|(1) The Authority may appoint, or arrange for the assistance of, advisory committees to give advice to the Authority and programme contractors on such matters as the Authority may determine.|
|5||(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, the Authority shall in particular appoint, or arrange for the assistance of—|
|10||(a) a committee representative of the main steams of religious thought in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, to give advice to the Authority on any religious services or other matters of a religious nature included in the programmes broadcast by the Authority, or in any publications issued by the Authority; and|
|15||(b) a committee representative of organisations, authorities and persons concerned with standards of conduct in the advertising of goods and services (including in particular the advertising of goods or services for medical or surgical purposes) to give advice to the Authority and programme contractors as to the principles to be followed in connection with the advertisements included as aforesaid,|
|20||and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply and secure compliance with the recommendations of the said committees, subject to such exceptions or modifications, if any, as may appear to the Authority to be necessary or proper having regard to the duties incumbent on them otherwise than under this subsection.—[Mr. Gammons.]|
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."I suggest that it would be convenient in discussing this Clause for the House to deal with two other Amendments which stand in my name. They are the Amendment in page 6, line 37, to leave out subsection (3), and the one in page 19, line 26, to leave out "such," and to insert:
These Amendments deal with the two main issues, namely, religious broadcasting and the advertising of medical goods and services. These matters were, of course, raised in Committee, and I think that hon. Members in different parts of the Committee felt some concern about them. It is for that reason that we have put down these Amendments. Perhaps I ought to explain, first of all, the exact significance of the words"period given over to a broadcast of any religious service, or to any such other."
The reason for the use of those words is that we are here dealing with two committees. In the case of the second one, the medical committee, as I will call it, dealing with the general standard of advertising, that, of course, would have to be appointed by the Authority. In the case of the first committee, the Religious Advisory Committee, we hope to secure the services of the same committee as advises the B.B.C. on these matters, and, therefore, it is only a question of arranging for their assistance. That is the only significance of those words. I shall deal, first, with the paragraph dealing with religious services and what is described as"appoint, or arrange for the assistance of."
When we discussed this matter last time, there were, I think, three particular points about which the Committee expressed some concern. The first was the question of religious bodies buying time on the programmes. I would point out that there is no question of their being allowed to buy advertisements. That is ruled out by paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule where it is very clearly laid down that"… other matters of a religious nature included in the programmes …"
that is, any religious body; so that closes that door. What about a religious body buying time in the sense that, because of the money which it could offer, it could gain more than its fair share of the quota of religious broadcasts? We are content that that door has been very effectively closed by the setting up of the religious advisory committee. This committee, as the House knows, is to represent the main streams of religious thought, but by laying down the further proviso:"No advertisement shall be permitted which is inserted by or on behalf of any body …"
of course, to the power of the Authority to have the final word, the danger of any one particular religious body getting more than its fair share of the quota has been avoided. The reserve power must be included, as I am sure was agreed when we were discussing this matter in Committee, because otherwise the advisory committee would, in effect, have executive functions. But I think that the Clause, as now amended, deals with the point which I believe at one time troubled hon. Members, that the recommendations of the advisory committee would not be binding on the programme contractors. The next point about religious services which concerned the Committee when we were discussing the matter was the question of the proximity of advertisements to religious services. We on this side felt that it had already been adequately dealt with by paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule, where the duty was laid in the finality on the Postmaster-General to determine the intervals which must elapse, not merely between advertisements as such, but also between advertisements and special types of programmes, such as religious services. Since in the finality the decision in this matter devolved on the Postmaster-General he could, of course, be questioned about it in the House of Commons. So as to make the intentions of the Government clear beyond doubt—although I think these views are identical on both sides of the House—we now propose to insert the words:"… it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply and secure compliance with the recommendations of the said committees, subject."
in paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule. I hope that this Amendment will make the point perfectly clear and that it will remove any misgivings. The general standards that we have accepted in regard to religious broadcasting are acceptable, I understand, to the British Council of Churches, including representatives of the Churches in Scotland, with whom we have had consultation. Now let me come to the second main point of the proposed new Clause, medical advertising, and show how we propose to deal with it. While the Authority may appoint any advisory committee which it thinks fit, a second committee has been made mandatory in addition to the religious advisory committee, which was made mandatory before. The second committee is to deal with the general standards of advertising. As I mentioned during the Committee stage, the advertising interests of this country have a very strict code of their own in regard to standards of advertising, and they are anxious to maintain it in the field of television. They have offered to assist us in any way they can. So, too, has the British Medical Association, whose help will be essential in regard to any type of advertisement that deals with medical or pseudo-medical matters, including, of course, advertisements for drugs. The proposed new Clause therefore specifies exactly the same procedure as was laid down for the religious advisory committee; that is, that the committee must be set up from the start and that the Authority has a duty to comply and to secure compliance with the committee's recommendations, subject to the point about executive functions. The House may wonder why, since we are laying it down that such a committee must be set up and its recommendations followed, we have not specified in detail what bodies will serve on it. To do so would not be in accordance with normal practice in setting up committees of this sort. It would be out of the question that any medical committee set up by a responsible body like the Independent Television Authority should not include a representative of the Ministry of Health, for example, but if we began naming particular bodies it would be difficult to know where to begin and where to stop. There are several bodies which represent the advertising interests in this country, and there are very numerous bodies representing medical, surgical and similar interests. It would be impossible to put them all down in the Bill at this stage. The proper way is to leave the matter in the hands of the Authority, which may wish to vary the number of bodies from time to time. I can state quite categorically that the type of committee which the Government envisage will certainly include representatives of the British Medical Association and of the Ministry of Health. I can sum up this point by saying that my noble Friend the Postmaster-General has been in consultation with the British Medical Association, which I gather feels satisfied that the Bill as now amended and the assurances that I have just given meet their misgivings, and, I hope, those of the many hon. Members who spoke during the Committee stage. There are some Amendments to the proposed new Clause which we shall have to discuss later. With the agreement of the House I should propose not to comment on them until I have heard the arguments put forward."period given over to a broadcast of any religious service, or to any such other broadcasts,"
I should like to consult the convenience of the House in this matter. There are a number of Amendments to the proposed new Clause, and it would be possible, if it were agreeable to both sides of the House, on the question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," to permit a general discussion embracing the subject matter of the Amendments. Later, when the Clause is read a Second time, I could put to the House the Question on any Amendment on which it was desired to divide the House. If that be agreeable, the Amendment would then be formally moved without further debate. Then the House could divide or not. If that course is followed, I shall propose the Question, and on the discussion hon. Members can cover both the Clause and the subject matter of the Amendments.
That seems to be the wise course in the circumstances, having regard to the existence of the Guillotine. Perhaps you would allow us to intimate to you if we should wish to divide on any particular Amendment?
The Assistant Postmaster-General has come towards us some way in bringing forward the proposed new Clause, and in the way it is worded. We particularly welcome the fact that he has stated frankly that a representative of the Ministry of Health will serve on the committee. We know that he has had consultation with the British Medical Association and that he and his right hon. Friend have given assurances which, temporarily at least, have assuaged some of its anxieties. I think the hon. Gentleman also knows full well that the Association cannot and will not be satisfied until some time has passed and it has seen how things go, so as to be able to judge whether embarrassment has come to the public health and to the profession generally.It would not have been wrong to make further specifications. The difference between our form of words and the words of the Assistant Postmaster-General was countered by him just now. He said that it was not customary to specify who should serve on a committee; that was being left to the Authority which could be allowed to make its own judgments. It would see to it that no important section of the public was left out. We hoped that by including the words "local authorities" we would get a direct safeguard for consumer interests, because the local authorities are the best people to represent the point of view of the consumer. When we use the term "other bodies" and among them include the Medical Research Council, I hope the Minister will agree that we make a very strong point, which I hope to prove. He has also given us the point about people associated with medicine. It may be that our wording was a little wide, but I hope that the spirit in which we suggested it is accepted by the Minister. The code to which the Assistant Postmaster-General referred, and which we have accepted in the past, has been honourable and has refused to allow substances to be advertised in the Press which were unproven or were against the interests of the public at large. That situation is not quite a sufficient safeguard for the television screen. On this side of the House we think, and there may be many hon. Members on the Government side who agree with us, that the intimacy of advertising which brings things right into the home is so persuasive that it creates a new situation. That is augmented by the fact that we have a National Health Service, nearly all the funds of which come from the Exchequer. 4.0 p.m. The situation is therefore somewhat different. It is for that reason that we ask the hon. Gentleman to give us all possible protection against the excessive self-medication which might ensue if even the most well-proven substances were persuasively and successfully advertised on the television screen—substances which are completely ethical in themselves and against which one can bring no criticism. I do not wish to dilate on this. The other day I mentioned cortisone. We all know that in certain cases of arthritis and rheumatism that can work wonders, but we are now discovering that in the early stages aspirin apparently appears to be equally effective. Cortisone is very expensive. The hon. Gentleman must agree that it would obviously not be fair to persuade people to buy cortisone when the same results can be obtained in a very much simpler and cheaper way and without any of the risks associated with this powerful new and expensive drug. Before the war there was a great deal of self-medication. That is not so today. Before the war the figures were running at about £30 million per annum plus £4 million spent on advertising. At today's value that would be about £100 million. I am advised that today self-medication does not run higher, in monetary value, than that pre-war figure. Here the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will agree that the Service which she represents has certainly affected, for obvious and very satisfactory reasons, a remarkable diminution in self-medication. That is why we inserted the words "Minister of Health." We are very glad indeed to have the assurance of the Assistant Postmaster-General that the Minister is to be directly represented. The reference to the Medical Research Council is particularly important. Many new substances are being discovered daily. Nearly all of them are being synthesised and do not exist in the ordinary way in nature. It is possible nowadays to order from the research chemist a substance to do a piece of work, in much the same way as ordering a tool from the machine tool making industry—almost like ordering a suit of clothes or a dress from a tailor or a dressmaker. There is almost nothing the research chemists cannot provide if one explains one's needs. We have had experience of the danger to the public health arising from the use of new substances which have crept into medicine, or are used in the food industry without being fully tested and proven, and the body which knows most about such things is the Medical Research Council. The Assistant Postmaster-General will remember that some time ago we had a little discussion about smoking, and the dangers of cancer of the lung associated with it. I thought it was agreed that the Minister of Health had made it quite clear that he had to accept, in part at least, the presumption that there was, to put it no higher, an association between the two. We on this side pointed out that the £250,000 paid by the tobacco companies, and so gladly received by the Medical Research Association through the Minister, should help us to solve the problem in a few years. We believed that until then the television screen would not be a suitable vehicle for this type of propaganda. I myself stated—and I am sure that I am right—that the great companies would be entirely agreeable to wait and see what happened from the very large and munificent gift they had offered. I need not say much more, but would like to use the opportunity to speak of what can happen when the advertiser is either ignorant, foolish or unscrupulous. In April of this year the "Medical World" had a symposium by a group of medical men, all of them more notable and more worthy than I am, on the subject of smoking and lung cancer. I was a contributor and made certain statements. The Minister's views, as given in the House in answer to a Written Question and his Press statement, were most fully and carefully set out and there was this symposium by, I think, 30 medical men. Amongst other things which I wrote, I used the following words:
The Sunday Press picked out a portion of what I said, and an opportunity was seen by an enterprising manufacturer in Bristol. He has nothing to do with real tobacco, but makes cigarettes out of herbs—which may be chopped grass or any other such material. He calls his wares bachelor's cigarettes. I must mention them, Mr. Speaker, because I think that I have been most grossly treated. Had I received what I now hold in my hand whilst the House was sitting I would have brought it to your attention. However, I only found out the day after the Recess started. This Bristol manufacturer has chosen to circularise boys at school. I noted it in the house of my colleague the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler). His son, a boy of 16, had received what I now hold in my hand. It consists of excerpts from the Sunday newspapers and then advertises these cigarettes, made from dried grass or whatever it may be. It states that they have no nicotine, which of course we accept, and are non-injurious, which is grossly improper because it is entirely untrue and certainly unproven. If that is what is done immediately by an unscrupulous manufacturer and they use the name of hon. Members who have attacked smoking—albeit they are the victims of the habit themselves—and then try to get schoolboys to smoke something else which may be as harmful or in the long run even more harmful than tobacco smoking, I think that we have made out a very strong case to show why we should be most cautious and have the Medical Research Council sitting on this and other committees. I am sorry to have taken so long, but I am sure that hon. Members will understand why I have brought in the last point."Until their recent donation for further research the tobacco companies have used their great financial resources to further the sales of their products. This is natural and no one can blame them. Who is to counter such propaganda and how? Filter tip cigarettes will boom. Manufacturers of patent cigarette holders will make fortunes. The moderate cigar smoker will gaze pityingly upon his unfortunate neighbour inhaling the smoke of a cigarette, and the pipe smoker will remember that his vice has not been fully incriminated and defend it on historical as well as statistical grounds."
The Assistant Postmaster-General will remember that when this matter was being dealt with in Committee I pressed him to add a representative of the Ministry of Health to the committee referred to in subsection (2, b) of the proposed new Clause, and he was courteous enough to say that he would consider the matter. I appreciate what he has done and thank him for it, but I should have been happier if the words "Ministry of Health" had appeared. He has, however, assured the House that it is almost certain that a representative of the Ministry will be included.This is a matter of the very greatest importance. The object of commercial broadcasting is to sell certain products, including medicines, and the Ministry will have to pay for most of those medicines. A demand will be created by the advertisements, and the potential patients will go to their doctors, under the National Health Service, and say, "Cannot we have this medicine? We have heard so much about it." When that happens, how many doctors, dependent as they are upon the good will of their patients for their salaries, will refuse them? For that financial reason alone it is important that the Ministry should be represented on the committee. I am very glad to hear that the British Medical Association will be included, and I hope that the Medical Research Council will also be represented. The British Medical Association is not enough by itself. It is possible that in some directions its members may have an outlook which corresponds too closely with that of the advertisers. Doctors may be too ready to agree that special, if not patent, medicines should be advertised, feeling that if people buy them it will save the doctors time and trouble. In that way the sale of medications which, except for minor complaints, is undesirable, may be increased. I am grateful that the Ministry of Health is to be represented, but I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to the question of the inclusion of a representative of the Medical Research Council.
I want to deal very briefly with two points. I am sorry that in bringing forward the new Clause the Government are still sticking to the idea that the committee which will deal with religious matters shall be
I appreciate the reasons for the Government sticking to this definition, because that is the kind of committee which advises the B.B.C., but I think it is wrong to continue to leave out religious minorities, especially in view of the promise made by the Board of Governors of the B.B.C., when the Beveridge Committee was reporting, to widen its scope of discussion and its representation of religious and ethical views. That attitude should also apply to the I.T.A. It is wrong completely to ignore religious sects and societies which, although they have not large memberships, have contributed quite a lot to the thought and literature on ethical matters. 4.15 p.m. My second point concerns the Amendment to the proposed new Clause standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) and myself, in line 12, after "concerned," to insert "as consumers or otherwise." This Amendment concerns the representation of consumers on the advisory committee dealing with advertising. I am very unhappy at the growth of restrictive professionalism which is now found in so many walks of life. The time has come when we ought not to give even advisory authority to a restrictive body representing its own vested interests and nothing else. I am rather surprised that hon. Members opposite who represent advertising interests are, with one exception, absent when this important matter is being discussed."representative of the main streams of religious thought. …"
Who is the exception?
I was under the impression that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) had something to do with advertising.
I can relieve the hon. Member of that impression. I have no connection whatever with advertising.
Then we have no representatives of the advertising industry with us, which is rather surprising, although they probably left their instructions behind. The proposed new Clause says that the advisory body shall be
I should have thought that in this case, probably more than in any other, public interest ought to be represented. The Assistant Postmaster General talked about the strict code of conduct laid down by the advertisers, but it is not their code which is strict. The strictness is applied by the newspapers. The Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the Newspaper Society have laid down their own rules in regard to advertising matter in newspapers. It is this code which is accepted as being suitable for application in other fields, but, even so, many questionable and false claims for products are frequently made in news papers. I do not think that anybody wants to see questionable claims being put forward in this new medium of advertising. We want it to start off with very high standards. At present, in the whole field of broadcasting, we have very high standards with regard to the quality of programmes, and, although no advertising is allowed by the B.B.C., we want to see the high standards they have established obtaining generally throughout the new I.T.A. For that reason this advisory committee should be strengthened so as to deal with advertising on commercial television in much the same way as the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the Newspaper Society deal with advertising in newspapers. I believe that it is necessary to include representatives of the general public, as provided in the Amendment to which I have referred. We are all consumers of the products to be advertised and for that reason anybody who is not associated with the interests mentioned in the new Clause, and who has experience of public affairs, should rank as a representative. We should also make sure that the 11 million organised consumers in the corporative societies are not left out of account. If it becomes the duty of the advisory committee to lay down a code of conduct for advertisers in commercial television, it is surely necessary to have a wider body than that provided for in the Clause as it stands at present."a committee representative of organisations, authorities and persons concerned with standards of conduct in the advertising of goods and services …"
This new Clause is an attempt by the Government to meet doubts expressed about the Bill. Those of us who have certain misgivings about the operation of commercial television must recognise that the new Clause is a very real advance towards meeting our point of view. Certain hon. Gentlemen opposite are inclined to think that advertisers will use this medium quite unscrupulously. No experience of commercial life in this country justifies that point of view. For example, as the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) pointed out, the newspaper proprietors have their own association for working out a code of conduct that is rigidly adhered to.The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) illustrated a case of a lapse, but I do not think that he is entitled, because of that one lapse on the part of one unscrupulous person, to imply that everybody else will be unscrupulous. I admit that the case indicates, perhaps, a need to watch that that sort of thing does not happen, but we are not entitled to assume that because one bad thing has been done the new advisory committee will permit any to be done.
I should not like it to go out that any newspapers have accepted that type of advertisement. That was an example of incredible enterprise. What that person did was to make photographs of the montages of Sunday newspapers and send them to school boys. I was not speaking against newspapers or their advertisements.
I think that strengthens my case. For all the criticism we level at them from time to time, we know that the newspaper proprietors of this country are by and large reputable and responsible people, and we have become accustomed to expect from them a certain code of conduct, and I am sure that we may expect the same high standards amongst advertisers in the new medium.The N.P.A. has its committee, which has been working for many years, and from month to month it makes new regulations, and consequently it is not possible for any advertiser to claim, for instance, that he has a cure for cancer or tuberculosis, or to make any claim of that sort for medical goods. The committee consults regularly the top people in the medical profession, and we have no reason to suppose that the new advisory committee for the I.T.A. will not be as careful in obtaining advice from the medical profession as the newspaper proprietors are at the present time. I was very disturbed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), who implied that because of advertising, whether on television or in the newspapers, doctors would be forced, by pressure upon them, to prescribe this or that remedy. Perhaps a weak doctor would succumb to that sort of pressure, but I do not believe that that is true of the medical profession as a whole. If it were, I doubt very much whether the health of the people of this country would be as good as it is.
I did not say that of the medical profession. I said some of the doctors.
It is very difficult to legislate in such a way as to deal with every single person in a profession. If there are weak doctors who succumb to advertising in any form, they will still be weak doctors whether the new Clause is accepted or not. If the hon. Member accepts that point of view, his case is very considerably weakened. We have in this country a standard of ethics in business and in medicine that is very high indeed, and I do not think that it will be altered whatever regulations are imposed. The same high standards will remain. I am happy to accept the new Clause as going a long way to helping those of us on this side of the House who have had doubts in the past.The hon. Member for Hillsborough said that organised members of the Co-operative societies—11 million of them, I think he said—and other consumers should be represented on the proposed advisory committee. Superficially, there would appear to be an advantage in that suggestion, but in considering it we have the experience of consumers' councils in the last few years to guide us. Consumers' councils have formed a part of the structure of several nationalised industries. They have operated for several years in the electricity industry and the gas industry, and so on. I think any fair-minded person would admit that the consumers' councils have, by and large, been complete failures. There is very little interest in them amongst the public, and very little desire in the public to deal with them. Perhaps they could do some good, but my point is that at present they are a complete waste of time. In any case, it would seem to me that the interests of the consumers will be represented by the bodies and persons of whom the advisory committee is to be representative.
The Assistant Postmaster-General, in moving the new Clause, seemed to think he had been very generous to the Opposition and had gone a long way to allay all the fears about what would happen about religious broadcasting in the new set-up. At first sight, admittedly, the new Clause seems to improve the Bill a bit, but a full examination of it gives rise to new fears, and consequently to the doubt whether we are any further forward.We on this side of the House tried to obtain a guarantee of a minimum of religious broadcasting by the new set-up, but there is nothing in the Bill or in the new Clause that gives us that guarantee. All we have now is a promise of an advisory committee, or of assistance by an existing advisory committee, to advise the Independent Television Authority on any programmes. There is not apparently to be advice on how many programmes of a religious character should be broadcast. It is assumed that the Authority will decide to have religious broadcasts, but there is no guarantee that there will be any religious broadcasting, and the commercial nature of the whole set-up makes it most unlikely that there will be religious broadcasting. 4.30 p.m. We have the very good point that
We welcome those words, but when we read further we must ask for some explanation from the Government, because those words are"it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply and secure compliance with the recommendations of the said committees."
What does that mean? As far as I can read it, the Authority may search through the Bill and discover other duties which would allow it to disregard all the advice given. There is the financial duty that, as soon as possible, the Authority should make the system pay. To my mind these words might permit the Authority to do what we have been promised by the Postmaster-General it will not do and what most religious organisations in the country do not want it to do—that is, permit a religious organisation to buy time, paying the I.T.A. in order to have time on the air. Is that to be one of the duties to which the Authority can point in saying, "We will not accept your advice"? The Assistant Postmaster-General must make the position much clearer before we can accept the Clause. He must make clear exactly what he envisages by these modifications and exceptions to which he deliberately subjects the acceptance of the advice of the committees. The Clause is a slight advance towards reason, but the hon. Gentleman should not think for a minute that he has met the objections which we advanced in Committee or allayed the fears which we still have."subject to such modifications and exceptions, if any, as may appear to the Authority to be necessary or proper having regard to the duties incumbent on them otherwise than under this subsection."
I rise for a moment to correct, if I may, a misapprehension under which I believe the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) is suffering about the control of advertising. He appeared to believe that it was the newspaper organisations only which maintained committees for regulating and controlling advertising. It is true that the newspapers have a committee which exercises a very severe control over the advertising which appears in the Press. I have had some experience in these matters; for some years I was chairman of that committee.But the main and more general organisation which now deals with these matters is the Advertising Association which is, as it were, the federal body composed of all the organisations which are concerned with advertising—the newspapers, the advertising agents, the advertisers, the billposters and others. That organisation is responsible for what I think may be called the main code which exists for the control of advertising.
The hon. Member seems to have misunderstood me. I know about the Advertising Association and its code. The sanction behind that code lies in the subcommittee of the N.P.A., and without that sanction the Advertising Association's code would be worthless.
It is true that the sanction, that is to say, the power to enforce the rules—depends on the individual associations, not only the newspapers in their sphere but the billposters in their sphere and so on; but it is the Advertising Association which brings together all the rules and regulations of the individual bodies and which lays down a code which those bodies accept and enforce on their own members. I wanted to make that point clear. Although I am not now engaged in the advertising business, for many years I was associated with these things, and I had the honour of being the chairman of the first committee appointed many years ago by the Advertising Association to investigate the advertising of patent medicine. We had on that committee representatives of the B.M.A. and of the manufacturing chemists as well as others who represented the different interests concerned, the public interest by no means being excluded from all those deliberations.I am sure the advertising interests will welcome the new Clause. My hon. Friend can be assured that the I.T.A. will find no difficulty in assembling a responsible body of advisers to help it in this matter, a body which, it will find, is as much concerned for the credit of advertising and for sound conduct in the business as any Members of the House could be.
I am rather concerned about the support which was given to the Clause by the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) and the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper), who appeared to think it was completely satisfactory. I am not quite so sure.For example, I do not accept the view of the hon. and gallant Member that the advertisers always avoid unscrupulous conduct in carrying on their advertising. Only this weekend an hon. Member in a well-known Sunday newspaper gave an account of the action of a famous firm of brewers who, in order to obtain the opinion of doctors about the merits of their commodity—which opinion they would probably advertise later—had offered the doctors a case of the liquors which were to be advertised. That was an example of unscrupulousness in obtaining an unbiased medical opinion. I am sure that medical men would know how to withstand the temptation, but the brewers' intentions in this case are an indication that we cannot rely on standards of scrupulous conduct as some hon. Members suggest. As the House has no doubt guessed, it is this issue which has brought me to my feet to ask, briefly, some questions about the main streams of religious thought which are referred to in the Clause. The Assistant Postmaster-General said that the Government have had consultations with the British Council of Churches and the Churches in Scotland. I should respect both those bodies very much except that the British Council of Churches does not represent all the churches and is not very interested in the subject in which I am deeply interested—although I do not think the Council is in any sense opposed to what I shall say in this matter. There is in existence a Temperance Council of the Christian Churches which is representative of all the Churches without exception and which is vitally interested in this question of advertising. It is interested, for example, to see that there shall not be advertising of cocktails for adolescents. It does not wish to see the advertising now taking place in the Press extended into the homes of the people. It is very concerned, as was the Royal Commission, about the advertising of medicated wines for the purpose of deluding distressed invalids. The Council does not want to see the wireless used in that field. I believe that the watchdog duty on this question would almost be better exercised by the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches. I shall not speak about Scotland, because I know that the Church of Scotland has its temperance committee which is vitally concerned about this matter, as is the temperance council for England. Speaking of England, however, I should say, that there is a case for considering representation of this type, not only when dealing with the main streams of religious thought but when dealing with ail other matters of a religious nature which are to be included in the programmes. I have not put an Amendment on the Order Paper because I think that the Home Secretary will be sympathetic with the contentions which I have put forward. I hope that in his reply he will be able to give some undertaking that in the development of this advisory committee the type of thought which I have expressed will be taken into account. I think that it is important to take it into account, because when we come to subsection (2, b) of the new Clause, concerning the standards of conduct in the advertising of goods and services, it is only the B.M.A. and the Ministry of Health which are referred to. Again, on the question of breaches into the field of temperance which are likely to be made by successful advertising through television, I should say that under that head also there is a ground for the effective representation of temperance opinion on this committee. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) has said about the Co-operative movement. I put in my plea also for the Co-operative movement. I hope that this matter will be taken seriously into consideration by the Home Secretary. Briefly, I am pressing very strongly that the Home Secretary should say that the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches might be considered to be the kind of body which should be included under the terms of this Amendment.
I rise only for a moment to refute the suggestion made by hon. Members opposite concerning the intentions of this Clause. It was suggested that there was no advertising by the B.B.C. I think that many of us, while appreciating the difficulties of the B.B.C., are feeling some alarm at the way in which advertising creeps into the B.B.C.One may find it very difficult—and I speak as an old B.B.C. producer—to exclude involuntary advertising being seen. particularly in outside broadcasts. I remember that in 1939 I was responsible for televising the Derby. The day before we were doing a rehearsal, and a little man came up and said, "You are wonderful people; how will you be able to show the start right across Epsom Downs?" I said, "We have a big telephoto lens and we shall see that clearly." He said, "What area will that take in?" I said, "That tree over there will mark the left-hand side of the picture and the starting gate will mark the right-hand side of the picture." The next day, on that tree, I found a huge placard with Seagers' Gin written on it. Involuntarily we had to include the advertisement in the programme. I think that those Members who saw last night's broadcast from Basle Stadium of the football there—particularly the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson)—must be deeply shattered to find Martell's brandy and Longine's watches advertised on the score-board, and I remember seeing Firestone tyres and lots of other involuntary advertisements. Let us come to the voluntary ones. Whenever a show is beginning to flop the first thing one notices is that the producer or manager arrives and says, "I wonder if you would like to do a broadcast of our show for the B.B.C. theatre?" One says, "Why?" He says, "It is a very good show." It is true to say that one of the longest and most successful runs in a theatre in London—"Me and my Girl,"—had notices up that the show was coming off, but before that happened a short broadcast was given, and the "Lambeth Walk" became an almost internationally-known tune. As the result of the plug given to that show, it ran for a number of years, gave a great deal of pleasure and made a lot of money for the people who put it on. It is not right to say that there is no advertising, sometimes voluntarily and sometimes involuntarily, on the B.B.C.
When the I.T.A. or the programme contractors put on a show they will pay for it. They do not pay for the right of advertising.
I quite agree that they do not pay for the right of advertising. That brings me to my point, if I may finish my argument. The "Radio Times" itself in its ordinary broadcasts feels compelled to give acknowledgment all along the line, and one has only to listen or to look in any day to find examples of this sort of thing. Take today's programme, in the Home Service, at seven o'clock, I find that it says, "Mr. Jon Farrell is appearing in 'Guys and Dolls' at the London Coliseum," and the same announcement is put on at the end of the programme.We are seeking in this Clause, which has my support, to set up a code of advertising. I hope that this code may form a code not only for the I.T.A. and programme companies but also for the B.B.C. itself. In the process of time and as the new code evolves, there must be something to be gained from experience. I think that the B.B.C. has itself imposed, patiently and conscientiously, a code which is generally acceptable in this country. I think that we would be hypocritical if we said that there was not advertising on the B.B.C. at the moment because, undoubtedly, there is a good deal of advertising, both voluntary and involuntary.
Will the hon. Gentleman say whether, in this case, he does not support the Amendment which we have down, in line 16, to insert the words:
He has been speaking in favour of a code, and would he not agree that it should be inserted in the Bill?"and to prepare and submit to the Authority a code of such standards of conduct as aforesaid"?
I have used this argument times without number, and in every single case hon. Members opposite have tried to write everything into the Bill. Surely that is wrong. We are trying to start a new corporation, rather tentatively and hesitantly, and we have to see how it is going to work out. From the point of view of the public who are to receive this second programme, I think that it is in their own interest that we should not lay down hard and fast rules at this stage.
The speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) leads me naturally to what I want to say, because I am rising to speak on the second of the two Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and other hon. Members.The speeches we have heard from the other side have illustrated the fact that we are now moving to a code of ethical conduct to be observed by advertisers and to be enforced either by the Authority or by the Government. There is, of course, still a fair amount of confusion. The hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron-Leader Cooper) talked as though we were not including a Clause to protect the credulous, the silly and the vain from the depredations of advertisers. This is exactly what the new Clause introduced by the Assistant Postmaster-General seeks to do. It is exactly what the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) was doing when he spoke of the N.P.A. Committee set up to protect newspapers and their readers from the depredations of advertisers. What we are seeking now is this. The Government are now recognising the need to set up an advisory committee which will give advice to the Authority, not only on the matter of patent medicines, but on all other matters concerning the selling of goods. That is of great importance, and the Committee must inevitably produce a code of ethics and standards of conduct. If so, as these Amendments make it quite clear, they should be submitted to the Authority and should be available to this House as they are approved by the Postmaster-General; and it should be made clear to the House if at any time there is any alteration to them. The necessity for this, is absolutely clear. There has been sitting in Turin a most important but unnoticed body, the Congress of the International Union of the Medical Press. We ought at this stage to mention that the medical Press behaves impeccably over the question of patent medicines. The British Medical Journal, for example, loses perhaps hundreds and thousands of pounds a year because it refuses to take any patent medicine advertising. The editor of that journal, together with other representatives of the international medical Press meeting in Turin, have passed a resolution calling on their members and on their Governments to do something about the social consequences of spreading incorrect medical information. When the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, North talks as though there are merely a few isolated people who here and there, by accident almost, give false medical information and, therefore, we should not need to worry about it unduly. He completely overlooks the concern of the international medical journalists, men of the highest medical repute, who are very much concerned with what is going on. That means that we should have a standard or code of ethics for advertisers, not on the same basis as that instituted by the Newspapers Proprietors Association and the Newspaper Society, but far more strict. What the hon. Member for Hendon, North reluctantly refuses to face is that this medium, the effectiveness of which has been described so graphically, is different from newspapers because it is designed to catch the potential customer unawares. It intrudes into his home; it comes in as a guest in an entirely different way from that in which a newspaper comes in. For those reasons, and because it has a mass circulation far greater than any newspaper could possibly command, it is utterly necessary that the code of conduct should be rigid, absolutely firm and clear, not only to the advertisers, but to hon. Members of this House and to the public too. It will be argued that this makes the prospect of commercial television being profitable not so good. Indeed, I note what two of the great newspaper proprietors have already said. I quote one of them:
But that is not the consideration. The importance of commercial television is the service it provides to the people, and not to the advertiser. If these restrictions that are being placed upon it make it commercially unattractive, that is something that the Government and the advertiser will have to face up to. But it would be criminal if, in the interests of making profits for the advertisers, we lowered the standard of commercial television below that of the least choosy of the newspapers. The importance of getting a code clearly established is underlined by what the Assistant Postmaster-General himself said in opening this debate. He said that it was not possible at this stage nor desirable for him to indicate who should be members of the advisory committee. I wonder why he says that. The B.B.C., in its paid-for advertising appearing in its own journals—"The Radio Times" "The Listener" and the rest—exercises a first-class censorship over its advertising. It does not accept the sort of advertising that we fear and which the Assistant Postmaster-General fears would get on the screen but for the committee that he proposes to set up. It is worth considering the constitution of the B.B.C.'s general advisory committee which advises the B.B.C. of what form of advertising to accept. It comprises the Advertising Appointments Bureau, the Advertising Association, the Association of British Travel Agents, the Association of Musical Instruments Industries, the British Horological Institute, the Incorporated Advertisement Managers' Association, the Incorporated Sales' Managers Association, the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, the Institute of Incorporated Practitioners in Advertising, the Retail Trading Standards Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Society of Diploma Members of the Advertising Association. That is the sort of body that sees that the advertisements appearing in the B.B.C. papers and journals are of the necessary high standard. They produce a code of ethics for the B.B.C. It is utterly essential that when we come to television, a body no less strong in its constitution and no less experienced should also be giving advice. It is essential that the code of ethics should be clear to everybody, and it should be published annually. I should like to see it published in the annual report of the I.T.A. and discussed in the House of Commons. I should like it to be the duty of the Assistant Postmaster-General and of the Government every time the code was altered to come to the House and say that it had been altered, and give the reasons for it. I will give a reason to show why that is important. A great trade war is now going on between the dairymen, who do not advertise, and the margarine producers, who do advertise. One of the margarine advertisers, who has, no doubt, a standard of ethics himself, issued some advertising which he wanted inserted in the Press, saying that his margarine was creamier than butter. The newspaper refused to take the advertising because it was not true. That is the difference between the standard of ethics of the advertiser and the standard of ethics of the newspaper. The newspaper says, "You will not be allowed to say that sort of thing to our readers," although the advertiser thought that it was a perfectly ethical thing to do. That is what we want in commercial television. Any departure from such a standard should be discussed in this House. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General, who has gone a long way in branding some of the advertisers as being undesirable gentlemen—with, for instance, the sort of thing that he said should not be mentioned when the debates on this subject began about 18 months ago—will see that the Government insist on a code of ethics, that they give power to the new committee to demand that the code of ethics is obeyed, and that he will table the code of ethics for discussion in the House when necessary."T.V. looks like being so surrounded by restrictions that its operation will not be profitable either to advertisers or to programme companies."
We on this side want to keep apart the two proposed committees. One of them is, apparently, to be a committee of poachers, not even turned gamekeepers, to advise on the ethics of poaching. We have just heard about it from several experts, and I have no doubt that that committee will make quite a nice job of it; but we certainly would like to see that we know what it is doing. That is why we want the code to be published and why we want the Postmaster-General to have to approve the code and any changes that are made in it from time to time, so that he may be questioned upon it.We think, however, that those people are not the right people to advise on questions of public health and professional practice and the general questions of national interest that obviously arise in connection, not only with medical advertisements, but with matters affecting medicine and public health in the programmes. I see no reason why a religious committee should advise on both the advertisements and the programmes and the medical committee should be limited to advise on advertisements. There is just as much to be said for doing what we propose and what the Assistant Postmaster-General does not propose to do; that is, giving the proposed medical advisory committee power to deal with the whole of the programmes and not merely with the advertisements in them. 5.0 p.m. I am not going into the details, but we know, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health knows very well, that a great deal of harm has been done by medical discoveries being publicised too soon and used too soon, with the effect of producing for instance, a strain of bacteria resistent to tuberculosis cures. That sort of damage has been done in other countries, too. The trouble had to be corrected here with a great deal of difficulty, and we do not want it repeated by these advertisements or other items in the programmes. I want to say a word or two about consumers. It seems to me wholly unfair to leave out the consumers. I differ from the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) who said that consumers' advisory committees for electricity and gas were of no use. My experience is the exact opposite. I think that matters of this sort ought not to be left entirely to the professional people, whether they are professional advertisers or medical professionalists. We ought to do more than that. Lastly, there is one Amendment that has not been mentioned and which I should like to mention. In these matters the Authority can only enforce compliance through the contracts it makes with the programme contractors, and it has not been given any other powers to carry out what is required. It should itself be subject to the directions of the Postmaster-General who should take his share of the responsibility for what is done with regard to these committees. There is at present no provision of that sort in the Bill, and to put it in will enable the Postmaster-General to be questioned, when he would not otherwise be liable to be questioned, about the character of the advice given and the degree of compliance which was secured. For all these reasons, I regard these Amendments as differing very materially from the Clause, and I find the Clause wholly unsatisfactory because it is quite insufficient and it gives far too much to the vested interests in advertising which I would not be content to entrust to them in a matter of such public importance.
I personally would have no great objection at all to the Amendment in line 16, at the end, insert:
I would have no objection to the committee which it is proposed to be set up having to prepare a code of conduct, or, indeed, having to publish such a code of conduct. I think, however, that it is better if this sort of thing is left in the informal way in which the Clause leaves it. I should have thought that the rights of Parliament were more than satisfied by Clause 4 (5) which says:"and to prepare and submit to the Authority a code of such standards of conduct as aforesaid."
I recollect that in Committee some of us on these benches thought that that was going much too far. I should have thought that that completely covered the desire of the Opposition as expressed in the Amendment in line 20, at the end, add:"Without prejudice to any of the duties incumbent on the Authority … it shall be the duty of the Authority to consult from time to time with the Postmaster-General … and to carry out any directions which he may give them. …"
(ii) to submit to the Postmaster-General for approval and thereafter to publish and secure compliance with the said code as approved with or without modifications by the Postmaster-General:
Provided that from time to time the Authority may after consultation with the said last-mentioned committee and with the approval of the Postmaster-General modify the said code and that the Postmaster-General shall lay before Parliament the said code and any modifications thereof made as aforesaid by the Authority."
May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman a short and simple question? Does he not agree that the subsection from which he has just read does not enable us to put any questions to the Postmaster-General because it is up to the Authority to consult him?
I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought that if, as is stated at the end of the subsection, the Authority is to be under the obligation of carrying out any directions which the Postmaster-General may give it, that would mean that the Postmaster-General would be subject to questioning in the House of Commons about any of the descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised, or the methods of advertising, and so on. I am speaking subject to correction by lawyers on the matter. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member would agree that that is right.I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General a point which arises out of the intervention of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), namely, the question of involuntary advertising. If a programme contractor is under certain obligations about the classes of goods that he must or must not advertise, which classes of goods are mentioned in his contract, and he is under the general fear of penalty clauses and so on if he advertises a certain matter, I take it that that applies only to matters which are mentioned in advertisements for which he is directly paid, and that it does not apply to advertisements which appear involuntarily, as so many advertisements appear involuntarily, in the B.B.C. programmes. I should be obliged if my hon. Friend could deal with that point, because it seems to me to be of some substance.
I think that we have to consider this new Clause in relation to the Amendments to it. Before coming to that matter, however, I should like to say that the last point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) was very interesting. Under the set-up as it is now proposed, there is no advisory committee to the Postmaster-General. There is an advisory committee to the I.T.A. The advisory committee to the I.T.A. makes certain recommendations which the I.T.A. accepts. Is it suggested that the Postmaster-General, without any advice at all, under Clause 4 (4) and (5), is to tell the I.T.A. that it must not carry out the advice of the advisory committee? That seems to me to indicate that the Assistant Postmaster-General's well intentioned Clause does not meet the position with which we are concerned in this series of Amendments.
Does my right hon. Friend observe that at the end of this Clause there is no obligation whatever on the I.T.A. to accept the advice of the advisory committee, and that whatever advice is given can be rejected by the I.T.A.?
Yes. I was coming to that point later on. I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for reminding me of it.Let us see what the new Clause does. It proposes that there should be, in addition to any other committees, two specific advisory committees to the I.T.A. The first is a committee to deal with religious broadcasts. The second committee is to deal with a generality of things, including the medical side and the code of advertising. What astonishes me is that the code of advertising becomes a matter for the representative of the B.M.A. I should have thought that it was equally important to have medicines and quack remedies the subject of a medical advisory committee, and that the general code of advertising is another matter altogether. I should have thought that that was the right way of approaching the problem. On the general code about which we are very concerned, it is important that the consumers should have special representation in order to consider general misrepresentation or representation of the goods to be advertised and the methods to be employed. I should have thought that that would have been the better method of doing this job. There is one further point. I quite agree that this advisory committee ought not to have the power of making recommendations which are obligatory upon the I.T.A.; otherwise, they would then become executive bodies. But what the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not deal with was the case in which the I.T.A. consistently rejects the advice of its advisory committee, and, there, we have had no indication of what would happen. We have had no indication what the position would be if the I.T.A. rejected the advice because that advice was in conflict with its general responsibilities, and I thought that we might have had some more information about that point. Let us now look at the Amendments. The first one deals precisely with the medical point. The second is concerned particularly with the rights of consumers, and it is highly important, because consumers—the viewers—are the important people in this matter. The next Amendment but one deals with the general code and standards of conduct, and the next following with submitting that code to the Postmaster-General for his approval. The final one gives authority to the Postmaster-General to decide as between the I.T.A. and the advisory committees. How does this new Clause meet the points raised in all these Amendments? First of all, we have throughout the debate assumed that the rules will be submitted to this House, and, on this point, I would remind the Assistant Postmaster-General of his own statement of 20th May, in which he said this:
That is not provided for in this new Clause."I would remind hon. Members that the whole code of advertisement has not only to be agreed by the Authority but approved by the Postmaster-General."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 2334.]
Surely it is provided for in Clause 4 (3)?
The body to determine that was to be the advisory committee, which was to draft this code, which would then have to be submitted to the Postmaster-General, but, apparently, in this Clause, there is no prior submission of the code to the Postmaster-General. It may be argued by the Assistant Postmaster-General that the Second Schedule covers that point, but I would draw his attention to the fact that the Second Schedule deals with the times and position of advertisements, and not with a general code or standard, which is something entirely different.What have these committees to do? Surely, the advisory committee will be concerned about balance, and the special advisory committee will certainly be concerned about religion. The other one will be concerned with a proper proportion, and the interpretation and general balance of the programme. Surely, these are matters for the advisory committee, and I should have thought that the advisory committee should deal with them rather than that they should come to be mixed up with a particular group of medical matters. Even if the hon. Gentleman does not accept our advice as to the constitution or shape of the committee, or that this code ought to be approved by the Postmaster-General, we think that, where the I.T.A. does not accept the general recommendations of the code committee, that fact ought to be made known to this House. Where there is a repeated rejection by the I.T.A. of the recommendations coming from any of these committees, that ought to be made known to this House, and that is fundamental if this House is to control the character of commercial broadcasting. As far as I can see, there is no other means of accounting to this House for what will be done over commercial television. There will be no means at all of exercising any control over the Independent Television Authority, and, on the other hand, it seems to us that the Postmaster-General will have to do a lot of overriding if we are to have a chance of raising with him any matter concerning what is happening. 5.15 p.m. It is for these reasons that we have put down these various Amendments, and we should like to hear from the Assistant Postmaster-General what are his answers to these special points, which I will briefly recapitulate. First of all, how is the House to be made aware of the continuous or continued rejection of advice from the advisory committees to the I.T.A.? Secondly, where the I.T.A. is continuously in conflict with the advisory committees, who will decide, and whether that conflict can be the subject of questioning in this House? Next, whether the code recommended by the committee, whether in the form provided or not, will require the approval of the Postmaster-General, and whether it is to be reported to this House? These are points on which we should like to hear what the Assistant Postmaster-General has to say, because it seems to me they are not resolved at all in this new Clause.
If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, perhaps it would be an advantage if I were to intervene at this stage. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) will not mind if I deal with these matters chronologically rather than straight away answer his questions.First of all, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) thought that the advisory committee on advertising standards should include representatives of the Medical Research Council, public health bodies and local authorities. Perhaps it should, and perhaps it might. There is nothing whatever to prevent the Independent Television Authority from adding the representatives of such bodies to that committee if they think it is necessary to do so. What I was anxious to do at this stage was to meet the fears expressed on both sides during the Committee stage lest undesirable medical advertisements should appear, and I think the House was entitled to have our views on how we propose to stop that by placing representatives of the British Medical Association and also of the Ministry of Health on that committee. I assure the House that there is nothing whatever to prevent the Independent Television Authority from adding to its numbers as it thinks fit. The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) raised another point. He feared that this Authority might put on advertisements which might encourage people to ask their doctors for proprietary medicines, which might be no better than National Health Service medicines, but might be more expensive. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that some little time ago my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health told National Health Service doctors not to prescribe medicines which were advertised to the public, on the grounds that it was for the doctor to decide what a patient should have and not for the patient himself. That instruction also went a little further. The doctors were told not to prescribe proprietory preparations for which there is a standard and less expensive alternative. In fact if doctors do so, I understand that they can be asked to pay for it themselves. I think that the point which the hon. Member has in mind, and to which we all attach considerable importance, is adequately covered now in that way.
It is quite true that that deals with medicines, alternatives to which are provided, but there are medicines advertised which are believed to be worthless but for which there is no alternative in the Pharmacopoeia. What about those? May they not be advertised, and therefore might they not be demanded by patients? It is quite possible that the doctors might not agree to the demands, but might not the patients, having seen something about them on the television, demand them of the doctor, and might not the Minister of Health know that they are of very little value?
That may be so, and that is the reason why we are putting a representative of the Ministry of Health and also one of the B.M.A. on the committee, so that if a particular medicine is of itself harmful it would come, I imagine, under the ban which those two representatives would insist upon.If a medicine is not particularly harmful but happens to be more expensive, I think that is covered by the instructions already given by the Minister of Health to the National Health Service doctors that if they go on prescribing an expensive proprietary medicine instead of the ordinary drug, if I may so put it, they will have to pay for it. I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling), in which he said he objected to our employing the same religious advisory committee as the B.B.C. He feared that if we did so some of the smaller religious sects would not have the same chance as they might otherwise have. During the Committee stage I gave, I hope adequately, the reasons why we are sticking to that committee. One of the reasons why, in the finality, the I.T.A. can overrule that committee is because that provides the Authority with a chance to listen to the views of some of the smaller sects which are not represented on that committee. I imagine that the B.B.C. has done so. For example, last night there was a Unitarian service, I think from Wales. The Unitarians are not represented on the B.B.C. religious advisory committee. Whether that committee gave advice to the B.B.C. that a Unitarian Service should be broadcast, or whether that was a matter on which the B.B.C. did not listen to the advisory committee, I have no means of knowing. The reason why we have accepted the same committee is that it is a committee which on the whole, I think, has worked well. The Authority is given the power to override the committee, and I gather that the right hon. Member for Caerphilly admits that, as it is an advisory committee, it must be so treated.
This is not the B.B.C. but commercial television. Would the Assistant Postmaster-General answer this specific question: What is the good of drawing up a code or receiving advice if there is no obligation to follow either, however desirable it is that that should be done in the public interest as against the commercial interest of the I.T.A.? I should like the hon. Gentleman to deal with that Question.
I shall deal with that point, but I would point out that the I.T.A. has no commercial interests. The hon. and learned Member appears to be thinking of the programme contractors.
Surely the I.T.A. is there in order to carry on this undertaking as commercial television, and the new Clause which the hon. Gentleman is proposing makes it quite clear that if the interests of that position demand that the Authority should reject advice, it can do so.
If I may, I will deal with the point about the rejection of advice in a few moments. That is a much wider question.
Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question?
I will answer the first part of it by saying that the I.T.A. has no commercial interests as such. That is exactly why we set it up. It is a body appointed, as the House well knows, in the same way as the B.B.C. is appointed, by the Government. It is a supervisory body, and I should resist any suggestion that it has any commercial interests as such.The hon. Member for Hillsborough raised the point, when he spoke about the Amendment in his name, in regard to the representation of consumers on committees. I go a good way with him on that point. I think that the consumers' interests are frequently forgotten and in a matter of this sort we must certainly not overlook them. At one time we wondered whether we ought to put consumers on the advisory committee on standards. We came to the conclusion not to do so, the reason being that the enormous number of consumer interests likely to be affected would be such that there would be difficulty in deciding on any reasonable number of people who could be said to represent them. For example, if one thinks of the traders' interests, the number of trading associations is legion. When one thinks of general consumers' interests the difficulty is even greater.
That does not mean that they are going unrepresented?
No, but there is a better way of doing it than that.There will probably be a general advisory committee for the I.T.A. Certainly the Authority has the power to set up such a committee. There is nothing to prevent it from doing so. I imagine that this is one of the committees which the Authority will feel it desirable to set up voluntarily, to consider not only the effect or desirability of advertisements on the public, but also the programmes as well. That is, it would be rather a similar committee to the one the B.B.C. has set up. The reason why this function cannot be placed on the standards committee is that the House was so worried about general advertising standards that it asked me whether I would make a special committee on the subject mandatory, and that is what I have done.
I agree with the Assistant Postmaster-General that trying to represent all consumer interests is extraordinary difficult, but surely the point could be met by having, among these representatives of special interests, one disinterested cynic.
I hope that there will be more than one disinterested cynic as such on all committees.I am not trying to evade the hon. Gentleman's point. I think there should be representatives of consumer interests but I believe the proper way to do it is on the general committee which will consider not only the different aspects of advertising but the programmes as well.
Would the recommendations of that committee be mandatory in the same way as those of these special committees.
Of course not. It will be an advisory committee.The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), was, I thought, a little pessimistic in his outlook. He asked me whether the religious advisory committee could advise on how many religious broadcasts there should be. I should certainly say "Yes, they could." I imagine, although I do not know definitely, that that is the function which is performed for the B.B.C. by their own religious advisory committee. I certainly should not think it was much of an advisory committee if it recommended what type but not how often. 5.30 p.m. He also raised the point—contrary, I thought, to the advice of the right hon. Member for Caerphilly—that the Inde- pendent Television Authority could overrule the advice of the religious advisory committee. The Authority can do so, that is perfectly clear, because otherwise it would be an executive and not an advisory committee. There are some smaller religious sections in this country who are pleased that the advice given by the religious advisory committee to the B.B.C. can he overruled if necessary, because similarly no mandatory obligation rests upon the B.B.C.—
They can overrule general advice, whether it is religious advice, or advice on medical goods or services or anything else.
Of course, otherwise it would be an executive and not an advisory committee.Now we come to the question of standards, which brings me to the Amendment which is in two parts—
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I remind him that I referred specifically to whether or not the financial duty laid upon the Independent Television Authority would permit it to reject the advice of the religious committee with reference to religious bodies buying time.
I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means. There can be no buying of time by a Church. If a Church wished to do so, no religious advisory committee would accept any such offer. The hon. Gentleman is apparently saying to me, "Is it possible for the Independent Television Authority to overrule the advice of its religious advisory committee over the buying of time?" Yes, in theory it can. But the hon. Gentleman, I think, has considerably less faith in the honesty and the sense of public duty of a body like the I.T.A. if he thinks—
The point is that there is no other body like the I.T.A.
Of course there is not—
Then why refer to, "a body like the I.T.A."?
A body constituted like the I.T.A. If hon. Gentlemen based their whole case on the proposition that the I.T.A. will be a crowd of crooks we shall not be in agreement on very much. But if the hon. Gentleman says to me that this is a responsible body of men and women—and when we announce the names I think that he will—then we may get somewhere. But if we go on the assumption that they are not to be trusted, I think that is a little unfair.
This is an important point, and it cannot be repeated often enough by the Government.
Why should not a religious body buy time? Supposing Mr. Billy Graham wanted to buy time, what would the position then be?
They cannot buy time under the Bill because it is a religious service, unless the religious advisory committee has considered it. The committee fixes the number of services.
I hope that the I.T.A. will be a responsible body, and my question is based on that assumption. I should like to know what happens if a programme contractor wishes to donate a religious programme of a particular denomination. Will the advisory committee and the I.T.A. still have power to ban that?
Yes, of course, because the religious advisory committee does not advise the programme contractors only, but the Authority as well.
How will it know whether a programme has been donated, or bought, or if it is just another programme? How will it discover that a programme has been donated, or time has been bought?
I do not see that it matters whether it is donated or bought, or given free, or what.
So that it can be bought?
I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means.
The time for it can be bought?
No. This religious advisory committee will draw up a list of services which will be put on by the Authority and may be paid for by the Authority. I think that in the first instance they probably will be paid for by the Authority; though there is nothing whatever to prevent a programme contractor later on—for the sake of prestige, goodwill or anything else—from offering to do the job for nothing. Whether that is what the hon. Gentleman calls giving time I do not know, but there is nothing undesirable about it so long as the ratio is maintained. I do not think it matters much how that particular service may be put on.
We understand that so far as religious bodies are concerned every one will get their correct quota and they cannot buy or get any more?
I still cannot see why Billy Graham, for example, could not buy time.
They cannot get any more than their correct quota—unless we assume that the Authority is such an irresponsible and corrupt body that they would lightly overrule their religious advisory committee, which is an assumption that I do not think that anyone would take seriously.
Paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule states:
"No advertisement shall be permitted which is inserted by or on behalf of any body the objects whereof are wholly or mainly of a religious … nature."
May I take part in this debate? That relates solely to advertising which I do not think was the point which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind.The next point is embodied in the next Amendment, that the Committee should
and secondly, that it should be submitted to the Postmaster-General,"prepare and submit to the Authority a code of such standards of conduct as aforesaid"
That point is covered already. If it is an advisory committee it has to give advice and therefore, the advice it gives would be submitted to the Authority in some form or other as the Authority wished. Now we come to the second point. The right hon. Gentleman asked me how we reconciled the power we propose to give here with the general power under Clause 4 (5). I would remind him of what is stated in that Clause. Under subsection (5), there is laid on the Authority the duty to consult the Postmaster-General as to the classes of goods or services which must not be advertised. I assume that it will do that when it has had advice from its own advisory committee. In the finality, the Authority must carry out any directions which the Postmaster-General may give in this respect. That is the order in which the scheme will work, and this reserve power or responsibility of the Postmaster-General is absolutely over-riding. To my mind it takes precedence, because the committee to which we are referring is an advisory committee of the I.T.A. and it will advise what goods in its opinion should be banned. What class of goods should be banned? The right hon. Gentleman asked how we secured accountability to the House. It seems to me that the accountability is absolute because, whenever the word "Postmaster-General" comes into any Clause, it means that he can be questioned on the way in which he operates it. As I understand the Clause, it will mean that the Postmaster-General can be asked in the House about all the points which are dealt with in Clause 4 (5). I should have thought that that was a complete guarantee that the House would have absolute control over what was not allowed to be shown by I.T.A."for approval and thereafter to publish and secure compliance with the said code as approved with or without modifications by the Postmaster-General."
How can the House know?
How does the hon. Gentleman redeem his pledge to the House that the code shall be made known to the House? He said on 20th May:
Do I take it that, if it is approved by the Postmaster-General, a Question can be placed on the Order Paper asking him to disclose the code?"I would remind hon. Members that the whole code of advertisement has not only to be agreed by the Authority but approved by the Postmaster-General.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 2334.]
Yes, I cannot see how the Clause can be interpreted in any other way, since a direct responsibility rests upon the Postmaster-General for the classes of advertisements which are to be banned. I take it, and so does my noble Friend, that Questions can be placed on the Order Paper.
In column 941 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 31st May the hon. Gentleman expressed his distaste at the idea of an advertiser representing himself as a doctor or a dentist or a nurse. He said that that would be distasteful. Suppose that the committee did not ban that type of advertisement, what right have we in the House to ask Questions about people who purported to be doctors or dentists or nurses?
I should have thought that the hon. Member could ask the Postmaster-General why that class of advertisement had not been banned.
If the Assistant Postmaster-General says that, it is very important, but does he not agree that whatever power he may have now is taken away by the concluding words of the new Clause?
Of course it is.
The hon. and learned Member has his own views, but the order in which this arrangement will work is that which I have described to the House and I cannot see any difficulty about it.
Will the hon. Gentleman answer this question?
I cannot give way again. I have given way to everybody up to now but I am sure that the House wants to get on with the Bill. The right hon. Member for Caerphilly thought that the Authority ought to have a special medical advisory committee. There is nothing whatever to prevent its having it. All that I am setting out to do now is to stop the gap as it were and to satisfy the House on one vital, fundamental point, namely that there should be a mandatory advisory committee on advertising standards and that on that committee the Minister of Health and the B.M.A. should be represented, but there is nothing whatever to prevent the setting up of the committee to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
Is the hon. Gentleman not going to make any reference at all to the explicit point which I put to him, or to the Home Secretary whom I thought was going to reply, about representation on a certain issue?
I gather that the hon. Member is asking whether or not temperance societies will be represented on the religious advisory committee or other advisory committees. There is nothing whatever to prevent temperance societies being represented on the religious advisory committee or on any special committee that is set up if the I.T.A. wishes that, but we are not making that provision in the Bill at this stage.
As always, the Assistant Postmaster-General is having it all ways. When we were debating specific proposals for banning advertisements he said that was nothing to do with him. When we were talking about gambling he said that that was a matter for the Authority and not for him, that gambling news was published in the "Daily Herald" and so on. Now we are asking him to honour the undertaking which has been given twice to the House that a code of advertising will be prepared and that he will have to agree to it in such a way that the House will have opportunity to question him on it.I cannot see why he cannot accept the Amendment to which my hon. Friend
Division No. 160.]
|Acland, Sir Richard||Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||de Freitas, Geoffrey|
|Adams, Richard||Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Deer, G.|
|Albu, A. H.||Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Delargy, H. J.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Burks, W. A.||Dodds, N. N.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Donnelly, D. L.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Callaghan, L. J.||Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Carmichael, J.||Edelman, M.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)|
|Bartley, P.||Champion, A. J.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon, F. J||Chetwynd, G. R.||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)|
|Benson, G.||Clunie, J.||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)|
|Beswick, F.||Coldrick, W.||Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Collick, P. H.||Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)|
|Blackburn, F.||Cove, W. G.||Fernyhough, E.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Fienburgh, W|
|Blyton, W. R.||Crosland, C. A. R.||Finch, H. J.|
|Boardman, H.||Cullen, Mrs. A.||Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Daines, P.||Follick, M.|
|Bowden, H. W.||Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Foot, M. M.|
|Bowles, F. G.||Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)||Forman, J. C.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Freeman, John (Watford)|
the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) addressed himself. It is perfectly simple and straightforward, and it is essential in the sloppy wording of this Clause and of the Bill as a whole if an undertaking which the Government, and the Assistant Postmaster-General in particular, have given is to be fulfilled. I ask him seriously to consider the matter again. The Bill will not stay with us here much longer but will go to another place and his noble Friend will have an opportunity to correct matters there.
I regard the Clause as a vague attempt to white-wash the Bill and make it a little easier. I agree that the hon. Gentleman has fulfilled one undertaking with regard to the religious committee, but I still say that these provisions are unsatisfactory as they stand and that it would have been far better if responsibility for religious broadcasts had been left solely to the I.T.A. I should like to know in what terms the churches have signified their approval of this proposal. This new Clause does very little to improve a bad Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time.
I beg to move, in line 16, at the end, to insert:
"and to prepare and submit to the Authority a code of such standards of conduct as aforesaid."
I beg to second the Amendment.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause."
The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 261.
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Ross, William|
|Gibson, C. W.||McLeavy, F.||Royle, C.|
|Gooch, E. G.||Mainwaring, W. H.||Shackleton, E. A. A.|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon P. C||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Simmons, c. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Manuel, A. C.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Grimond, J.||Mason, Roy||Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)|
|Hale, Leslie||Mayhew, C. P.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Mellish, R. J.||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)|
|Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)||Messer, Sir F.||Snow, J. W.|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Mikardo, Ian||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Hannan, W.||Mitchison, G. R.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Hargreaves, A.||Monslow, W.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)||Moody, A. S.||Steele, T.|
|Hastings, S.||Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.||Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.|
|Hayman, F. H.||Morley, R.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)||Stross, Dr. Barnett|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Mort, D. L.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Hewitson, Capt. M||Moyle, A.||Swingler, S. T.|
|Hobson, C. R.||Mulley, F. W||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Holman, P.||Nally, W.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Holmes, Horace||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J||Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)|
|Holt, A. F.||Oldfield, W. H.||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Houghton, Douglas||Oliver, G. H.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Hoy, J. H.||Orbach, M.||Thornton, E.|
|Hubbard, T. F.||Oswald, T.||Timmens, J.|
|Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Padley, W. E.||Tomney, F.|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Paget, R. T.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Viant, S. P.|
|Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Pannell, Charles||Watkins, T. E.|
|Janner, B.||Pargiter, G. A.||Weitzman, D.|
|Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Parker, J.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Parkin, B. T||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena||Paton, J.||West, D. G.|
|Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)||Pearson, A.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Johnson, James (Rugby)||Peart, T. F.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Plummer, Sir Leslie||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Popplewell, E.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Porter, G.||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B|
|Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Keenan, W.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Willey, F. T.|
|Key, Rt. Hon. C. W||Proctor, W. T||Williams, David (Neath)|
|King, Dr. H. M.||Pryde, D. J.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)|
|Kinley, J.||Pursey, Cmdr. H||Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)|
|Lawson, G. M.||Rankin, John||Williams, W. R. (Droylesden)|
|Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Reeves, J.||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Reid, Thomas (Swindon)||Willis, E. G.|
|Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Reid, William (Camlachie)||Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)|
|Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Rhodes, H.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Lewis, Arthur||Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Yates, V. F.|
|Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Logan, D. G.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|MacColl, J. E.||Rogers. George (Kensington, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mr. Wallace and Mr. John Taylor.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Cooper-Key, E. M.|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Braithwaite, Sir Gurney||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.|
|Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Brooman-White, R. C.||Crouch, R. F.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.||Browne, Jack (Govan)||Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)|
|Arbuthnot, John||Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Bullard, D. G.||Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Deedes, W. F.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Burden, F. F. A.||Digby, S. Wingfield|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Dodds-Parker, A. D.|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Campbell, Sir David||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Cary, Sir Robert||Doughty, C. J. A.|
|Bennett, William (Woodside)||Channon, H.||Drayson, G. B.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston||Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)|
|Birch, Nigel||Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.|
|Bishop, F. P.||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Duthie, W. S.|
|Boothby, Sir R. J. G.||Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.||Eccles, Rt Hon. Sir D. M.|
|Bossom, Sir A. C.||Cole, Norman||Eden, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Colegate, W. A.||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W E.|
|Braine, B. R.||Cooper, Son. Ldr. Albert||Erroll, F. J.|
|Finlay, Graeme||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.||Ridsdale, J E.|
|Fisher, Nigel||Longden, Gilbert||Roberts, Peter (Heeley)|
|Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.||Low, A. R. W.||Robertson, Sir David|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Robson-Brown, W.|
|Ford, Mrs. Patricia||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Fort, R.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell||McAdden, S. J.||Russell, R. S.|
|Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.|
|Galbraith, T. C. D. (Hillhead)||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas|
|Gammans, L. D.||Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.|
|George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd||McKibbin, A. J.||Scott, R. Donald|
|Glover, D.||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Godber, J. B.||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Shepherd, William|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Maclean, Fitzroy||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Gough, C. F. H.||Macleod, Rt. Hon. Ian (Enfield, W.)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Gower, H. R.||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)||Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)|
|Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Snadden, W. McN.|
|Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Hare, Hen. J. H.||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald||Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Marples, A. E.||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield)||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Maude, Angus||Storey, S.|
|Hay, John||Maudling, R.||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)|
|Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C||Studholme, H. G.|
|Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Medlicott, Brig. F.||Summers, G. S.|
|Heath, Edward||Mellor, Sir John||Sutcliffe, Sir Harold|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Molson, A. H. E.||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Higgs, J. M. C.||Moore, Sir Thomas||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Teeling, W.|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Holland-Martin, C. J.||Neave, Airey||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Hope, Lord John||Nicholls, Harmar||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Nield, Basil (Chester)||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.|
|Horobin, I. M.||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.||Tilney, John|
|Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Nugent, G. R. H.||Touche, Sir Gordon|
|Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Oakshott, H. O.||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.||Odey, G. W.||Turton, R. H.|
|Hurd, A. R.||O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)||Ormshy-Gore, Hon. W. D||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)|
|Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Osborne, C.||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Page, R. G.||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)||Perkins, Sir Robert||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Peto, Brig. C. H. M||Watkinson, H. A.|
|Kaberry, D.||Peyton, J. W. W.||Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)|
|Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Pickthorn, K. W. M||Wellwood, W.|
|Kerr, H. W.||Pitman, I. J.||Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)|
|Lambert, Hon. G.||Powell, J. Enoch||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Lambton, Viscount||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)|
|Langford-Holt, J. A.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Leather, E. H. C.||Profumo, J. D.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Raikes, Sir Victor||Wills, G.|
|Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Rayner, Brig. R.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.||Redmayne, M.||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Linstead, Sir H. N.||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Remnant, Hon. P.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirrall)||Renton, D. L. M.||Sir C. Drewe and Mr. Vosper.|
Clause added to the Bill.