the London Road, one can drive from the centre of London right to the centre of Epsom and Ewell through unbroken development all the way. I think your Lordships will agree that that is the case.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, if that argument is going to be used, one might just as well say that one can drive from London to Brighton and find continuous development all the way. That argument does not hold water.
EARL JELLICOE: I am not just talking about ribbon development; and even taking ribbon development, what my noble friend said is not in fact the case. A glance at the figures on pages 345 and 346 of the Royal Commission's Report show how high a proportion of the inhabitants of the borough work in the inner part of Greater London. Again, my noble friend might cite the case of Brighton, but what I am talking about is the proportion, and not the fact that 1 or 10 or 1,000 people in Brighton work in London.
In the event, as my noble friends will know, the proposal to include the whole borough in Greater London was strongly resisted by the Council and local residents. The then Minister—he was my then chief, Dr. Hill—had a great deal of sympathy with the arguments, not least, I suspect, because he had a son at Epsom College. However, after looking at all this carefully, he felt unable to go the whole hog and exclude the borough completely, on the single but vitally important ground that the present local government boundaries between Epsom and Ewell and the districts to the North do not in any sense mark the end of the continuous urban development. He went so far as he felt he possibly could by drawing the boundary line so as to exclude all but four wards. Then later, as the result of renewed representations—because he received two deputations on this matter—he excluded all save three wards. Indeed, on purely physical evidence, one may argue that we have gone further here than perhaps we should.

77
It is now held against us, as a result of this concession, that we have in fact split an existing local authority unit, and that in so doing we have gone back on a pledge which the Leader of another place gave to another place. I must confess that I have not seen the letter which my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton has sent on this point, but he must recognise that what my right honourable friend said in another place was that we did not wish to split existing local authority units unless this was absolutely necessary, or words to that effect. I know I am not paraphrasing it quite correctly, but it was not an absolute pledge. I do not think there has been any breach of a pledge here.
It is also, I think, wrong to argue, as my noble friends have been inclined to argue, that it is only Epsom and Ewell which has been singled out, as it were, for amputation. Apart from Epsom and Ewell, there is another peripheral area, the urban district council of Chigwell, which is also being divided.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: I carefully said "the only borough with a mayor and corporation". The other is not the same at all.
EARL JELLICOE: I carefully noted my noble friend's careful words, and I was therefore careful to say "the urban district council of Chigwell".
That said, I turn to some of the objections to our proposals which have been advanced, very persuasively and with complete sincerity, as anyone must know who has listened to the speeches on this Amendment. It has been argued in this case—it was argued, above all, I think, on the Committee stage—that it is absurd to attach these northern wards to the district North of them, since there are physical barriers between these parts of the northern wards and their neighbours. I submit that there is nothing very special about these so-called barriers. They are, in fact, in no wise more substantial than those which exist and run through many London boroughs at the present time. In any event, these three wards are linked to their northern neighbours by at least two roads—namely, the Kingston Road to the North-West and the London Road to the North-East.
And in dealing, not with the Kingston Road, but the Kingston-By-Pass, here,
78
again, I think one can very much exaggerate the importance even of that important road, because that does, so far as I know, already sever one of the constituent parts of the proposed new borough grouping—that is, Malden. Having refreshed my memory by a further look at this area on the spot, I can only repeat that, on the evidence of the physical facts as I have seen them, it is as hard to maintain that these northern wards are physically separated from their northern neighbours as it is to claim that they are not part of the continuously built up area of London.
The second point that my noble friends have made is regarding the Green Belt. In the first place, I would suggest to my noble friend Lord Auckland that the area about which he is talking around Tolworth is not really relevant to this Amendment at all. It is already within the boundaries of Surbiton, and my noble friend is not suggesting, so far as I know, that Surbiton should be excluded from Greater London. Be that as it may, I would merely repeat what my noble friend Lord Hastings and I have said: that there is no reason why the definition of administrative areas (and that is what we are doing here—defining administrative areas) should make any difference to the preservation of the Green Belt or of the open spaces outside or inside Greater London. Whatever decision your Lordships take on this particular Amendment, it is not in itself going to make or mar, or even make an iota of difference to, the future of this very nice stretch of open country around Tolworth.
My noble friends have claimed that justice is not being done to these three northern wards, because they are being dragged into the Greater London net, while Esher has been allowed, in some surreptitious way, to escape from it. On this, I can only repeat what again I said on the Committee stage. The former Minister, Dr. Hill (as he then was), who looked at all this most carefully, as I personally know, came to the conclusion that there is certainly some continuity of development stretching from Surbiton into northern Esher—the Dittons and the Moleseys—but the development is not so substantial or continuous as in the case of these three northern wards of Epsom. On balance—and I agree that this is a question of personal judgment—he was persuaded that there was

79
a sound case for excluding the whole of Esher. There may be a sound case for excluding the southern wards of Epsom and Ewell; and, indeed, we have come to the conclusion that there is. There may be a sound case for excluding part of the four northern wards; and, indeed, we have come to the conclusion that in the case of one there is. But I cannot admit that there is a sound case for excluding the three other northern wards.
I turn now to three further points which have been made in the course of our discussion on this Report stage. I feel that I should touch only lightly on the diocesan matters, important though they are, to which my noble friend Lord Auckland referred. I think it would be wrong to trespass on this ecclesiastical ground, since, as no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has noted, the Bishops' Bench is not fully tenanted at this moment. There was then the question of education. I should like to assure my noble friend that there will be no question at all of children being uprooted from their present schools merely because local government areas are being rearranged. Nor do we think so poorly of the authorities in this part of the world—of the Surrey County Council, for example—or indeed of this new borough, as to believe that they cannot reach reasonable arrangements in the future to take children from neighbouring areas, as local education authorities do at the present time all over the country. I believe that my noble friend's fears here are, to say the least, a little exaggerated.
Then there was the question of inquiry, and whether we have given enough chance for the views to be ventilated on this issue. I myself feel that the whole reorganisation of London government is probably too big a thing to be susceptible to the process of public inquiry. If we introduce the principle in one part of this whole process, it is extremely difficult to know where we could possibly draw the line. Be that as it may, I would claim that the procedure adopted in this respect cannot be in any way undemocratic. The Borough of Epsom and Ewell is within the review area. It was therefore entitled to make what representations
80
it wished to the Royal Commission. Apart from that, so far as Epsom is concerned, two deputations on this matter have been received by the former Minister of Housing and Local Government, and one by the present Minister. In addition, as your Lordships know, there has been full discussion of this issue in both Houses of Parliament at both stages, in Committee and on Report, and that seems to me to be both parliamentary and democratic.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My noble friend—
EARL JELLICOE: Perhaps I might just finish on this aspect, and then I will give way. I should like to add, since I think it is relevant to what I am saying, that in our view the basic issue here is the question of whether these northern wards do or do not form part of the continuous area of urban development of London. That can fairly easily be determined in itself. It is not something where the process of inquiry is needed to determine the issue.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. He challenged me as to whether the process had been democratic. I was not in any way suggesting that there had not been inquiries and that the process of democracy had not been gone through. The whole basis of our democratic idea in this country is the civic centre, the community. This change is smashing up the community and, therefore, in principle is against the democratic idea.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I fully understood my noble friend on this matter, and I was certainly not wishing to misinterpret his view, which he put with great sincerity and, if I may say so, very effectively.
Finally, I would say this. I think that my noble friends have rather given the impression that this is a case of Whitehall officialdom or bumbledom, or of Whitehall planners trying to push some formula through just for the fun of it. That may be good debating, but it is not good fact. We have thought very hard indeed about this particular issue. We originally agreed, along with the Royal Commission, that the whole borough of Epsom and Ewell fell within Greater

81
London. But after repeated representations, and a great deal of consideration, we came to the conclusion that it was right to exclude the hard core of Epsom and Ewell. It might then be said, why did we not go the whole way and exclude these northern wards as well. This might have been the easy thing to do. It would certainly have been the popular thing to do, and we have been under great pressure to do precisely that. But the fundamental principle which we have held to determining the area to be excluded from Greater London is whether or not the particular area is or is not co-terminus with what may be called the continuous urban development of London. By that test we were quite satisfied that these northern wards should be included, and I think there is a principle at stake here which we should not abandon at this eleventh hour of our consideration of this Bill.
Having said that I would wish again to claim that we have not been unsympathetic to this intense local feeling and proud local feeling in this borough. My right honourable friends have lent over backwards to meet the views represented to them by both the Council and the residents. They have looked very carefully at the physical evidence on the spot, and in coming to their conclusion they have not—and this is the final point on which I should like again to assure your Lordships—dishonoured any pledge which has been given, either to this House or to another place. For all these reasons, I must ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment which has been so sincerely and persuasively moved by my noble friend.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, this discussion is interesting and reveals the kind of heart feelings that are liable to be stirred up by the kind of thing which has been debated. I should like to pay tribute to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, which was very sincere. As he said, it was somewhat emotional in character, and I do not criticise him for that because it is very natural when one sees the place one loves being cut about. My heart is entirely with him on that point and, indeed, I had a job not to feel almost as emotional as he did.
Of course, the trouble with a Bill of this nature is that once you start on
82
this line of legislation it leads almost inevitably to this kind of thing, because the Government have gone in for uniformity. They have a rigid mind: it is an unadaptable mind. What is rather sad is that in this case, as in a number of other cases that have arisen in other parts of Greater London, some outside the present county and some inside, the victims in a number of cases, as here, are people who have accepted the general principle of the Bill. That is a pity, because this is a "cut-throat" Bill. They then have reservations about it, or opposition to it, when it applies to their particular part of the territory—and that, of course, I can understand. But it makes one feel sad in view of the way that London is being cut about—deliberately murdered by a Government that does not like London. We feel that it would have been nice if, in objecting to the general nature of the Bill, we could have had the support of these places on the map which themselves are rightly protesting against what is happening to them.
The Minister of State has argued that he must put these three northern wards of Epsom and Ewell into Greater London because they are part of one continuous built-up area. I do not think that that is necessarily a conclusive argument. My wife drives from Eltham to Rochdale in Lancashire from time to time, and she tells me that from Central London to St. Albans is pretty well a continuous built-up area. The Government do not propose to bring St. Albans into the Bill. Why not? If Epsom and Ewell is to be a victim of this continuous built-up area argument, why do the Government leave out St. Albans? I think, therefore, that Epsom and Ewell have a legitimate grievance, and I know how deeply the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, feels about it. I know how deeply my colleague Mr. Chuter Ede feels about it. If ever there is a man who believes in Surrey uber alles and Epsom and Ewell uber alles vis-à-vis Surrey it is he. In fact, he is, in consequence, a little antiLondon—a fault of his which I deeply regret. But London is accustomed to people being anti-London all over the place. But I cannot swallow that argument.
The Minister of State admits that Epsom and Ewell has a first-class public spirit. I have been trying to find out

83
what was the percentage of electors voting in Epsom and Ewell, because we are charged in the County of London that the London County Council is not a very good show because the percentage voting floats between 30 and 40 per cent. I do not know how many Epsom and Ewell had, but I should not be surprised if it were no more than the County of London. I am not blaming Epsom and Ewell—there are a number of people who do not know what to do with their vote, so they do not use it, which on the whole is fortunate. It is like noble Lords who are entitled to come to this place—there are about another 700 of them in addition to those who do come. They do not come here because they do not know what to do when they come. If that is their state of mind they had better stay away. I do not want the backwoodsmen to come here in great floods. The same applies in local government. If people do not want to vote, that is the way they feel about it. I think to compel people to vote when they do not understand it is rather foolish. But it is admitted in this case, which the noble Lord will not admit about the County of London, in which he is wrong, that Epsom and Ewell has a first-class civic spirit. I am prepared to believe that that is probably true and, therefore, the noble Lord is the more sorry about it. It makes the offence all the more severe.
Education has been referred to. I follow the argument as between these two boroughs which will be involved. On the other hand, the Surrey County Council within the Greater London area is being abolished, and they did some good work in higher education. There will be complications in this vicinity and others, too, consequent on the abolition of the very good education work of the Surrey County Council. It is all very well to steamroller these Amendments, but they are based on deep feeling and deep sincerity. I must say that I cannot help feeling sympathy for this Amendment, although it has been moved and supported from the other side of the House as well as by my noble friend Lord Crook.
Last time I intimated to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland—I promoted him by mistake to an Earldom, but he is not bound to accept it—that if he would go
84
to a Division we would support him. I was encouraged to believe that he would, because he was chasing around like a knight, if not a baron, in shining armour in the local newspapers, saying he would fight to the bitter end. Well, he did not challenge a Division, so we did not. But this time there is going to be a Division—in fact, I am quite sure there will be, after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton. He would not run away. He will go into the Division Lobby. So let us all challenge a Division, and let those noble Lords with a sense of sympathy for this district, which is proud of its civic unity and which is going to be cut about and wounded, go into the Lobby and support the case which has been made by the two noble Lords opposite who have brought forward this Amendment.
7.11 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I just add a few words, as somebody who knows nothing about this area of London and possibly has never been to some of these places. I have listened, as I have to many of these Amendments, with great care, and particularly I listened to the noble Earl to see how his eloquence and brain could overcome the points which were put by other noble Lords. He finished up by saying that the Government had leaned over backwards to meet the criticisms which have been made. I can only assume that the Government are even more stiff-necked than I had imagined, because they have not been able to get very far in their anatomical exercises in this respect.
On the one side, you have the undisputed fact that the population which is to be moved into London does not want to be moved; and I do not think that anybody has controverted that. The people in the area do not want to lose that district; and nobody has controverted that. The people who are to receive them do not want to receive them; and nobody has controverted that. Surely, in the face of those three undisputed facts there must be overwhelmingly strong reasons on the part of the Government to persist in this action. What are the reasons that the noble Earl has given us? He mentioned the physical facts of the case; he mentioned this contiguous built-up area; and he mentioned the fact that there was

85
the Green Belt coming in between. Those, so far as I can make out, were the only arguments he adduced to overcome the strongly expressed feelings of all three groups of people who are interested in this subject.
I accept that it is perfectly legimate and, in fact, the duty for the Government at times to overrule the feelings of local people if it is in the interests of a greater number of people, even if it makes the Government unpopular. But surely it is no evidence that it is essential for the greater good of London to present arguments based solely on bricks and mortar, which is all that the noble Earl has done. He only once mentioned the people living in this area. He said that the fact that they work in the main, if not entirely, in London was sufficient reason for making them part of the Greater London area. But one of the things at which we want to aim in any viable, active and progressive community is that there should be people of all kinds living in it: some who work in London; some who work in the country; some who work in their own actual area; some retired people; in fact, all kinds of people.
So it can be no argument to say that it is logical, because a majority of people work in London, that they must move into the Greater London area. You are unbalancing a well-balanced, important, active and alive number of people, whom Lord McCorquodale of Newton has so well described, and cutting off one very important part in the interests of tidiness and bricks and mortar because—and it all boils down to this—it appears to be more convenient to have the actual houses, roads, sewers, and so on, which are on one side of the Green Belt, brought into the Greater London area. So the Government, in effect, are saying "To hell with the people who live inside those bricks and mortar! All we are interested in"—as the noble Earl himself said—" are the physical facts." I think that this is a most unfortunate example of intransigence on the part of the Government in the face of very strong arguments of tradition, efficiency, and, above all, of people. In the face of the fact that all three groups of these people are so strongly opposed to it, I very much hope that your Lordships will show the Government
86
that they cannot arbitrarily decide this question simply on the grounds of bricks and mortar.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, although the time is getting near for our break, perhaps I may be permitted to make one or two points. First, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that, so far as Croydon is concerned, in my speech to the young Conservatives there I did not commit myself. I committed myself for Epsom, because I happen to live in that area: but, so far as Croydon is concerned, I think the Government have a marginally strong case.
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe replied with his customary courtesy and went to some trouble to cover most of the points made, but I think that my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton made a speech which will go down in the annals of Parliament for its sincerity, clarity and conviction, and I am extremely grateful to him, as I know all in Epsom will also be. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe made this rather, again I say, unconvincing point about people who live in the Epsom area and work in London. I travel from Ashtead to London every working day, and any number of people get out at Epsom Station to work locally. Where is the civic sense of it? As Lord McCorquodale of Newton rightly said, Epsom has a civic pride second to none in this country and I fully endorse the tributes which he has paid to the Town Clerk, who has worked tremendously hard on this Bill, to Mr. Chuter Ede, for whom I and all Epsom, irrespective of Party, have a tremendous admiration, and also to the right honourable gentleman who represents Epsom in another place, who has worked very hard to try to prevent this deplorable thing from taking place.
So far as public inquiries are concerned, I said that I quite agreed that a public inquiry is not necessary in every single case; but this is a borough which is being split up, and, surely, even at this stage this point could be reconsidered. I do not want to say more, but I would thank my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton most sincerely, and also my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, who made, with respect, a very poor case, although working hard on it.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: What about us? Are you not going to thank us?
LORD AUCKLAND: Wait for it. I should like to thank also the noble Lords opposite and, if I may say so, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Crook, who has done a great deal of public service for Surrey. In view of the
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.28 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, in view of that Government defeat, and a fairly decisive one on a very important matter which went to the heart of the Bill, as the Minister of State said, may I ask the Government what their intentions are about the future of this Bill and about their own future? The Minister of State said that he knew that the course they were taking was unpopular, but that is attractive to Her Majesty's Government: they like to be unpopular. They think they are nearer the Kingdom of Heaven when they die if they are unpopular. This is a very serious defeat and I think we have a right to know what the intentions of the Government are about the future of this Bill and about their own future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I can answer that quite simply. The intentions of the
answer given, I cannot possibly withdraw this Amendment, and I will therefore press it.
7.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 38) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Saltoun, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Lambert, V.

Shackleton, L.

Amulree, L.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Archibald, L.

Lawson, L.

Silkin, L.

Atholl, D.

Lucan, E.

Soulbury, V.

Auckland, L. [Teller.]

McCorquodale of Newton, L [Teller.]

Stonham, L.

Burden, L.

Strang, L.

Champion, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Peddie, L.

Tenby, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rea, L.

Terrington, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rockley, L.

Walston, L.

Hereford, V.

St. Just, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Jellicoe, E.

Albemarle, E.

Dundee, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Falmouth, V.

Long, V.

Boston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lothian, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Chesham, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newton, L.

Clwyd, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

St. Aldwyn. E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Denham, L.

Hastings, L.

Waleran, L.

Derwent, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Westwood, L.

Government are to carry on with this Bill, which is a thoroughly beneficial measure and which we hope in due course will reach the Statute Book.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I had forgotten that the Lord Chancellor was not only on the Woolsack but in charge of the Bill. Could the noble and learned Lord inform us whether the Government will accept the decision of the House?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, would not expect an answer to that question immediately. I should certainly have to consider the position, and no doubt in due course he will learn what the answer is.
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 38. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 33, leave out paragraph 7.—(Lord Auckland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved to add to Part III:
"8. Any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under this Part of this Schedule in relation to any London borough, excluding (without prejudice to section 87 of this Act) the costs of any local inquiry caused to be held by him, shall, if and to such extent as the Secretary of State so requires, be repaid to him by the council of that borough."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope I have as much luck with this small Amendment as my noble friend has just had with his. I think this is a relatively simple matter. Clause 87(2) of the Bill, in applying Section 290, subsections (2) to (5), of the Local Government Act, 1933, gives the responsible Government Department discretion whether or not to recover the cost of holding local inquiries from the local authorities or other parties concerned. As regards the alteration of the boundaries of wards of London boroughs, the Bill, as at present drafted, does not provide for other expenses of my right honourable friend, such as the cost of causing notice to be given of proposals for altering wards under paragraph 1 of Part III of Schedule 1 to the Bill, to be met by the local authorities, and those expenses—advertising, for example—can be quite heavy. We think it right that my right honourable friend should have discretion whether or not to require these costs to be met by the local authorities, in the same way as he has discretion whether the cost of the local inquiries themselves should be met by the local authorities. The Amendment would give him that discretion.
This seems reasonable since it would normally be the case that proposals for the subsequent alteration of ward boundaries under Part III of Schedule 1 would be put forward by the local authorities themselves. No Amendment is proposed to give discretion to my right honourable friend to require the cost of advertising and other costs for the initial division of a new London borough to be paid by the local authorities. We are not proposing any such Amendment since it is we ourselves who are proposing the alteration of local government boundaries, and I think it would be unreasonable that such expenses should be met by the local authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 111, line 10, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, as I understand it, the purpose of this Amendment is that in the case of local inquiries as to division of wards and things of that sort the Secretary of State may require that the cost of the inquiry, or to such extent as he decides, is payable by the local authority concerned. I must say I should have thought the whole cost of these inquiries ought to have been met by the Exchequer. That seems to me the equity of the case. But I agree the Amendment does provide that can be so and that the local authority will be charged, or the Greater London Council under this or another Amendment will be charged, only if the Secretary of State requires and, if so, to what extent he requires. I should like to know from the Minister of State whether we are to take it that if the application for the inquiry is bona fide and in all circumstances reasonable, even though in the end the local authority get the worst of it, the Government would then pay the costs of the inquiry. Is not the main purpose of this Amendment that, if inquiries are asked for somewhat irresponsibly or frivolously, the Secretary of State can make the local authority pay the whole or part of the cost? If this is the general purpose, I think it is not unreasonable. I should have thought it ought to be the case that, where things have been demanded that should not reasonably be demanded, they should pay, but otherwise the Treasury should meet the cost.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if I could reply again with the permission of the House, I think there is some misunderstanding here, because we have already in Clause 87(2) of the Bill—I do not think it was opposed at the time—by which Section 290, subsections (2) to (5), of the Local Government Act, 1933, is brought into force, already made provision for the Secretary of State to have discretion whether to charge local authorities for the expenses of local inquiries, and that principle has therefore been accepted in the 1933 Act and all we have done is to import it into the Bill. But that is not the question on this Amendment. What is in question is a purely subsidiary one of whether in regard to the other expenses—and the only one we can think of is

91
advertising of the ward proposals—he should have discretion. I think it is quite clear that if a proposal was frivolously made the discretion would be used accordingly. If the proposal comes from the local authority itself the normal thing would be for the local authority to be required to pay; but if the proposal comes from elsewhere I think the Secretary of State might well exercise his discretion not to charge the local authority.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: That is the 300 electors?
EARL JELLICOE: Yes.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether a local authority will have any say in the measure of expenses which may be incurred by the Secretary of State which they will have to pay wholly or partly?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that under neither the corresponding sections of the Local Government Act, 1933, nor here would they have that latitude.
LORD LATHAM: The Secretary of State can incur expenses and they pay them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until twenty minutes to nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended at twenty-three minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at twenty minutes to nine.]
Schedule 2 [Constitution and general functions of Greater London Council]:
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in paragraph 3, to omit all words after "retire together", in sub-paragraph (1) and to substitute:
"accordingly each third year after their election."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 49. Amendment No. 50 is consequential upon this Amendment, and one's consideration of Amendment No. 49 will comprehend
92
also the consideration of Amendment No. 50. A similar Amendment was moved during the Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Champion, who made, as I thought, an impressive case against having the election for the Greater London Council and the London boroughs in the same year. In point of fact, the elections which follow the initial elections will have the same day as their polling day. There will not be the intervening period of a month, nor will there be any intervening period of a year.
My noble friend Lord Champion, supported by other Lords on this side of the Chamber, argued, as I thought convincingly, that it was wrong to have the elections in the same year. As was stated by them, it led to a diminution of local interest in local affairs, in the management of the local authority, the borough; it cast a great burden upon Party organisations and it did not, in point of fact, conduce to an improvement of the appreciation by the citizens of this country of the importance of local government. If that were the case, as I think it was, and is, as regards both elections taking place in the same year, it is much more so in regard to the elections taking place on the same day. This seems to me to be an almost crazy idea—getting back, I think, to the Continental procedure, where one has a list and one votes the list. It is largely dependent upon the fact that in most countries where that procedure is followed there is either proportional representation, which we do not have, or the alternative vote.
On this election day each borough will be electing two, three or four members of the Greater London Council, and on the same day they will be electing 60 councillors for the London boroughs. In my submission, a good deal of confusion will arise. An election for 60 councillors for the same constituency, but a constituency which is divided into wards as regards the London boroughs, cannot fail, in my submission, to lead to confusion; and it will cast a heavy burden upon the Party organisations, and upon those who are interested in local government, whether it be the widest sphere of local government comprehended by the Greater London Council or whether it be the narrower, but not less important, activities of the London boroughs. The persons offering themselves for the one

93
post may be entirely different, and indeed unsuitable, for the second post, yet we shall have the two mixed up. And they are not mixed up either in function or in purpose. They are independent local authorities, and yet in the minds of the electorate—who are not perhaps too precisely informed, neither do they too precisely comprehend distinctions of this kind—they may be the same. A policy advocated by those seeking election to the Greater London Council may be entirely at variance with the policy being advocated by the candidates for the London boroughs.
This will cast a heavy burden on the returning officer and the arrangements which the Party machine must make if we are to preserve our democratic way in local government. After all, it has been said, with abundant truth, that democracy is government by discussion. I submit that under these proposals the discussion will be confused. So far from giving a direction, this will be the reverse. In those circumstances I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 6, leave out from ("together") to end of line 16, and insert ("accordingly each third year after their election.")—(Lord Latham.)
8.46 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, referred to the Amendment which was moved by his noble friend Lord Champion in Committee. On that occasion the point of the Amendment was to ensure that the Greater London Council and London borough elections would be held in different years. During our discussion it became evident that noble Lords opposite had not appreciated the fact that not only would they be held in the same year, but, after the initial elections in 1964, they would actually be held on the same day.
LORD LATHAM: It was a clean catch!
LORD HASTINGS: It was perfectly clean in so far that it was printed in the Bill and was to be found in paragraph 16 of Schedule 3. But I do not entirely blame noble Lords opposite for not having discovered that fact, because these Schedules are rather complicated and the wording is not perhaps in as plain English as noble Lords opposite and myself would write it; but that is the fact.
94
Noble Lords thereupon expressed considerable surprise and a good deal of alarm—although this point had not been taken up at all in the other place, where it was known and appreciated and no complaint had been made. However, as a result of that discussion—and because of the surprise of noble Lords opposite and the case they put up—I gave an undertaking that we would look at this matter again. We have had very lengthy and detailed reconsideration of this matter—
LORD LATHAM: But not discussion.
LORD HASTINGSDiscussions among ourselves. And, of course, as the noble Lord will realise, more than one Department was affected. I was rather twitted last time on the fact that this, in a way, was mainly a Home Office matter and that I should refer the matter to them, which of course has been done. Now, as a result of these internal discussions, we have gone into the matter very thoroughly, and we still come to the conclusion that it is not only practicable but desirable to hold the two elections together on the same day. The arguments I will adduce in favour of that course show a complete difference of opinion between ourselves and noble Lords opposite—that I am quite ready to admit. But we believe that there is an advantage in holding the elections on the same day for the following reasons.
The first is that it will focus attention on local government and produce a maximum effort to get the electors to the poll. We have often heard that there is too much apathy and lack of interest in local government, and particularly in the elections of local government. Here in London we feel that there would be a real oportunity of concentrating public attention on London government. The second reason is that electors will have to consider both the Greater London Council and the borough councils at the same time, and will have to vote for the candidates who are standing. We believe that this will provide a better chance of understanding the respective functions of the Greater London Council and the borough councils and will not at all lead to confusion, as suggested by the noble Lord. This, in fact, was an argument put forward by the Royal Commission which, so far in this Report stage I have not

95
prayed in aid. Their argument, which was put forward by the Royal Commission in paragraph 856, seems to us to have a good deal of weight behind it.
We have heard that the issues in the two elections will be entirely different, and might even be contradictory. We do not think this is a very strong argument, because genuine local issues—it may be thought unfortunately—hardly figure very much in London elections, and electioneering is more on a national basis. That may be thought a bad thing, and not only by one Party; but I think it is a tendency which has increased rather than otherwise, and the London elections do tend to be fought on a national basis.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord would not wish to cement it, would he?
LORD HASTINGS: But even if this argument is true, it will reinforce the need to hold the elections together, because one cannot see just what issues in respect of the Greater London Council could galvanise the voters into any special action if the elections were held separately. We believe that a greater interest will be focused upon the elections for the Greater London Council, if they are held at the same time as those for the borough councils.
The noble Lord also referred to technical difficulties. The returning officer and his staff, for instance, would have difficulty, he said, in running two elections together. We have realised that there are some difficulties in this connection, but we have consulted on this matter and it appears that the difficulties are certainly not in any way to be considered insuperable. We have also heard that it might be more difficult for the Party machines to organise themselves for two elections at the same time. But we do not appreciate the force of this argument, because when so much of the propaganda and the canvassing, and envelope addressing and expense can be combined, it would seem to us to be a considerable saving in every way of both energy and expense.
Finally, I come back to the fact that this proposal in the Bill caused no complaint in the other place, and we have not felt ourselves under great pressure,
96
except from noble Lords opposite, to alter this arrangement. But, as a result of their complaints, we have been into this matter most thoroughly, as I have said, and I can assure your Lordships that there have been long and detailed discussions. We agree that the matter is evenly balanced, and that there are arguments on the other side; but on the whole we feel that it is quite reasonable and desirable to stick to our guns in this instance. In our view, there is not sufficient reason to alter the proposals in the Bill. I ask noble Lords to accept our good faith in this matter, and the fact that we have not considered this matter at all lightly. We have, in fact, considered it with the greatest possible care, and we feel that, on the whole, this is a good thing. Therefore I would ask noble Lords to support me in resisting this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply this evening, and I fully agree that he has given this matter very considerable attention. We are considering local government for this new area—new in the sense of Greater London, old in the sense of the borough—and I think the House will recognise that if we are to have effective local government it must be something in which the public, the electorate, can participate; and they must have knowledge of the issues that are at stake. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will agree that the issue on which a member is elected to the Greater London Council may well be different from that on which electors choose their representative on their borough council.
My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth has a considerable experience, not only of Party warfare in Parliament but of Party conflict and Party work outside, and he was telling me the other day (and it struck me very forcibly) that he knew of many, many occasions on which electors of London voted Labour in the elections for the London County Council, yet when it came to a Parliamentary election, voted Conservative.
LORD HASTINGS: They are both local elections.
LORD SHEPHERD: No. The noble Lord said earlier on that these issues

97
were chiefly decided by the main political Parties on national affairs. I am not making that case: what I am trying to show to the House is that there are various stages in government—national, county council, urban district and rural, after which you get down to parish—and that many people do not vote for a Party label when it comes to the lower levels of government. In my own particular area there is a wonderful woman who is a Conservative member of my own rural district council, and I know that she obtained a very substantial vote from the working class living on a council estate. She obtained it not because of her Conservative label but because of what she had done for the locality.
My Lords, this is the point—and I believe this, and I do not think there would be any dissent from this in any quarter of this House: that, when you get down to local government, whilst a good percentage of the people may vote specifically because of the label which is behind an individual, there are many who cast their vote for an individual who has given service to the community. As a Party member, I am pleased to see it. I think that, whether you are Conservative or whether you are Labour or Liberal, if you have given sterling service to your community you are entitled to their support.
Now I would come back to this question of the Greater London Council and the borough councils. I think it is quite wrong for the noble Lord to believe that the people of London will vote merely for a Party label: I do not think they will. This is what the noble Lord is asking them to do. What he is really saying is that on a certain day of a particular year the person will go to the polls and will then decide that he will vote Labour or Conservative, irrespective of the individual he is sending to the particular authority. I wish, naturally, that the majority of the electors of London would vote for Labour candidates; but I should not wish the election to be fought purely in the way that they fight elections in the United States, where they press a button, "Democratic" or "Republican", and every individual from top to bottom, on the Party label has the vote given to him. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, would not wish that to happen in this country.
98
We wish the individual to give his vote carefully and conscientiously; certainly, if he believes strongly in his Party then he will do so.
I am not making out a very farfetched case. I took part recently in a rural district council election and a parish council election, and, in a way not dissimilar to the suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is making, they were both held on the one day. There were nine candidates—three Conservative, three Liberal and three Labour. I listened to the vote as it came out, and all I could imagine was that those who were voting thought that this was a football coupon; there was no question of putting three X's to the Conservatives, three to Labour or three to Liberal. I suggest there was no real understanding about how the votes were put on the merits of the particular candidates. In fact, I strongly believe that those who went to vote with this very large group of nine candidates in the case of the rural district council and, I think, 12 in the case of the parish council had very little idea either of Party allegiance or of the experience of the candidate. They went in and were told by the car-driver who took them to the polls that they were to vote and that these were some of the names. As the noble Lord knows, it will be illegal for the driver of the car taking voters to the polls to say that they should vote for one candidate or another according to the Party allegiance.
If you want to get a real interest and a real decision, then you must have some form of simplicity. You will not obtain this simplicity or this clear-cut decision if you hold the borough and the Greater London Council elections on the same day. The issue will be quite different. Again I come back to what I referred to earlier this afternoon and on Committee: the problem of the minority interest. Where will the minority interests—if they are able to put up a candidate on a borough election—stand when they have to vote or put their name on the card or a series of cards with those for the Greater London Authority—when, of course, they would not be in a position to participate? I do not see how the minority interest will be able to participate in what is a straight Parliamentary scale election.

99
The noble Lord said that he felt that if we had it all on one day every three years this would focus attention. I do not believe that is entirely true. Noble Lords opposite on the Committee stage suggested we should have triennial elections. I think that this is not very good. Local Party politicians get tired of having to fight elections every year. If we fight elections only every three years, then it might be hard to get public interest, but if we have two elections in three years, one for the Greater London Council and another for the boroughs, we shall be able to keep Party machines fit and virile.
I believe that the Government are wrong in their proposal. This is not a Party issue. It is a problem which both political Parties have to face. I do not believe that one Party is going to gain one way or the other if this Amendment is accepted, but I believe that interest in local government elections will be gained. I have given this much thought and sought a lot of advice. I do not believe that the Government proposals are conducive to good election fighting, and fighting is of the essence of politics, and politics play a vital part in local government elections.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Hastings, I am convinced that the Government are right about this. I do not say that merely because the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is on the other side of the House. I speak from my own experience. I have fought a great many local elections in London for the borough council and for the L.C.C. For the purpose of this argument, we may assume that the Greater London Council will be the same as the L.C.C. when it comes to electioneering. My agent has always told me that the Parliamentary election and the borough council election can be fought with some chance of getting a turn-out, but the L.C.C. elections are much harder. We talk about apathy in local government. I am convinced that if we want to get local people interested in local government we should do much better to have the elections on the same day. After all, this is not a difference between national elections and local elections. Both the elections proposed are local government elections.
100
Therefore, if we are going to get people interested, this is the opportunity. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, this is not a matter of Party politics, but of practical politics.
I have also thought about this matter and, in a rather difficult choice, I am convinced, that the Government view is the right one. Do not let us confuse the electors more than we need. In local elections, when there are sometimes more than a dozen names, it is difficult to get them to grasp what is going on. Let us make it easier for them. In this sense we should be wise to have the two elections on the same day, and I speak from some personal knowledge of the point.
9.10 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, there is something in the last point which the noble Viscount made about the large number of names on the ballot paper making it difficult for voters, but this proposal of the Government will accentuate the difficulty by adding the names for the Greater London Council.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord to say that there will be two separate papers.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I do not know. It may be on the one paper, in the interests of economy.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: But there is no question of that. The Government will correct me if I am wrong; but surely there could not be only one.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It does not matter whether there are two papers or one; it means that there is an additional person to vote for—at least one. I had some experience of this in 1912, when I stood for the Vauxhall ward of the Borough of Lambeth. It was the first election I contested, and I was thoroughly convinced that I had won. There were nine members for a ward, three lots of candidates, Conservative, Labour and Liberal—27 candidates, and the poor electorate had to pick out nine. What many people did was to pick the first three and the last three and find three in the middle; and as my name began with "M" I got the worst of it. There was not much difference between the top and the bottom, but I was at the bottom of the poll. That taught me never

101
again to assume that I had won an election before I had.
But the Government really try one's patience about this. As I understand it, the argument of the Minister of State is that these elections are fought on Party lines, and even, to a great extent, on national Party lines. I can only talk about my own case. For a good many years I was secretary to the London Labour Party, and I studiously advised the executive—I fought for it, and on the whole I got my way—that municipal elections should be fought upon municipal issues and not on issues of national politics. The Minister of State, I gather, has been overthrowing this admirable public-spirited advice that I gave to the London Labour Party executive, and which, on the whole, was observed. Who was it who first broke in with national politics in a London County Council election? It was the Conservatives, who put up all over the place the picture of Mr. Baldwin when he was Prime Minister. Later on it was Mr. Neville Chamberlain.
LORD LATHAM: And John Simon came in, too.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Yes, and John Simon, too. These national figures were brought in to get the people of London to vote Conservative at a London County Council election: and they knew nothing about the London County Council. It was totally irrelevant, and it was an effort to determine the election on national lines. From the bottom of my heart I fully believe in not bringing national politics into local government elections. Local government elections should be fought on local issues, and not on national policy. Nor have I ever advised a local authority to pass resolutions upon matters essentially political—keep to your own business—and we were rewarded for this restraint.
I remember—I think I have told the House this before—the London County Council election of 1934. My old friend William Barefoot, who was a famous and fine Labour Party agent, was at Woolwich, and talking about the election afterwards, he said: "Herbert, this turnout amazed me. I saw the votes being turned out from the various wards, which I knew inside out, and what amazed me was the preponderance of
102
Labour votes in Tory wards." This was a great triumph for discriminating democracy. True, we got the best of it. But had it been the other way round, I should still say that it was a triumph for discriminatory democracy. I assure your Lordships that it is very true—not in every case, but in a large proportion of cases—that many London Conservatives will vote Labour at a London County Council election, and might even do so at a borough council election, particularly in my own Borough of Woolwich, where I live, but who will steadily vote Conservative at a Parliamentary election. I like it. This is discerning democracy, and I want a discerning democracy. The Minister of State wants a machine democracy, a press-button democracy. I think a lot of the Minister of State, but when he talks this absolute nonsense—
LORD HASTINGS: And the Parliamentary Secretary.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: The Parliamentary Secretary has also been doing it? Then you both ought to be ashamed of yourselves. If this were the House of Commons, I would move to reduce their salaries to vanishing point. This is a degradation of British public life, and particularly British local civic life. The noble Lord, Lord Bossom, is sitting opposite. He was a member of the London County Council for some years. He will know whether what I am saying is true or not. He shakes his head. I do not say that some of my people did not bring national issues in, but I did not and the London Labour Party Manifesto did not. We kept them separate, and that is right.
I think this is a mad thing. It is said that if you have these elections too often you will bore the electorate. You will not. In the Provinces they have them every year. The Government have been telling us that in the Provincial annual elections—which I do not support—they have a higher percentage voting than in London. It is not wholly true, but it is in a number of cases. Why do not the Government stick to their guns? Is the frequency of elections in the Provinces decreasing the poll, which they say is higher than in London; and do the triennial elections in London decrease

103
the poll, which it ought not to do according to what they now say regarding the concentration of both series of elections on one day—not only in one year—which is madness? It is extremely difficult to maintain patience with the Government or to keep restrained in one's argument when they produce this pantomime sort or argument.
Just as I like the idea that the electors should discriminate between Parliamentary and local government elections, so it would please me if the electorate could, and would, discriminate between one Labour candidate and another and one Conservative candidate and another. Some of these candidates on the same Party ticket are better than others. I wish the electors would discriminate, because it would punish the Party for putting up "dud" candidates.
Now you are going to have an election for the Greater London Council and an election for the London borough on the same day. I want the elector to say to himself, "Does the Greater London Council please me as it is, or do I want to change it? Does the borough please me, or do I want to change it?" In a number of cases he will think the one is all right and the other is not. It is true that by voting on the same day he can make a distinction. But the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary are both trying to make it hard for him to distinguish between the merits of one Party and the other, or one candidate and the other.
This is machine politics gone mad. The Tories, who have been arguing "Why bring politics into local government?" do not mean a word of it. It is the two noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench opposite—the third I leave out, because I do not know anything about him—who are trying to bring national politics into local affairs, and it is shameful. I do not want them in local affairs. I do not want too many national politicians messing about with local affairs, either. They are far better at Parliamentary affairs. I have had experience of both of them. Neville Chamberlain was probably good at both, because he had experience of both. In fact, he may have been better in Birmingham than in Westminster.
104
I beg of the Government not to run away with this silly thing. Whoever invented it? Was it the Conservative Central Office? I cannot imagine the Government interfering with this electoral business. It must be the Tory Central Office, because they think there is a political advantage. The Government ought to think again. I am glad my noble friend Lord Latham has brought this Amendment forward, although, of course, the Government by numbers may whack us this time, which they did not a little while ago. But if noble Lords would vote on the merits of the question, the Government would be taught a lesson. If the Government do carry this, then it is my conviction that the years are not many ahead—if this measure survives—before noble Lords opposite will regret it as an action which was quite wrong and which fastened an excessive consideration on national Party politics. Local bodies ought to be elected or not elected on their own merits.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, there is one thing which has not been said on this subject but which I think ought to be pointed out to the Government, and I said something about it on Second Reading. It is that very often strong waves of emotion pass over the country, and if all elections are to be held on one day you will be apt to get violent changes in Party. The lower you go in local government, the more important it is to keep in close touch with the people who are being governed. A local authority—for example, a borough council—may undertake a work which they think will be for the good of the public, and while they are doing it the public may take a dislike to it and may not wish for it. If you have annual elections it is perfectly easy for the borough council to see the change of opinion and to take note of it without a violent change. Also when there are these violent changes on councils people without previous experience are elected. One of the great advantages of annual elections to borough councils is that you never get a violent change and never get a council which is completely destitute of experience. I think the Government ought to think of these things, because it affects them a great deal more than it does their opponents.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, it must be conceded that the case put forward by

105
the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has been completely demolished by the speech of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, but one or two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, were not dealt with by my noble friend and I should like to address a few comments to your Lordships on them.
I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord rest his case in some respects upon the statement that the Royal Commission had recommended that elections should be all on one day. I should be the last person to denigrate the Royal Commission or their work, however much I might disagree with most of their recommendations. But there is no evidence that the members of the Royal Commission had much experience either of local government or of local government elections; and it is a little difficult to abide by statements of that kind about the Royal Commission when the experience which is possessed by most noble Lords on this side of the Chamber is infinitely greater than any experience which the Commissioners had.
The noble Lord will forgive my saying—but I think it ought to be said—that the noble Lord and the Department which he represents have rather got themselves into the frame of mind that they are omniscient, that they know everything there is to know about local government; and we on this side, who have had years of experience of local
government, including local government elections of all kinds and descriptions, are discounted. The noble Lord this evening came forward with a statement that consultations had taken place. He did not indicate with whom the consultations had taken place. Was it with the local authorities' association? With whom was it, and how was the matter approached? I had gathered that the noble Lord was to have consultations with my noble friend Lord Shepherd, but apparently that was not so, and certainly they did not take place.
As anyone who has had experience, at all events in the smaller local authorities, will know, the election is fought not upon Party principle or national affairs but usually upon some particular subject, or some particular service, which is either unsatisfactory or which is being extended and is likely to increase the rates. Things of that kind are the dominant issues in the elections for the smaller authorities, such as the London boroughs. I think it is a great pity that this new local government set-up will start off with this deficiency and this defect of having the elections all on one day.
9.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 49) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

Saltoun, L.

Attlee, E.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Stonham, L.

Crook, L.

Peddie, L.

Summerskill, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mabane, L.

Albemarle, E.

Dundee, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Falmouth, V.

Merrivale, L.

Bossom, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Boston, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newton, L.

Chesham, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Just, L.

Conesford, L.

Hastings, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hereford, V.

Soulbury, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strathcarron, L.

De La Warr, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Swinton, E.

Denham, L.

Lambert, V.

Tenby, V.

Derwent, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lothian, M.

Waleran, L.

Westwood, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

9.35 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved to add to paragraph 8:
"(3) Any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of paragraphs 5 to 8 of this Schedule, excluding (without prejudice to section 87 of this Act) the costs of any local inquiry caused to be held by him, shall, if and to such extent as the Secretary of State so requires, be repaid to him by the Council."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is very similar to No. 48A which your Lordships approved earlier. That dealt with the expenses incurred by my right honourable friend for notices issued in connection with warding proposals. This deals with a similar issue affecting the G.L.C.; namely, the expenses incurred by my right honourable friend in connection with the division of London boroughs into electoral areas for the election of Greater London councillors. As at present drafted, the Bill does not give my right honourable friend discretion on whether or not he should require these costs to be met by the G.L.C. The costs concerned, as in the previous case, would be mainly those of causimg notice to be given by advertisement in the Press of proposals relating to electoral areas for the election of Greater London councillors under paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 2. As in the case of similar costs relating to the alteration of ward boundaries, we feel that my right honourable friend should have discretion, following the precedent of the Local Government Act, 1933, whether or not he should require these costs to be met by the Greater London Council. The Amendment gives my right honourable friend such a discretion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 114, line 18, at end insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I presume that the arguments of the Government in this case would be similar in principle to their arguments in relation to matters concerning the London boroughs—I understand that that is so. In that case, our arguments also are the same. The noble Earl thought that the spirit in which I made my interpretation was probably about right. I do not want to put it higher than that. Presumably, that is so in this case, in which event we will let it go.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.37 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to add to paragraph 11:
"(3) Without prejudice to their powers by virtue of paragraph 10 of this Schedule under section 85 of the said Act of 1933, the Council may delegate to the Inner London Education Authority, or to any education committee established by that Authority under Part II of Schedule 1 to the Education Act, 1944, any functions which they might delegate under subsection (1) of the said section 85 to a committee appointed by the Council under that subsection."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is put in to meet a point raised by the L.C.C., who wish to make sure that the Greater London Council have the power to continue the L.C.C.'s present practice of delegating the management of the Horniman and Geffrye Museums to the Education Committee. The Museums are not actually mentioned by name, but the Amendment gives a general power to the Greater London Council enabling it to delegate to the Inner London Education Authority or to any Education Committee appointed by that authority any matter which could be delegated under Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act, 1933. That section deals with the general power to delegate given to all local authorities, and permits them to delegate all functions except the power to levy a rate, issue a precept or borrow money. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 115, line 37, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, this is a permissive Amendment, which the Greater London Council can adopt or not according to their discretion. Museums may be held to be educational institutions. I think the Amendment is sensible and we are much obliged to the Government for bringing it forward. We agree.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Parliamentary and local government elections in and around Greater London]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, is not here. I beg to move this Amendment on his behalf. It is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 125, line 42, leave out ("of the Borough of Epsom and Ewell").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 125, line 50, leave out ("or of the Borough of Epsom and Ewell").—(Lord Auckland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, this Amendment, too, is consequential on Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 126, line 15, leave out paragraph 12.—(Lord Auckland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords this is a drafting Amendment. Paragraph 20(1) of Schedule 3 refers to "expenses properly incurred" by a returning officer at London borough elections, whereas paragraph 20(2), as at present drafted, refers to "expenses incurred" by a returning officer at Greater London Council elections. This Amendment is designed to bring the wording of paragraph 20(2) into line with that of paragraph 20(1). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 128, line 30, after ("expenses") insert ("properly").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Modifications of Local Government Act 1933]:
9.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in paragraph 27(a), after "every" to insert "inner". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before I move this Amendment—which I hope, with the permission of your Lordships, I may move with the two Amendments following as being part of the same argument—I think I should be echoing the feelings of your Lordships in saying that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Reith, one of my co-sponsors in this Amendment, will soon be back in this House restored to his normal force and vigour and will have recovered from the operation he had to undergo last night.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: When I withdrew my Amendment on the Committee stage, one of my reasons was that I wanted to study what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in his long and full reply to the case I tried to make. I have done that, and I am glad I did so because it has enabled me to put down a new series of Amendments which I hope will meet all the points my noble and learned friend made in objection to what I had then put before your Lordships.
The first point I should like to accept from his speech is that this Bill is a Bill for Greater London alone, and not for the rest of local government in England and Wales. I also would accept his view, which is also mine, that the discussion about audit does not mean that there are any animadversions on the quality or competence of any of the auditors, either district or professional, engaged on these particular problems. And I am also glad to accept his assurance that the provisions which at present stand in the Bill providing for district audit for all of the boroughs in the Greater London area are not intended as a precedent for a change elsewhere in the country.
Having accepted those three points, I submit my case for your Lordships' consideration. My noble and learned friend pointed out at considerable length the merits of district, as opposed to professional, audit. Your Lordships will remember enough from the last debate about the two respective systems for me not to need to go over them in detail again. The words that fell from my noble and learned friend—as I tried to point out, in perhaps a somewhat intemperate way, for which I apologise to your Lordships—apply to the entire problem of professional as against district audit throughout England and Wales, and not solely to London.
If you are going to change this particular system there is a great deal to be said for dealing with it nationally; for dealing with its merits or defects as they occur over the whole area to which they apply, and not only in one small portion of it. In other words, if my noble and learned friend says that this Bill is for London only and then goes on to describe the merits or defects of a national

111
system, I must return his argument to him that this is not the Bill in which to make such a change. I have therefore sought to get even closer to the status quo (which is the other great catch-phrase of my noble and learned friend) than Her Majesty's Government have done in the Bill as they have drafted it. I have done this, it is true, at the cost of uniformity, but I am glad to be able to say that, because I can see no merit whatever in uniformity for its own sake. If my propositions are the best but, nevertheless, are not uniform, I am very proud that that is the case, and I should not in any circumstances sacrifice a principle which I hold to be a good one merely because it is not uniform. On the other hand, if uniformity is what my noble and learned friend requires, let him deal with it on a nation-wide basis and not for London alone.
The three Amendments I have put down have attempted to keep the position for Greater London as near as possible to what it is now, and has been for some time. I have conceded that the metropolitan boroughs, which have never had anything but district audit, should continue to have this system. On the other hand, so far as the outer boroughs are concerned (and your Lordships will remember that, of the constituent authorities which now exist, but which will make up the new outer London boroughs, seven at present have a system of professional audit, whereas the rest of the boroughs, urban districts and so on, are all under district audit) my Amendment would give the whole lot precisely the same provisions under this Bill as any other new borough coming into existence in the rest of the country would have under the existing law.
It was often said in the Committee stage that I was confusing the fact that there were not going to be the existing authorities in future, when this Bill comes into force, and that therefore there was no question of taking away a choice or giving a choice to some existing authority. Of course that is so. This Bill sets up completely new boroughs. They are inheritors, it is true, of the previous local authorities, but they are in themselves new, in exactly the same way as boroughs are made out of urban districts or other local authority organizations
112
elsewhere in England and Wales. They are made now, they have been made over many years, and it is a perfectly familiar process. Therefore the proposition I have for your Lordships, so far as the outer London boroughs are concerned, is that they should start off in exactly the same way as any other new borough coming into existence under the present law.
Under Section 239 of the Local Government Act, 1933, in the first stage of the coming into existence of a new borough, before it decides about audit at all it has a system which is known as elective audit, which is an old system and I think now, broadly speaking, an obsolete one. It is then given the power to decide whether in future it will have district audit or professional audit. My noble and learned friend says that he and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government say that the choice is then irreparably made, and they cannot change back and forth thereafter. With that view I am not going to quarrel. If my noble and learned friend says that that is what he thinks the law is, I accept it, and I have never attempted to give them any subsequent choice in my Amendment.
But I have given the new outer boroughs the one single choice that it is conceded by everybody a new borough has all over the rest of England and Wales. So I am not saying that a choice is being taken away; I am not saying that anything is being done which is in the least out of the ordinary; but I am saying, and I must admit it, that there are these new authorities and that they should be entitled—and this is the burden of my case—ito exactly the same rights as any other authority. The only difference is that, whereas outside London a new borough coming into existence would have, as I said, during the interim stage, the old system of elective auditors, whereby two or three people are appointed for the time being to look after the accounts of the authority until a new system is chosen, in this case what I have done in these Amendments is to say that, where the constituent authorities forming the new outer borough consist entirely of authorities which now have district audit, that borough shall begin with district audit; but, on the other hand, where any of the constituent authorities which make

113
up the new borough has now the system of professional audit, then, in the first instance, that borough shall start off with professional audit.
I may say that in some cases the constituent authority which has a professional audit is a comparatively small amount of the total of the new borough. Nevertheless, there is good precedent, certainly in the water authority field, to say that, where any of the new constituent authorities forming the new bigger authority has a professional audit, then the whole shall have it, at any rate at the beginning. I have given them these two systems, and that is the reason why, in the Amendments, specific new boroughs are picked out. Those are the ones which contain one authority which has at the present moment professional audit.
But it does not stop there, because, after they have started off with the system which is laid down in the Bill, they may then make their choice. I do not see how Her Majesty's Government can possibly object to this system, because if it be that they consider district audit is so much superior, and if their view is shared by the new, large, outer London borough, then that borough, if it starts off with district audit, will not change; or, alternatively, if it starts off with professional audit, then it is perfectly entitled to change to district audit, and the thing will be decided on the merits. I do not think that there can be anything objectionable in that. It will, however, give to those boroughs which want professional audit the chance to continue with it instead of being dragooned by Her Majesty's Government into having something which they do not want.
Your Lordships may take account of the fact that I know of at any rate the London borough of Harrow which now has district audit and which would like to have the chance of professional audit; and there is also West Ham, which, many years ago, at the end of the last century, by Private Act of Parliament, adopted a system of professional audit, and I am told would not willingly change in any way to-day. Then there is the fact that, of the boroughs and county boroughs in England and Wales which were entitled to this choice—and that was all of them—over 60 per cent. are at this moment using professional audit, including great cities like Liverpool, Manchester and
114
Birmingham, and are finding it eminently satisfactory for their needs. So it is not by any means a system to be sneered at, because it has been chosen and found acceptable by these great and trustworthy authorities.
Therefore, my Lords, what is there in the least objectionable to giving this chance, this choice, to the individual local authorities on the outer fringe of Greater London? If you take it away, is it not an implication that they are unable to choose? They have the choice written into my Amendment. If they do not like the system they start with, they can change it. If they agree with my noble friend that district audit is the better one, then they can adopt it. But why, when we are setting up these great, new, powerful authorities, can we not trust them with the discretion to choose for their own domestic audit the system which they think best? Why must we force upon them a decision made in Whitehall? My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 135, line 4, after ("every") insert ("inner").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
9.54 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have listened, with interest, to the speech of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. He has moved this Amendment with the skill, the advocacy and the eloquence that I, for one, have come to expect from him, but he has to-day put forward quite a different case, on quite different arguments, from that advanced on Committee stage. On Committee stage he was accusing the Government of seeking to change the position in the Greater London area, and he was maintaining that he was fighting to preserve the present position. To-day his argument is not of that kind at all; and I am sorry that, despite the argument he has now advanced, I must advise your Lordships to reject these Amendments. In doing so I gain some comfort from the fact that I can rely, in resisting them, on observations made by the noble Viscount in the course of our debate in the Committee stage.
I do not want to take up your Lordships' time reminding the House in detail of that debate; but your Lordships may remember on that occasion I discussed at some length the details of the system of district audit: the fact that it was

115
public, the fact that there was a power of surcharge and difference in system between that and professional audit. And I hope that I made it clear I was certainly not sneering at the system of professional audit. I certainly did not criticise the individuals concerned on either side, but I maintained that for local authorities district audit has considerable advantages, and I sought to show your Lordships, in the light of past history, that when new authorities have been created district audit has over a long period of years been the system which has been introduced.
In the last debate it was suggested that each of the new boroughs, 32 in all, should have the option of choosing between district audit and professional audit. I pointed out, when I came to reply to that Amendment, that the metropolitan boroughs had always had district audit and had never had an option to choose professional audit. Now it is suggested by my noble friend that the 12 new boroughs which will be the successors of the metropolitan boroughs should have the district audit system and no option to choose the professional audit; but that the remaining 20 outer London boroughs should have the right to change from the system initially allocated to them. Seven of them are to be initially subject to professional audit; although only in 2 out of the 7 will the area and population, I think, be the greater part of the new boroughs. In the other 5 it will not. The remaining 13 are to be initially placed under the district audit system.
In the course of his speech on the Committee stage my noble friend said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 249 (No. 84) col. 1324]:
"You cannot divide"—
this is very positively expressed, and he spoke as positively to-night—
"the new London boroughs into two varieties by the fact that previously they were either metropolitan boroughs or alternatively outside that area, giving the former no choice and giving the latter the choice they have always had or which most of them have always had."
My Lords, that is precisely what this Amendment seeks to do, and I pray in aid to-day those words of my noble friend. He was wrong in one particular, and that went to the foundation of his
116
argument. The argument then advanced was that at that time these boroughs had the choice, the right to choose between professional audit or district audit. Your Lordships may remember that I challenged that. I said that in my view of the law it seemed to me that the view of the Ministry was more correct; namely, that under the Statute there had been a choice but that, once that choice has been exercised, the borough had no right from then on to change from professional audit to district audit, or from district audit to professional audit. Once it had made its choice, its power under that particular provision was spent. Since that debate my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing has taken the opinion of the Law Officers in this matter. I have seen their opinion; and they express the view, without the slightest hesitation, that once the choice has been exercised by the boroughs that power is spent. So the whole case presented in our last debate, which was that here were the wicked Government, taking away from all these boroughs, apart from the metropolitan boroughs, the power to choose what system of audit they had, was misfounded.
To-day, however, the argument is not put on that. The argument is that if they are going to be called new boroughs, why not give them the initial choice? The argument that we are seeking to sustain is this. It is true that we are remaking the Greater London area, but we are seeking to preserve, if possible, the system of accountancy that already inures within that area, except in seven of the present boroughs, and of these only two will form a major part of new areas. The noble Viscount rather derides this approach. He calls it "that great catch-phrase". But that is exactly what we are trying to do: to make as little change as possible by the Bill, which is confined to Greater London. What he is proposing now is to give power to make a major change in all boroughs outside the metropolitan area.
When one looks at it from another angle—for instance, that of the 7 boroughs out of the 24 which now have professional audit—we see that the borough in which professional accountants have the largest share is Borough No. 20, which will consist of Croydon with Coulsdon and Purley. But even there the professional audit deals

117
with only 50 per cent. of the total income and expenditure. In the other six groups it deals with a smaller percentage, which ranges down from 34 per cent., in Borough No. 17, to 18 per cent. in Borough No. 19. Taking the financial transactions of the existing borough authorities which make up the seven new boroughs, 67 per cent., two-thirds, of their income and expenditure is subject to district audit and the remaining one-third to professional audit.
That being so, and bearing in mind the position in the rest of London, we maintain that the right thing to do, if we are seeking to preserve the system in force at the present time so far as possible, is to apply the district audit through the whole area. It may be a case which it is not necessary to argue at any length, but the thesis of my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has been throughout to make as little change as possible in the system of accountancy in Greater London and not to issue a challenge to those areas which now employ professional audit by dealing purely with Greater London. For those reasons, I invite your Lordships to reject these Amendments.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the Amendment which he has moved. I think that I should repeat that I have an interest, in that I am a professional accountant and associated with the organisation which has made these representations. I will again state, as on the occasion of Committee consideration, that the issue here is not the merits of district audit or of professional audit. The issue is whether certain of the boroughs that will come into existence in the place of local authorities within London should have an option to select whether they will have district audit or professional audit. There is no other issue, as, if I may say so with respect, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would appear to be making out this evening.
We have modified the proposal which was before your Lordships on the Committee stage in an endeavour to show, as is the case, a willingness to co-operate and be reasonable, and to leave the successors to the metropolitan borough outside the right of option, inasmuch as they have at present no right of option, but
118
are required to have district audit. We have considered carefully, and I hope objectively, the submissions which were put forward by the Lord Chancellor on the Committee stage. He made great play, as I think he has admitted this evening, of the doctrine of the spent option. He has stated, as is no doubt the case, that the Law Officers are of the opinion that, once exercised, the option is spent. That may be the view of the Law Officers. But the Law Officers are not always right, as circumstances recently have indicated. We do not accept that view, and we are supported by the editor of Lumley's Public Health, which is no mean authority in this connection.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure the noble Lord is not suggesting that the Law Officers have ignored the textbook authorities. They have, of course, considered that view in the textbook and, for good reason, have rejected it.
LORD LATHAM: I cannot pretend to know what the Law Officers have disregarded or not, or how they arrived at their opinion. I have not even had the opportunity of seeing the case submitted to the Law Officers. That, as anyone knows, is one of the determining factors in the opinion you get: to know exactly the opinion you ask for, and what is the problem. However, that is a matter which is of a general order.
As regards the principle of the option, or the principle of the adoption of district audit, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, quite properly said, that is a matter to be dealt with nationally. But it is not the issue in this Amendment, or the one that we are seeking to resolve. If the view is taken that district audit is superior to professional audit, then let the Government come out and introduce a Bill amending the Act of 1933. After all, those responsible for matters of this kind in 1933 took the view that this option was a proper procedure: indeed, most of the great cities of this country—72 out of 83—have exercised the option and have adopted professional audit. That means, inasmuch as the 83 are county boroughs, that most of the big cities of this country have exercised the option and have elected to have professional audit. So

119
far as I know, there have been no serious consequences for the great cities of Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham. They seem to have got on very well since they have had professional audit, which they have now had for many years. I am certainly surprised and disappointed that in order to meet the points of view which were expressed by the Lord Chancellor and the point of view of Her Majesty's Government, the suggestion in the Amendment that the option should not apply to the twelve boroughs which will succeed the present metropolitan boroughs has been rejected so brusquely.
The proposals are these, and I think it is proper that I should read them in order that your Lordships may know exactly what they are.
"To meet the criticisms of the Government the Amendments now put forward are of this order. (1) They do not affect the inner London boroughs, who will remain subject to district audit which they have always employed. It would also maintain the status quo of the outer London boroughs by applying professional audit to the seven outer London boroughs wholly or mainly composed of borough councils at present employing that system and by applying district audit to the others. Such application will, however, be subject to the right of choice referred to in the next paragraph."
The next paragraph gives the right to choose whichever of the other two systems has not been initially applied, but limited to the outer London boroughs. It will leave unresolved the doubt as to whether further changes in the audit system are permissible.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite clear—at least, I hope I made it clear—that I am not accepting the statement in the least that the seven boroughs with professional audit will in future be wholly or mainly composed of borough councils employing that system.
LORD LATHAM: Those are the proposals. I submit that we are doing no more than asking for what is, and should be, preserved: that these new boroughs which are subject to the limitations of the proposals of the Amendment should have the right of option in the same way as the boroughs, the non-county boroughs, of the Provinces who have the right of selection. We are asking for no more than that, and London should be treated
120
on a parity with the Provinces. If, on the other hand, the view is taken (as it seemed to be implied by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack) that professional audit is undesirable, let the matter be dealt with nationally, and let the whole thing be threshed out. But do not apply it piecemeal to the local authorities which will come into existence as a consequence of the operation of this Bill. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will approve the Amendments.
LORD MILNE: My Lords, in rising to support this Amendment, I must declare an interest as being a member of one of the associations represented before the Minister. I find myself mystified by the tenacity with which the Government hold to a point which, to other noble Lords who have not followed this debate and these arguments closely, must seem, to say the least, somewhat trivial. For, from the support given to this case in the earlier stages of this Bill, I think it must be obvious that our case is a reasonable one and that it could have been met with a minimum of give and take. There appears to be a legal quandary at first sight, but I think this quandary arises because the Government choose to regard the new boroughs as being successors of their own component parts, arguing that the district audit, whether it was there by Act or by choice, cannot he changed; a view which, as you have heard, is open to some doubt, at any rate so far as option is concerned.
It seems to me that this argument, so ably propounded by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that a new borough is an entirely new persona, a new corporate entity, entirely free of taint, disposes of this legal quandary. A new corporation is brought into life. Its powers start again to elect an audit under the 1933 Act. In fact, the Amendment as it stands to-day goes further than it need to, and in this we have met the Government further than we need go. Is it, in so doing, too much to expect that a Government which is pledged to private enterprise should give us the benefit of assistance in this particular case we are putting up?
It has already been said that this is not the place to discuss the relative merits of the two audit systems, since any changes therein would be of national significance. Yet, notwithstanding the assurance in the correspondence which

121
passed between the associations and the Minister, that there was no judgment as between the two systems, the noble and learned Lord, speaking for the Government in the second stage of the Bill, delivered himself of what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, aptly described as a swingeing attack on the system of professional audit. It seems odd to me that there can be such a complete change of opinion in such a very short time.
Certain other noble Lords experienced in local government commented on district audit largely on the question of surcharge, but to rest the case largely on surcharge is, to my mind, to emphasise an institution which is somewhat undemocratic in operation. It is a facet without which professional auditors have performed their duties in the majority of the boroughs outside London and performed them to complete satisfaction, so far as I know, and one which, if they needed it, which I doubt, could very well have been given during the last thirty years. I warmly support this Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords I am very grateful to those of your Lordships who have taken part in this short debate. In reply to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, I am bound to say that I am a little surprised that he should upbraid me for having changed the arguments that I put forward and the basis for my Amendment between the Committee stage and this stage of the Bill. I should have thought that he underestimated the convincing nature of the arguments he then put forward, and it seems to me it would be more than inflexible on the part of myself and those who agree with me if we took no account of the good points that he then put forward and did not seek in some way to meet them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Lord is not misunderstanding me. I made no complaint of his having listened to my speech but I was relying on what he said on that occasion as destructive of his own case now; because what he said was impossible then is the very content of the Amendment he is moving to-day.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not think I said it was impossible, but in any case I should have thought
122
the noble and learned Lord would have been delighted if he had convinced me, and I should not have thought the fact that I have changed my argument and yet put forward what seems to me still a perfectly valid one was any reason why your Lordships should not accept the present argument on the Amendment which is before you. Again, if I may say so with respect, the question of whether or not the Law Officers of the Crown are right about the second choice has nothing to do with this matter, because I expressly said that I accepted my noble and learned friend's interpretation of it. I have not attempted to change the law or to nut in anything that concerns this particular matter. It has nothing to do with it at all.
Then again, my noble and learned friend talked about the fact that even in the new outer boroughs where professional audit might remain there would be a split, two-thirds of the total expenditure of that borough still being audited by district audit as opposed to one-third by professional audit. This is, frankly, a specious argument. It may be perfectly true, but in every borough and every county borough up and down England and Wales where there is professional audit there is a large slab of expenditure which by law has to be dealt with by district audit. This is not a thing which will be peculiar to my outer boroughs. This occurs now in Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and all the other places where professional audit is in force. Yet my noble and learned friend is not prepared to change these or to criticise them. Why, therefore, does he bring up that same point? The noble Lord said that, instead of preserving the status quo, my Amendments imported a major change. What they do, as my noble friend Lord Milne said, is to start the new borough in exactly the same way as any other new borough. It is not right to say there is any peculiarity because the new boroughs will take over from the old.
Take the case of the creation of any borough from an urban district. Of course there was a local authority before, but the new borough is incorporated with a new charter. It is a new local authority, and it gets a new choice about audit. Why therefore should not these new boroughs on the outer fringe of London

123
do the same thing? Finally, my Lords, why is it that Her Majesty's Government are so determined to force district audit on these boroughs willy-nilly? Why are they so afraid? Surely your Lordships will let those boroughs have a choice.
10.32 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. As the result of an Amendment I moved during the Committee stage, the words to be left out are no longer necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 135, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("instead").—(Lord Hastings.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report stage be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
10.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 65A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS

Atholl, D.

Hereford, V.

Saltoun, L.

Attlee, E.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burden, L.

Lucan, E.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Colville of Culross, V. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Stonham, L.

Conesford, L.

Milne, L. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Crook, L.

Peddie, L.

Terrington, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

St. Just, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lothian, M.

Albemarle, E.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Dundee, E.

Merrivale, L.

Bossom, L.

Falmouth, V.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Boston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fortescue, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Soulbury, V.

Chesham, L.

Hastings, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Tenby, V.

De La Warr, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L.

Lambert, V.

Waleran, L.

Derwent, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Westwood, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

OATHS AND EVIDENCE (OVERSEAS AUTHORITIES AND COUNTRIES) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
WILLS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a. and to be printed.
PUBLIC LAVATORIES (TURNSTILES) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

STOCK TRANSFER BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before eleven o'clock.