House of Commons
Thursday, March 25, 1954
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
Prayers
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Private Business
Rhodesian Selection Trust Limited and Associated Companies Bill
Wankie Colliery Bill
Read the Third time, and passed.
BEDFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (SUPERANNUATION) BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Thursday,8th April.
Oral Answers to Questions
Education
1944 Act (Part III Operation)
1.
asked the Minister of Education the difficulties she has in mind which have delayed her action in bringing into force Part III of the Education Act, 1944, in respect to private schools.
30.
asked the Minister of Education when she proposes to bring into effect Part III of the Education Act, 1944.
:I would refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 28th January.
:While I am trying to recollect the answer to which the right hon. Lady has referred me, may I ask whether she will continue to review this question? There is very real disquiet about it, and we should be comforted to know she was taking effective action as soon as possible.
:Yes, certainly.
:Will the right hon. Lady explain why she refers to a date in January when, last week, she said that she was hoping to make a statement soon?
:I think the hon. Gentleman will remember that the Question in January was about bringing in the whole of Part III. The Question last week dealt with a particular problem.
3.
asked the Minister of Education what representations have been made by local education authorities concerning the implementation of Part III of the Education Act, 1944.
:A deputation from the County Councils' Association and the Association of Education Committees, which I received on 20th January, urged that Part III of the Education Act, 1944, should be introduced as soon as possible. Similar representations have been made by the Surrey local education authority.
:Does that not confirm the view that there should be immediate action in this matter? Hundreds of parents are being fleeced even though, foolishly, for snobbish reasons, they are sending their children to private schools. Will she not take action quickly?
:On the subject of Part III, I think I have replied very fully. I agree with what was said by my predecessor, that it would be a pity to bring in Part III until we can implement it fully and have the standards we should like for the children in the schools to be registered.
New School Places (Distribution)
2.
asked the Minister of Education the distribution of the estimated 180,000 new school places between now and January, 1955, for each local education authority.
:No, Sir. The estimate of 180,000 places is based on a general appreciation of the progress of the school building programme as a whole. The only worth while information I can give for individual areas relates to approved building programmes and the amount of work under construction.
:Is the Minister aware that even where new places are provided there is now increasing overcrowding, and that the position in South-West London is becoming rather desperate even in some new schools?
:It is better than it was.
:Yes, I agree that the situation is better than it was. In the last two years about 500,000 children have come into school.
:Do I take it, then, that the figure of 180,000 which the right hon. Lady gave me a few weeks ago is not much more than a guess?
:The hon. Lady need not take it like that unless she wishes to. Looking at the plans, we considered that 180,000 places extra would be ready in January. The difficulty is to be quite certain what schools, whether secondary schools or primary schools, will actually be completed at that time.
New Schools, Staffordshire
4.
asked the Minister of Education how many new schools have been built in Staffordshire since 1945; how many are at present under construction; and to what extent she will permit an increase in the number under construction in the coming financial year.
:Twenty-five new schools have been built in Staffordshire since 1945. At the end of January, there were 13 new schools under construction. Thirteen more new schools and three other major school projects are due to be started during the next 12 months.
:Is the Minister aware that these figures are not large enough? Is she aware of the ardent desire of all forward-looking people in Staffordshire, of whom there are many, for a much bigger school building programme, which will enable the size of classes to be reduced? Can she say when we shall have this programme?
:I quite agree that people would like a larger programme, but these ardent people, who are looking into the future and who are interested in education, are very satisfied that progress is so much more rapid than it used to be.
:Is the Minister aware that Staffordshire has an increasing population, particularly in a growing coalfield, and that on every line of public policy there is a special case for saying that school building there should be speedier than it is now?
:We certainly want to speed it up as much as possible. The new projects which the Authority is due to start between now and the end of March next year will provide 4,815 secondary places and 1,640 primary places. At present, they have 2,100 secondary places under construction in major projects.
:Could my right hon. Friend tell me why so few schools were built between 1945 and 1951?
:I think the reason was that in the first year the plans were being made and the authorities were getting to work. Unfortunately, when the first schools were planned they were on lines which meant that they took a very long time to build. Those concerned did not arrange for the materials to be ready at the right time. Now we are using more compact designs and reducing manpower and material requirements by about 50 per cent. For that reason, we are able to build quicker.
5
asked the Minister of Education the amount and proportion of the total value of the school-building programme which is at present being spent in Staffordshire, in relation to the ratio between the number of school children in Staffordshire, and the total number of school children in England and Wales.
:Major primary and secondary school projects in the Staffordshire Local Education Authority's current building programme are estimated to cost about £907,000, which is about 2 per cent, of the total for England and Wales. The number of children in maintained and assisted schools, other than nursery and special schools, in Staffordshire in January, 1953, was 2·1 per cent. of the total.
:The Minister will no doubt realise that this shows that Staffordshire is not receiving its fair share of the school building programme. In view of the growing importance of Staffordshire in the national economy, and the powerful discontent there about this situation, what action does the right hon. Lady propose to take to deal with the situation?
:I am sure the hon. Member will be interested to know that the figure allocated to Staffordshire in its 1954–55 programme is 2·6 per cent. of the national programme. That will be above the average. I have lately been in Staffordshire, and I found great satisfaction in the improvement which is taking place.
Secondary School Places
6.
asked the Minister of Education how many local authority areas have percentages of grammar to total secondary school places of less than 20, and more than 50, respectively; and if she will publish in HANSARD a list of the areas concerned.
:In January, 1953, there were 13 education authorities in whose areas less than 20 per cent. of the total secondary places in the maintained and assisted schools were secondary grammar places, and 13 where the percentage was more than 50. This takes no account of children for whose grammar school education each authority provides in schools outside its own jurisdiction, but includes places available to children from other areas.
I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the authorities concerned.
:In view of the Minister's notorious bias against comprehensive schools, which are, of course, the only solution to this problem of unequal opportunities, will she say what action she is taking to see that children are given more equal opportunities of this type of education?
:I tried to point out in my answer that, for the reason I have given, these figures do not measure accurately what I think the hon. Member wants to know. I think he wants to know the exact opportunity for children in each area. As I have pointed out, the children in some areas receive their secondary education in neighbouring areas. I am trying to obtain statistics which will show exactly the number of children in each area who are receiving these facilities.
:Can the Minister tell the House what she thinks is the maximum percentage for secondary grammar school places so that perhaps we might, in the future, see not so many of such incidents as that which happened to the Cheshire County Council, who were told that they had too many secondary grammar school places?
:I do not think I could give the hon. Gentleman a figure for what I think the exact number of grammar school places, according to the population, ought to be. I think it must vary. If I say to any particular area that it has too many grammar school places, it probably means that there is a lack of other secondary places and that the new schools should, in the first place, be used for those other secondary children.
Educational Films
7.
asked the Minister of Education whether she has now completed her discussions with the governors of the Educational Foundation for Visual Aids regarding the production of educational films; and whether she will make a statement.
:I had a discussion with the governors of the Foundation on Tuesday. There is nothing more I can say at present.
:Is the right hon. Lady aware that this matter has been in abeyance for many months, that, in the meantime, the production of educational films continues to decline and that we are lagging far behind other countries in this matter? When will she be able to make a statement?
:I had a very useful discussion with the governors and we are now looking into the various points which were raised.
Schools Television Service
8.
asked the Minister of Education whether she is yet able to make a statement concerning the projected schools television service.
:I cannot add anything to what I told the hon. Member on 11th March.
:Why is the right hon. Lady dilly-dallying about this matter, too? Is she aware that the School Broadcasting Council reported over a year ago in favour of going on with the schools television service and that it is more than six weeks since she was made aware that a large number of local education authorities are in favour of getting on with the main experiment? What is holding it up? Is the Postmaster-General anxious that commercial television should get well into the field before the B.B.C. has a chance to deal with education?
:A date is now being fixed for a discussion with representatives of the B.B.C. and the School Broadcasting Council. I think it will take place very shortly.
Universities (Students' Grants)
9.
asked the Minister of Education what provision is made by her Department for grants for students engaged in post-graduate research and advanced study at universities.
:It is my normal practice to extend the awards of students holding grants from my Department where the university authorities concerned satisfy me that they possess exceptional abilities. I am also prepared to give grants to supplement a number of open awards made by universities themselves specifically for post-graduate study or research.
:Is the right hon. Lady aware that the plans for the Imperial College of Science and Technology, which is supported by the Government, are very largely for post-graduate work and that at present the majority of students undertaking post-graduate work, particularly in engineering, come from overseas because British students cannot afford to undertake it?
:During the present academic year my Department is assisting 770 students to follow post-graduate courses. These include 340 whose State scholarships were extended in 1953 and 174 who were elected to supplemental post-graduate awards in 1953. The remaining 256 hold extended State scholarships and are in the second or third year of their post-graduate courses.
Comprehensive Schools
10.
asked the Minister of Education what is her policy with regard to the restriction of comprehensive school developments.
:I am prepared to sanction the building of some comprehensive schools and I have already done so, but because I regard them as experimental I prefer that, if possible, they should be constructed so that they could be organised later as separate schools if this should prove to be desirable.
:May we have a firm assurance that the Minister will not show a disgraceful bias against local authorities when they have prepared comprehensive schools and will she adhere to the principles which she stated in February last year in Committee upstairs?
:I have stated—and I stated it again in my answer—that I agree that there should be experiments in education and with comprehensive schools. I have only pointed out here that it would be as well, when possible, so to build the school that it is in blocks so that it could be divided, if that were thought advisable in the years to come.
:Does not the Minister think that local authorities ought to be able to make their own experiments without too much interference from the Minister?
:Yes, of course, but responsibility is placed by the Act of 1944 on the Minister to decide on the building of new schools or the closing of old schools.
:Will my right hon. Friend say what choice parents have about their children undertaking this experimental education?
:I am anxious that there should be different types of schools so that parents may have a choice. At the same time, we all realise that, unfortunately, while the schools are so crowded, parents are not getting the choice that we should like them to have. That is why we are building more schools and different types of schools in the future.
Intelligence Tests, Wallasey
11.
asked the Minister of Education what answer she has made to the complaints sent to her concerning the general intelligence tests set by the Wallasey education authority to children applying for transfer from primary to secondary schools; if she will explain what national education body prepared these tests; and what experience or sense of perception the examiners expected children of 11 years of age to possess in order to enable them to identify claret, sherry, port, champagne and beer.
:I explained that the tests concerned were compiled after extensive testing of the general knowledge possessed by 11-year-old children, and that they had been widely used without previous complaint. They were prepared by the National Foundation for Educational Research. The candidates were not asked to identify particular beverages, as the hon. Member implies, but to say which one of the five words included all the rest.
:Does not the right hon. Lady agree that a local education authority is open to grave criticism when it assumes that children under 11 have knowledge about commodities which, according to the law, are not to be purchased by children? Moreover, has not a Royal Commission advised that children should be taught about the commodities mentioned in the Question in such a way that they will be seriously warned against their use?
:Yes, but I would point out that there is a mistake in the hon. Member's Question. He has asked about children identifying claret, sherry, port, champagne and beer. The word "beer" was not included in the test. The other word which was included was "wine" The children were asked to identify which word included the others. The hon. Member might like to know that this is only one of many sets of words. Another test names silver, copper, gold, metal and iron, and the children have to identify "metal" as covering the others. Another test is" aspirin, cough mixture, liver salts, medicine and magnesia"
:Ought not children aged 11 to be able to read a label on a bottle?
:Is the right hon. Lady aware that many of these so-called intelligence test questions are a lot of nonsense? This is clearly not an intelligence test worthy of one's mettle. Since neither my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) nor I would have passed the test, will the right hon. Lady urge the educational research people to apply a little more intelligence to their preparation of such tests?
:As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the local education authority which decides what test it shall apply, and it is for it to decide whether certain words shall be used or not. I would point out that the Wallasey education authority's selection arrangements for schools includes tests in English and arithmetic and that this is an extra test.
:Is the right hon. Lady aware that in the application of an intelligence test of this sort, intending to find a common element among a number of articles, the articles themselves ought to be reasonably familiar before a child can be expected to identify them?
:I am not responsible in any way for these tests. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, I am not responsible for them. It is entirely the responsibility of the local education authority. I am sure that if I said that such tests were not suitable, it would then be said that I, as the Minister, was interfering with the local education authorities.
School Children, Alsager (Accommodation)
12.
asked the Minister of Education if she is aware that the Church of England Primary School, Alsager, Cheshire, is unable to accommodate the children requiring education in the area; that two classes have to travel to the old vicarage one mile away, and Crewe Road Methodist school room half a mile away; and in view of the fact that a school building completed and furnished has been standing empty for two years, what action she intends to take, and when.
:The answer to the first two parts of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." I have been in correspondence with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) about this case since November, 1952. As I have told him, the Cheshire education authority has now decided to act on my suggestion that the premises of the Excalibur Camp, to which the hon. Member refers, should be used to relieve the overcrowding at Alsager Church of England School.
:The people in the area will be very pleased about the statement which the Minister has made, but is the right hon. Lady aware that the Alsagar council has been drawing attention to the matter for some time and a councillor asked me to do something about it because he thought that, as the "mamma" of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davonport) is chairman of the Cheshire education authority, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was unable to deal with the situation adequately?
:I am glad that the hon. Lady will now be able to inform the people who asked her to take up the matter that it was being dealt with, and had been dealt with since 1952. It might have been better if she had addressed her Question to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenport).
:Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Alsager Parent-Teachers' Association and I are very grateful to her for all the help and assistance that she has given and is giving? Might I ask her two further questions? First, what would happen if every hon. Member asked Questions concerning the constituencies of other hon. Members? Secondly, when my right hon. Friend replies, will she tell the hon. Lady for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) to mind her own business?
:Is the Minister aware, and, if so, will she please inform the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford accordingly, that one of the members of the Alsager council is my brother-in-law, so that it is my business?
:I do not think it would be any help if I added anything to the very clear explanations which have been made in forthright language.
:Will my right hon. Friend, like I do, extend the fullest sympathy to the hon. Lady's brother-in law?
School Children, New Brinsley (Transport)
14.
asked the Minister of Education whether she is prepared to treat as an exceptional case, within the terms of Circular 242, the provision of free omnibus transport for children living at New Brinsley, Nottinghamshire, who attend the Matthew Holland County Secondary School, Selston, and who, in the absence of such transport, will have to walk or cycle a distance of nearly three miles each way.
:No special circumstances of the kind indicated in paragraph 5 of Circular 242 have been brought to my attention by the local education authority to justify exceptional treatment in this case.
:Does the right hon. Lady thing it right that children of 11 and 12 should have to walk nearly six miles each day along a lonely country lane to get to school? Is she aware that no suitable public transport is available except one bus, which is a quarter of an hour's walk away and is generally full of workpeople? Will she undertake to give the matter sympathetic consideration if representations are made to her?
:If the local education authority puts the matter to me as a special case, I will certainly do so.
Industry and National Service Conference (Departmental Representation)
17.
asked the Minister of Education whether her Department was represented at the conference on industry and National Service at Leamington on 17th March, 1954; and whether she will make a statement concerning the evidence she submitted.
:Yes, my Department was represented, but no evidence was submitted.
:Has the Minister had a report of what was said at this conference? Is she aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence said that recruits were not ineducable but uneducated, and, if so, would she accept that as the standard of the schools?
:If the hon. Gentleman wants to question what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence said, I think it would be better to put a Question to him. The aim of our education is to see that boys and girls are properly educated. In the present, as in the past, we have not always succeeded.
School Meals
18.
asked the Minister of Education what survey she has made since October last of the percentage of children now taking school meals; and what is the latest figure available.
:None, Sir. I am asking local education authorities to furnish me with returns showing the number of children taking meals on a day in June. I expect to receive these returns in July. The percentage of children in attendance in maintained and assisted schools having school meals on a day in October, 1953, was 45·1 per cent.
:I recognise that the Minister can do very little to offset the general effect of Government policy in this matter, but will she do what she can by administrative action to see that whatever free services can be obtained are widely known and universally understood, as far as that is possible?
:I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the conditions under which the children get free meals or meals at a lower cost than the actual cost are widely known.
Epileptic Children
19.
asked the Minister of Education if her attention has been drawn to the need for further provision for the education of epileptic children, as shown by the continued failure of the Director of Education for Coventry to find a place for an epileptic child, for which he had been searching since September, 1952.
:I hope that additional provision now being made for epileptic children will be sufficient to meet all needs. The case mentioned by the hon. Member presents special difficulties, and I am in correspondence with the local education authority about it.
:Can the right hon. Lady say how many children are now waiting for places in educational establishments for epileptic children?
:No, not without notice.
Teachers (Grammar Schools)
20.
asked the Minister of Education the number of teachers in grammar schools, showing men and women separately in each year since 1945.
:As the answer contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
:Can the right hon. Lady say whether the trend shows that there are fewer women entering the profession than before, and whether she is satisfied that enough women are being attracted into the teaching profession today?
:If the hon. Gentleman will look at the information which I am sending him, he will see that there are more teachers, both men and women, and that there is a bigger increase in men teachers, whom we shall need when we come to the secondary schools.
Following are the figures:
FULL-TIME TEACHERS IN GRANT-AIDED GRAMMAR SCHOOLS — Total Total Men Women Men and Women 1946 12,436 15,749 28,185 1947 14,658 14,513 29,171 1948 15,121 14,570 29,691 1949 15,689 14,641 30,330 1950 16,000 14,695 30,695 1951 16,488 14,863 31,351 1952 16,839 15,009 31,848 1953 17,120 15,125 32,245
Graduate Teachers
22.
asked the Minister of Education how many graduate teachers are in full-time service in primary schools, secondary modern schools, secondary technical schools, and secondary grammar schools, respectively.
:The number of graduate teachers in full-time service on 31st March, 1953, in the maintained and assisted schools in question was as follows:
Supplementary and Unqualified Teachers
23.
asked the Minister of Education how many supplementary and other unqualified teachers, respectively, were employed in primary and secondary schools on the latest dates for which figures are available.
:On 31st March, 1953—the latest date for which figures are available—1,540 supplementary teachers and 3,195 other unqualified teachers were in regular full-time employment in maintained and assisted primary and secondary schools.
:Can the right hon. Lady say whether the number is increasing or decreasing?
:Unqualified teachers are decreasing.
Teachers (Shortage)
31.
asked the Minister of Education in view of the fact that the pupil-teacher ratio in maintained and assisted schools has risen since 1951, what special steps she contemplates to improve the supply of teachers.
:There are now more recruits being admitted to training for teaching than in 1951. As a result, if wastage does not greatly exceed the present level, the pupil-teacher ratio for primary and secondary schools together should start to improve from this year onwards. To secure the greatest possible improvement over the next few years, every effort is again being made to fill the training colleges this autumn, and to diminish wastage by encouraging teachers, particularly married women, to remain in, or to return to, teaching service.
:As there is a greater shortage of women teachers than men, would the right hon. Lady indicate that if the Burnham Committee came forward with proposals for implementing equal pay such proposals would be acceptable to her?
:I shall always consider sympathetically any proposals made by the Burnham Committee.
New School Building
21.
asked the Minister of Education what number of schools, giving figures for primary and secondary schools, respectively, will begin building in the year 1954.
:As the school building programme is related to the financial year, I cannot forecast the number of schools which will be started in the calendar year. The programme of work to be started during the 12 months ending on 31st March, 1954, however, includes 271 primary and 200 secondary schools, and the programme for the ensuing 12 months, 181 primary and 211 secondary schools.
:Can the Minister confirm that there will be over 200,000 additional children coming up into the secondary schools beginning September, 1955, when the post-war bulge will reach the secondary stage, and can she sincerely assure parents that she will be able to find places for them at that time by building schools in the next 12 or 18 months?
:The hon. Gentleman should realise that it will not be in 1955 when the real pressure will come. It will be after 1957. The pressure has reached the primary schools now, and it will be going on until 1957, affecting first the infant and then the junior schools. The real pressure will be after that time. We are, therefore, building a larger proportion of secondary schools now in order to be ready for that 200,000.
:Although this 1954–55 programme is bigger than any which the right hon. Lady has previously permitted, is she not aware that there is not a local education authority in the country which could not do with more schools and which is not desperately anxious about the future of secondary education?
:I know, but the amount of school building now is much increased. Our building programme for primary and secondary schools for last year and this year is up to£45 million.
29.
asked the Minister of Education why the amount of educational building under construction at the latest available date was nearly£2,500,000 less than in the previous year and£9,500,000 less than in 1951.
:Because the value of contracts completed in 1953 was almost£8 million greater than in 1952, and nearly£21 million greater than in 1951.
:Does not the right hon. Lady realise we are tired of figures like this, which merely indicate that we are not devoting sufficient of our resources to capital development in education?
:I do not think that the figures can mean that. The hon. Gentleman has asked me about the number of schools under construction. We all want to get as many schools completed as possible. There are fewer under construction now, because we have completed£8 million worth more in 1953 than in 1952, and£21 million worth more than in 1951. The hon. Gentleman seems to want me to leave the schools uncompleted.
:In the interests of equality of opportunity, and to give the right hon. Lady a rest, might not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education be allowed to answer just one Question?
Playing Fields, Bristol
24.
asked the Minister of Education the acreage of playing fields laid down as necessary per 1,000 of the school population; how many school children there are in Bristol; the acreage of playing fields available to them; and what steps she is taking to provide more open spaces for the children in the city.
:There are about 60,000 children in the maintained and assisted schools in Bristol. I do not know the total amount of playing fields available to them, which include public open spaces. My own requirements for school playing fields are expressed in terms of the needs of schools of varying sizes. I am prepared to consider proposals for additional provision on their merits.
:Could the Minister tell me what acreage of playing field there should be for a city the size of Bristol?
:I do not know. I have to do only with school playing fields, but I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about playing fields as a whole. If he would like the figures for school playing fields, and will put a Question down on the Order Paper, I shall be glad to answer it.
Governors and Managers (Advice to Local Authorities)
25.
asked the Minister of Education what advice she has given to local education authorities concerning the appointment of governors and managers of schools; and with what result.
:I have given no advice to local education authorities on this subject.
:Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that local education authorities are making full use of the services of people in their area who are qualified to do this work and that they are giving the schools the opportunity to develop sufficient independence and individuality?
:That is the responsibility of the local education authority. The Minister is responsible for the instruments of management and government for voluntary schools, 60 per cent, of which are now complete. I certainly would be looked upon as interfering if I suggested to local education authorities whom they were to appoint as managers and governors of county schools.
:Is not this a matter upon which the right hon. Lady might usefully inform herself of the way in which local education authorities are now making use of their powers?
:The power of a local education authority is to appoint managers and governors for county schools, while the Minister makes the instruments for appointing managers or governors for voluntary schools, and in 60 per cent, of the voluntary schools these instruments are now complete.
Children (School Attendance)
26.
asked the Minister of Education how many children of statutory school age in England and Wales are not attending either a local education authority maintained school, a direct-grant school or an independent school recognised as efficient.
:About 250,000.
:Are most of these children being educated in small, unrecognised private schools, or is there a substantial number not attending any school at all?
:I cannot give exact figures, but we think that about 90 per cent, of these children will be attending independent schools that are not in the list of those recognised as efficient. The remaining 10 per cent, includes children being educated at home or ineducable.
Pupils (Travelling Expenses)
27.
asked the Minister of Education if she will make a statement regarding the principles which govern the payments of travelling expenses in respect of secondary modern and grammar school pupils between school and home.
:As I indicated in Circular 242, I do not consider that, save where some special justification exists, local education authorities should, in present circumstances, provide transport for secondary school pupils over shorter distances than "walking distance" as defined in Section 39 (5) of the Education Act, 1944, for children over the age of eight.
:While I appreciate the fine distinction which the Minister has clothed in such vague language, may I ask whether she realises that, in some country areas, the test which is applied to the payment of these expenses for the regulated distance which she has laid down is purely a question of which is the cheapest service? What is the use of deciding it in this narrow way if the bus services are not there, and hardship is inflicted on school children by having to wait long periods, or on parents by making them pay the fares for an alternative method of transport? Will the Minister look into the matter?
:The distance is laid down in Section 39 (5) of the Act. Where there are special difficulties, the local authority can make special arrangements.
Independent School Classifications (Inspectors)
28.
asked the Minister of Education the additional cost to her Estimates, of employing a minimum of one inspector in each local education authority area to classify the independent schools in its area as efficient and inefficient teaching institutions.
:Including the necessary additional typing and secretarial staff, about£200,000.
:Can the Minister tell us what action she has taken to get inspectors, how many have been appointed, and whether they have actually inspected their areas and have found independent schools which are efficient; and how many of those schools have actually been closed?
:If we were starting out on this scheme we should never seek to have one inspector for each locality. We would do very much better with our organisation than that. I presume that the hon. Gentleman wants to know whether the majority of independent schools have been inspected. My answer to that is "Yes." If he wants to know how many have been closed since inspection, I do not know. I could not give him exact figures because a school may have been closed since we inspected it, but not for the reasons that the report on it was bad.
Grammar Schools (Construction)
32.
asked the Minister of Education how many grammar schools are under construction at the present time; and how many are included in next year's building programme.
:On 31st January last there were 40 grammar schools under construction in England and Wales, together with 11 bilateral schools having grammar streams. When completed these projects will provide 23,620 grammar places. The programme of work to be started up to the end of March, 1955, includes 49 grammar schools and seven bilateral schools with grammar streams, which together will provide 27,030 grammar places. These figures exclude accommodation for academic courses in multilateral and comprehensive schools.
:Although I believe that the comprehensive school is the only solution to the grammar school question, can the right hon. Lady assure us that when girls move into secondary schools the same overcrowding will not take place in the modern schools, and that the percentage of children going to grammar schools will not decrease?
:We certainly hope that that will be the case.
Grammar School Teachers, Goole (Letter)
33.
asked the Minister of Education what answer she gave to the letter she received expressing the discontent among Goole grammar school teachers at their salary scales.
:I informed the teachers concerned that I had noted their views.
:Does not the Minister think that was an act of gross discourtesy to a hard-working body of teachers? Will she not send a detailed reply to their letter, which contained a number of specific questions? If she is incapable of doing so, will she allow the Parliamentary Secretary to do so?
:I do not think it was in any way discourteous to tell the signatories of this letter that I had noted their views. There were no definite questions put in that letter, as far as I can remember, but if there had been I should have answered them, as I have answered others, by saying that I will make a full statement in the House on the Second Reading of the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill?
rose —
:Order. Mr. Johnson.
Commonwealth Relations
Pass Laws, Rhodesias and Nyasaland
34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement regarding pass laws in the Rhodesias and Nyasaland; and what freedom of movement exists between the three territories for Africans.
:Pass laws in Southern Rhodesia are a matter for the Government of that territory. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies tells me that there are no pass laws in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, though, under the regulations of certain townships in both territories, Africans require passes in some areas at night, and in some Northern Rhodesian townships unemployed Africans need a visitor's pass.
As regards the movement of Africans between the three territories comprising the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, I understand that the position remains unaltered at present, with territorial laws continuing in operation.
:Until these pass laws are finally abolished does not the Minister think that it is a mockery to talk about co-partnership in the Central African Federation? Will he use his good offices with Sir Godfrey Huggins and others to bring about an amelioration of these conditions?
:These pass laws have been found necessary in certain cases, the details of which are a matter for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
:Why are they necessary in Southern Rhodesia and not in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland?
:That is a matter for the Southern Rhodesia Government, who are independent in these matters.
Bechuanaland (Administration)
35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what further developments have taken place in respect of the government and administration of Bechuanaland, particularly in respect of the Bamangwato.
:The most recent development is that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to the grant of additional financial assistance to the Bechuanaland Protectorate to enable a general improvement in the standard of services. This will be in addition to the assistance already provided from CD. and W. Funds. The Bamangwato Reserve will benefit together with the rest of the Protectorate.
:Has any development taken place regarding the administration of this area, and particularly of the Bamangwato tribe?
:That supplementary question will be partly answered on the next Question, if it is asked.
:Why was the announcement about financial aid made in Johannesburg and not in this House?
:I cannot say why. That matter does not arise on this Question.
:The hon. and learned Gentleman should be able to say why. Is he aware that hon. Members had to learn of this Government aid by reading a report from "The Times" correspondent in Johannesburg, and not by information given in this House?
:That is another question.
36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what progress has been made with the establishment of local councils in Bechuanaland.
:With the development of more representative instruments of local government in mind, the Bechuanaland Administration arranged last year for a party of Bechuana chiefs to tour Uganda and Tanganyika and study the pattern there. The chiefs' views are now being examined by the Administration.
:What proposals can the Administration put before the chiefs? They went on a tour for general information. Surely the Administration have some proposals to make in this matter.
:The first thing the Administration are doing is to consider the views of the chiefs, who were impressed by what they saw in local government, but who insisted on the value of the function of the chiefs. Their views are being studied.
:Have any further developments taken place recently in regard to the administration of the Bamangwato tribe?
:The first consideration there is consolidation of the Native Authority, and that is progressing.
Trade and Commerce
Nylon Stockings
37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions he imposes on the import of machinery designed to ensure a 64 and/or 66 gauge in the manufacture of nylon stockings.
:The only restriction is that total imports from dollar sources are limited to what we can afford in the light of the needs of the United Kingdom hosiery industry and the state of our dollar balance of payments.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the country about stockings laddering so easily, and that if we can get more of this machinery we shall also get more satisfactory stockings?
:I share the hon. Lady's wish that we could import more. Fortunately, it is on open general licence from Europe and is becoming increasingly available from home production.
38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that manufacturers of British nylon stockings are receiving sufficient supplies of nylon yarn; how many implement their supply by importing; and from what countries they import.
:Demand for nylon yarn from the stocking and other industries is still not fully met, though liveries have increased slightly in recent months and should be greatly improved later in the year when new plant is due to come into operation.
During the 12 months ended 31st January, 1954, imported yarn amounting to about 8 per cent, of total supplies was taken by about 100 manufacturers out of a total of 187 who made returns to the Board of Trade. These imports came mainly from Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Holland.
:Is the Minister aware that most of the complaints regarding the laddering of nylon stockings fasten suspicion on imported yarn, and will he quickly see to it that British supplies are sufficient for manufacturers?
:The British supplies, I am glad to say, are now increasing.
:Will my right hon. Friend use his influence, so far as he can, to see that the limited supplies of nylon yarn go to the export sections rather than to those producing merely for the home market?
:I do not exercise a detailed control over the allocation of nylon yarn.
:Is my right hon. Friend aware that statements about new machinery coming into operation have been made over the past five years, and that it seems to be rather a myth?
:I think I have already answered that fairly fully on the previous Question.
Goods, Birmingham (Analyst's Report)
39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that worthless products claimed, respectively, to be a cosmetic lotion, a slimming aid, an eyelash grower and a bust improver, have been exposed for sale in Birmingham shops, and that their true contents have been described in a report of the Birmingham city analyst; and whether he will institute proceedings against the manufacturers under the Merchandise Marks Act of 1953.
:If I can obtain satisfactory evidence of the offer of these goods for sale, I shall certainly consider instituting proceedings.
:But is the Minister not aware that in the case of the slimming aid, for example, women were advised to bath in it, but that when the analyst found that it was composed of one-third Epsom salts, one-third Glauber salts and one-third common salt he thought they had better drink it? Does not that sort of thing constitute a real breach of the Merchandise Marks Act, and could not he summon up his courage and prosecute some of the people who are perpetrating this kind of fraud?
:On a point of order. Can the House be told what exactly is a bust improver which is exposed for sale in Birmingham?
:That is not a point of order, and not a question which I can answer.
:May I have an answer to my supplementary?
:If I can find anybody who has either bathed in it or drunk it, I will certainly consider instituting proceedings.
South Wales Ports (Use)
40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the use made of the facilities of the port of Barry and other South Wales ports and the skill of those employed in these ports in time of war and emergency; and if he will announce his plans to encourage our external trade so that industry may make fuller use of these ports now.
:While it is the policy of the Government to promote the expansion of our export trade by all possible means, I cannot undertake to-direct our trade to particular ports.
:Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that these ports may be regarded as strategic assets, and will he confer with the First Lord of the Admiralty on this issue?
:Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind the full importance of the North-East and the fact that the importance of a single area does not necessarily bear any relation to the number of Questions asked about it?
:I do not propose to take responsibility for directing traffic to them.
Distribution of Industry Act (Grants)
41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many claims have been made for grants under Section 3 (1) of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1950, and, of this number, how many have been refused; how many have been agreed; and how many are outstanding.
:I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 19th November, 1953. The position is unchanged.
:My right hon. Friend has not given the information for which I am asking, which is:
"how many have been refused; how many have been agreed; and how many are outstanding."
:If my hon. Friend looks at the previous answer, he will see that this point is fully dealt with. However, if he has any doubts on the matter and has a further talk with me, I will give him the information he desires.
Factory, South Wales (Grant)
42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that considerable expenditure and loss, of which full details have been given to his Department, have been incurred by Super Oil Seals and Gaskets, Limited, as a result of the company's move to South Wales, consequent upon Government action; and, in view of this fact, why he does not consider such expenditure and loss to constitute exceptional circum stances for payments, as envisaged by Section 3 (1) of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1950.
:I have nothing to add to my answer to my hon. Friend's Question on this subject on 4th February last.
:Does my right hon. Friend realise that the firm in question feel that this matter has not been dealt with satisfactorily and that it has a real grievance? If I come to him with information, will he look into the matter further so that it may be satisfied that there is no grievance.
:I will certainly undertake to consider any representations which my hon. Friend cares to make to me, but this case has been very fully and thoroughly discussed already, and I can see no reason to alter my decision in the matter.
:Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect the report on the whole of the Distribution of Industry Act?
:That is a rather wider question.
Savoy Hotel and Worcester Buildings Companies (Investigation)
43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now decided to appoint an inspector under Section 165 ( b ) of the Companies Act, 1948, to inquire into the affairs of the Savoy Hotel Company and the Worcester Buildings Company.
51.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the observations he has received from the directors of the Savoy Hotel Limited with regard to the proposed transfer of the Berkeley Hotel to the Worcester Buildings Company (London) Limited.
:I have the question as to whether to appoint an inspector under consideration. It is not the practice to publish the observations of the directors of a company on the question whether its affairs should be investigated under that Section, and I do not propose to do so in the present case.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us six weeks ago that the right hon. Gentleman was looking into the matter and was only awaiting the observations of the directors? Has he received those observations, and, if so, can he say when he will make a decision?
:I received the observations on 5th March. They are lengthy and deal with matters of fact and law, and, therefore, need very careful consideration.
:In view of the very serious strictures that have been passed on the Savoy directors—they have been accused of dishonesty and chicanery—will not the President, in fairness to them and in the public interest, publish what they wish to say in their own defence?
:It has never been the practice of the Board of Trade to publish answers to this kind of question concerning what representations a company would make on the issue of investigation.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he announced the inquiry into the reprehensible conduct of Mr. Clore and his compatriots in connection with the Savoy Hotel I congratulated him on the expeditious way in which he instituted that inquiry? Can he explain why he is taking so long in this case, when it would appear to be on all fours with the previous case?
:The applications come under quite different Sections of the Companies Act, and quite different considerations apply.
Merchandise Marks Act (B.B.C. Broadcast)
44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds his Department advised the British Broadcasting Corporation not to include in a broadcast made on 13th March dealing with the Merchandise Marks Acts a suggestion that those members of the public who cannot otherwise get satisfaction should inform his Department.
:The BBC. sought the Board of Trade's advice on the script of this broadcast. One sentence in it described the functions of the Board of Trade in terms which did not reflect correctly the statutory position, and we advised the B.B.C. accordingly.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a most incredible situation, and that the public imagine that it is the job of the Board of Trade to see that the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act are carried out? Is he further aware that this script merely suggested that people should let the Department know when they cannot obtain satisfaction? That being the case, why did the right hon. Gentleman suggest that any reference to the Board of Trade should be deleted?
:What was said in the broadcast was the responsibility of the B.B.C. and not mine. I was asked for advice. The suggestion was that anybody who thought he had discovered a false trade description should write to the Board of Trade. This would be quite intolerable, because it implies that the sole responsibility for prosecuting lies with the Board of Trade, which is quite untrue.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that if the public discover that the law is not being observed they should not give him that information?
:The Merchandise Marks Act does not place the sole responsibility for prosecuting on the Board of Trade, and the bulk of prosecutions under the Act have been conducted outside Government responsibility.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is really most cowardly to try to put the responsibility on the B.B.C.? The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I would point out that this script went back to the B.B.C. with the suggestion that the Board of Trade would like the reference to them deleted, and it was taken out, whoever is to blame. I wish to point out that I did not receive this information from Mr. Dudley Perkins, who made the broadcast.
:I am not in the least concerned with who gave the hon. Lady the information. The Question is a perfectly proper one, and I have given a proper answer to it.
:When people think they have cause for complaint would it not be better for them to go to a solicitor, or to look after their own affairs instead of expecting the Government on all occasions to be their grandmother?
:I find myself in very full agreement with my hon. Friend.
:Since it has been argued by the party opposite that, in the case of publicly-owned, nationalised industries there should be more opportunities for the consumer to complain, is it now held by the President of the Board of Trade that Government Departments have not an elementary duty to look after the interests of the consumer and the public? Is it not elementary that if the public is in trouble the natural course is to complain to the Government Department concerned?
:It would be absolutely intolerable if every member of the public who thought he was in trouble wrote to the Government about it.
:As the President says that it is not the sole responsibility of the Board of Trade to act in those matters, would he not agree that there is at least some responsibility on his Department?
:We had a discussion earlier as to the possibility of prosecuting in a particular case, which I shall consider. What I cannot agree is that everyone who has a complaint to make about a purchase in a shop should write to the Board of Trade.
s.s. "Gothic" (Advertising)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
:To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider continuing the Government charter of the s.s. "Gothic" so as to use her for a floating shop window for advertising British productions overseas.
:As I anticipate that the answer to Question No. 52 will be unsatisfactory, I give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment.
Business of the House
:May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?
:Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 29TH MARCH—Report and Third Reading: Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Committee and remaining stages: Judges' Remuneration Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about 7 o'clock.
Committee stage: Money Resolution relating to the Television Bill, which the Government have agreed not to move tonight.
TUESDAY, 30TH MARCH—Motion to approve: Report from the Business Committee on the Report stage of the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill.
Second Reading: Telegraph Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by 7 o'clock.
Conclusion of Committee stage of Atomic Energy Authority Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 31ST MARCH—Report stage: Housing Repairs and Rents Bill.
Motion relating to: Statutory Instruments, &c. (Procedure).
THURSDAY, 1ST APRIL—Conclusion of Report stage: Housing Repairs and Rents Bill.
Committee stage: Money Resolution relating to Town and Country Planning Bill.
FRIDAY, 2ND APRIL—Private Members' Motions.
:We had rather hoped that there might have been a Supply day next week. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a Supply day the week after next, say the Monday?
:I was really dealing with next week. There is no possibility of a Supply day then. The right hon. Gentleman realises, of course, that he has had at his disposal this week two days on which to raise any topic.
:Can we be told when there will be a debate on the Government's proposals regarding our association with the European Defence Community, or is the extent to which the Government are prepared to commit British troops to the Continent to remain for ever a secret?
:All I can say is that I see no opportunity next week.
:Has the Leader of the House considered the question which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewis-ham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and I asked on a previous occasion about taking the Committee stage of the Television Bill on the Floor of the House?
:That secret will be revealed after the conclusion of the debate today. It would be quite contrary to precedent for me to make any statement at this stage.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. Friend, when he was Leader of the House, sometimes indicated that it was the intention of the then Government to take the Committee stage of certain Bills on the Floor of the House?
:Will the House be given an opportunity in the near future to discuss the effects of the hydrogen bomb and to have any information from scientists which the Government may have about its effect on ocean currents and the world movement of fish. [ Laughter. ] Some hon. Gentleman opposite may be blaseéand unimaginative, as they usually are, but as the entire conception of strategy and defence is now altered, can the House have an opportunity to discuss this in the light of the knowledge which the Government may be able to impart to us?
:Hon. Members will be aware of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the gravity of the whole question, but I cannot offer a day next week at short notice.
Liverpool Cotton Exchange (Opening)
:Before we proceed to the Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker, may I seek your help and guidance?
In my correspondence this morning, I discovered an invitation from the Liverpool Cotton Association to be present at the opening of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange on a given date. As the matter is still being discussed in another place, and as no decision has yet been taken either by this House or the other place, does it not appear that the will of Parliament has been flouted in this instance? [ Interruption. ] If hon. Members on the other side do not keep quiet I must make a comment, which is that I am quite aware that the hardfaced gentlemen of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange are anxious to get the Exchange open so as to start making profits again.
But I am not too sure whether the will of Parliament has not been anticipated and whether there is not something wrong here, Sir. I will present you with the invitation, which I produce, and I ask you to inquire, from the constitutional point of view, whether it is not wrong for an association to decide upon something which Parliament has not yet decided, and send out invitations in advance of the will of Parliament.
:This is the first I have heard of this, but people frequently anticipate the decisions of Parliament, often with disappointing results.
Orders of the Day
Television Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
:On a point of order. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that on the 14th and 15th December last you were kind enough to give the House your Ruling as to the voting of hon. Members who might have a direct personal pecuniary interest in the matter under consideration.
One of your reasons was that Mr. Speaker Abbot said that it was all right if it was on a matter of State policy. Last December we were discussing the White Paper, which I then begged respectfully to suggest was not State policy, and it was not then passed by the House. We are now considering legislation which is not carrying out the whole policy of the White Paper upon which we voted, I think, on 16th December last.
Now that we have come to the legislative proposals, may I ask you, Sir, whether your Ruling still holds? Perhaps you will agree that it is not a matter of State policy, because this is the beginning of legislation. What is the position of hon. Members who in recent months have either privately or publicly declared their interest? Are they entitled to vote merely because they have disclosed their interest? Perhaps you will give a Ruling on those points to start with?
:I think that there is nothing new that I need add to the previous Ruling. By all the precedents in this House, it is quite clear that an interest which disbars the vote of an hon. Member must be personal to himself and not a matter of State policy. A matter does not cease to be State policy simply because it is embodied in proposed legislation. It is quite clear that my previous Ruling applies to the Bill, as it did to the White Paper.
:With great respect, Mr. Speaker, this Bill is not the same as the White Paper. The White Paper may have laid down State policy, although I did not think it could have done until legislation had been passed, but we are now considering legislation, which is not State policy, because the Bill has not yet been passed.
:With great respect to the hon. Member, I do not think there is anything in that point. The White Paper was a general declaration of State policy, but State policy reaches its final effect when it is embodied in legislation, and the mere fact that these proposals now take the form of a Bill does not in any way detract from the fact that they are State policy. As the hon. Member will remember, the general sense of my Ruling was that if a Bill confers advantages upon an hon. Member, in common with others of Her Majesty's subjects generally throughout the Kingdom, the hon. Member is not in any way debarred from voting upon it.
:Supposing that I am one of four directors of a company which is going to benefit when this Bill becomes law; am I to be regarded as sharing its benefit with the common people of the country? Should I then come under the terms of your Ruling, or should I be rather a peculiar person, and therefore debarred from voting?
:So long as other similarly situated persons and companies would benefit in the same way, the hon. Member would be entitled to vote.
:If it be the case that some hon. Members in any part of the House, in the course of their businesses or professions, intend to acquire an interest in one of the programme companies or in the floating of advertisements which are allowed under the Bill, would it be right that they should take part in the proceedings on the Bill? They would clearly have a personal intention to exercise certain profitable rights if and when the Bill is passed. Would it not be morally and Parliamentarily wrong that they should take part in our voting and proceedings?
:I do not set myself up as a judge of morals. I have quite enough to do in dealing with the procedure of this House. I think that, in the circumstances, what I have said is absolutely correct. I have bad no warning of this matter, but I remember Mr. Speaker FitzRoy giving a very apt illustration of this question. A great deal of legislation favourable to the agricultural industry has passed through this House, and Mr. Speaker FitzRoy held that there was no objection to a man who was a farmer as well as a Member of this House voting for that legislation, on the ground that the benefits conferred by it would be shared not only by the hon. Member but by every other farmer in the country. It seems to me that that is a sound doctrine, from which it would be dangerous to depart.
:This House has passed legislation which imposes severe restrictions upon the right of members of local authorities to take part and vote in certain proceedings—with the spirit of which I agree, as an old local authority man. Is it to be taken that, although this House has imposed such ethical, moral and legal obligations upon members of local authorities in relation to voting and speaking on matters in which they have a personal interest, the House of Commons itself is going to be above the law?
:I do not think that we can go by what happens in local authorities. The conditions there are quite different.
:If the right hon. Gentleman's contention were right—which I deny—and a Member's interest, such as he defined, prevented him from voting in such a matter, would it not follow that the right hon. Gentleman's present interest as a broadcaster on the B.B.C., or his potential interest as a possible broadcaster on the new corporation, would similarly debar him?
:That remains a hypothetical matter, but it shows to some extent the perils which await us if we expand the procedure and law of the House which have been accepted for many generations. It is very difficult to draw the line in these matters, and I think that the rule which I have enunciated—which is not my own invention but the considered wisdom of the House in the past—should be adhered to.
:If the right hon. Gentleman's contention were upheld, surely it would debar any hon. Member from voting on the Consolidated Fund Bill, out of which our salaries are paid?
:I think that this matter has been argued long enough.
:I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that it is necessary that, when we pass legislation, it shall be known outside that it has been passed in a proper way, and that hon. Members have not exercised their powers to confer private benefits upon themselves. It has always been clear that if legislation is passed which confers an advantage upon an existing class of persons, Members of the House of Commons who belong to that class can vote for that legislation, but if a company or an association of persons of which hon. Members of this House are members has been formed in anticipation of legislation, and such persons may be directly advantaged by the passing of that legislation, is not that an entirely different situation? Would it not be a violation of the Ruling you have given for those persons to vote in a matter which confers direct financial advantage upon them?
:I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's distinction is a valid one. The question is really whether the proposed legislation confers an individual benefit upon an hon. Member, or merely changes the law so as to benefit him and all other people in his situation. In the case which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me—hypothetical as I must accept it to be—it would appear that any member of the public was free to do the same thing under the proposed legislation.
rose —
:Order. I have ruled on this matter and I think the House should accept my Ruling. It is not a new matter; it is a very old one.
3.48 p.m.
:I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
As the Explanatory Memorandum states, this Bill provides for the setting up of an Independent Television Authority to provide television broadcasting services additional to those of the British Broadcasting Corporation. If I may adopt the story which the Leader of the Opposition told us on Tuesday, I should like to tell the House that I have other reasons for opening the debate on this Bill than the simple one of giving myself an opportunity of not again talking out my own Motion. We believe that we have provided the conditions for an additional service which makes it at once competitive and safeguards it against the fancied defects which have been mentioned.
I should like in my remarks to the House to cover the various aspects of the Bill in the following order. Firstly, the method of operation of the Authority; secondly, the contents of the programmes; thirdly, advertising; fourthly, finance; and fifthly, Ministers' powers. I think that it is always of assistance to those who intend to interrupt to know the order in which the interruptions can come.
:Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman is clearly not going to deal with one important point, will he say why the Authority is to be called an Independent Television Authority?
:I think that if the hon. Gentleman assuages his patience for a short time, he will find the answer to that question. I am obliged to him for giving point to my last remark.
I begin with the method of operation, and as to that I should like to emphasise the first five lines of Clause 2 (2) which lay down that the programmes broadcast by the Authority shall be provided not by the Authority but by programme contractors in pursuance of contracts with the Authority. This is a fundamental provision of the Bill and, at the risk of repetition, I want to stress again that a basic duty of the Authority under the Bill is to broadcast from its stations programmes which are provided by programme contractors and not by itself.
The Authority will broadcast the programmes and receive payments from the programme contractors providing the programmes; and the programme contractors themselves will derive their income from advertisements. The basic provision which I have quoted from Clause 2 (2) is modified by paragraphs ( a ) and ( b, ) which give the Authority the right to provide programmes itself in certain defined restricted circumstances.
There has been some misapprehension on this point, resulting in a genuine fear that the Authority itself might enter into the programme-making business and build up a large organisation of its own. I want to make it clear that this is not the intention of the Government. The powers of the Authority to provide programmes are strictly limited to the circumstances specified in paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ), and there is no scope under the terms of the Bill for the Authority, as some people have suggested, getting rid of programme contractors altogether and becoming a State trading organisation or a second B.B.C. It will remain independent.
All that the paragraphs do is to give the Authority power to meet certain exceptional circumstances which must be catered for. The first—that is paragraph ( a )—is if necessary to ensure through the agency of the programme contractors the provision of programmes or parts of programmes which the programme contractors would not otherwise produce, or which it might not be suitable for them to produce. The second is to ensure continuity of programme provision in the event of the failure of a programme contractor or contractors to provide a television service. In brief, these two paragraphs are in the nature of reserve powers.
As the programme envisaged under Clause 2 (2, a ) will be paid for by the Authority out of its funds, there can be no question of the Authority drawing advertisement revenue from such programmes. The only circumstances in which Clause 4 (1) can therefore be invoked, namely, the payment of advertising revenue to the Authority, is set out in Clause 2 (2, b ), namely, the failure of the programme contractors referred to previously to produce programmes.
I mention this because, in spite of what I have said, objections have been raised to these paragraphs on the ground that they permit the Authority to indulge in empire-building in regard to the provision of programmes. This is certainly not intended by the Government and, in order to make this point clear, it has been decided that Clause 4 (1), in so far as it permits the Authority to accept advertisements, shall be limited to the circumstances specified in Clause 2 (2, b ).
I now turn to the question of securing competition. I think that is the second important point in the method of operation. The House will find that in the first four lines of Clause 5 (2) which lays on the Authority the obligation
There are at least two possible types of arrangement. One is that each station should broadcast the programmes of an individual programme contractor. An alternative is that each programme contractor should supply programmes to be broadcast simultaneously from all the stations, which would be connected together by links for this purpose, instead of only from one station, and the programme contractor would then have a day or part of a day. These are alternatives, and we believe that it is a matter for agreement between the Authority and the programme contractors. I think that I ought to say this. What the Authority will have to aim at is to get enough programme contractors to ensure real competition, but not so many as to cause over-complication or fragmentation of the programme. Beyond that, I think that it is a matter for the Authority and the programme contractors to agree.
The method by which the Authority will ensure that the requirements of the Act are complied with by programme contractors is given in Clause 5 (4), which lays down that the Authority shall put into its contracts with the programme contractors provisions which it considers necessary or expedient to that end. They will include, in particular, provisions for the purposes set out in the Third Schedule and provisions for payment of monetary penalties for such breaches of contract by the contractor as are specified in the contract itself.
The detailed provisions are, I think, bound to vary to some extent between one contractor and another, as the scope and contract matter cannot always be uniform. But I am quite sure that we are right in taking the contractual method of imposing obligations on the programme contractors because that will afford the necessary flexibility and will have the further advantage that each contractor will know exactly what his obligations are.
I am very well aware that penalty provisions always have an unpleasant ring in the minds of hon. Members of this House wherever they may sit, but this subsection has been drafted to achieve a double object. It makes it possible for the Authority to dispense with the services of any programme contractor who turns out to be habitually unsatisfactory, while at the same time it safeguards contractors against arbitrary action by the Authority. These provisions are, again, a reserve power, which the Government expect and hope will seldom have to be used.
I ask the House to note that before the right to terminate a contract can be exercised, the programme contractor concerned would first have to commit on at least three separate occasions breaches of contract which make him liable to pay a penalty under Clause 5 (4, b ). But it will not be left to the Authority to decide whether a breach justifies a penalty. Subsection (4), proviso (ii), provides that if there is any dispute about whether a breach has been committed, the matter has to be determined by arbitration. That implies an arbitration under the Arbitration Act. This proviso is a strong safeguard against arbitrary action by the Authority.
There is one other matter concerning the operation of the Authority which is really a personal one. I hope the House will take a benevolent view of the course I have taken in view of what I said on the last occasion. I then said, as the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) will remember, that the Government would attach the draft Licence to the Authority as a Schedule to the Bill. At that time it was believed that the document between the Postmaster-General and the Authority would be a combined Licence and Agreement, as in the case of the B.B.C. It has since been decided to limit it to a Licence pure and simple—that, of course, has been laid before the House—and to transfer what I may term all the agreement part into the Bill itself and into the Schedules.
The context of my promise, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, was that Parliament should be able to discuss the rules relating to advertising.
These are set out in Clause 4 and in the Second Schedule. Hon. Members will note that if there is to be any alteration in that Schedule it must be done by regulations, which in turn must be laid in draft, and approved by both Houses of Parliament. I hope that hon. Members in general and the right hon. Gentleman in particular, because, with all our differences, we share a feeling as to how to treat the House, will think that despite the alterations I have kept the spirit of my promise, and that although the form has been changed it has been changed into an even stronger method of securing that the matters come before the House. Such, at any rate, has been my intention.
Now I come to the question of the contents of the programmes. I shall deal first with the question of balance and quality. Under Clause 3, it is the duty of the Authority to secure that so far as possible the programmes provided by the contractors comply with the requirements set out in the Clause. All these requirements in Clause 3 are of vital importance, but I pick out four of them for special mention.
The first is in subsection (1, c ), which provides that the programmes must
The second point that I wanted the House to have in mind is in subsection (1, a ) which lays down aware of the danger that recorded programmes which had already covered their cost in their own country would be dumped into this country at knock-down prices. He said that the Government were determined to preserve the British character of the programmes and to protect the interests of our artistes and producers. Subsection (1, a ) is designed to meet this point, but the Government have decided to reinforce it by the further requirement in subsection (1, e )
:What is "a proper proportion"?
:"A proper proportion" is what the Authority think is a proper proportion.
:Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that unless a given percentage is specified, the words are almost useless.
:I do not agree. I am quite alive to that point. I was not going to leave it at once. I am quite prepared to consider what is said today and in Committee. There are two different aspects. On the one side, there is what we all desire—and I have stated it, I think the right hon. Member will agree, with complete bluntness. On the other side is the question of applying to a new medium a very complicated code, which, as I and my colleagues who have had to deal with it know very well, is an extremely difficult one to work out. We thought that on balance, having considered that it would be possible to lay down numerous detailed instructions, it would be better to try, to begin with, to see whether the Authority, about whose status I will say a word presently, would be able to maintain the requirement by its general powers in view of the strength of the double requirement in the Bill. We thought that that would be better than planting on the Authority a complicated code.
As I have said, I am quite prepared to consider that. I know the strength of feeling that there is on the point among those concerned and it would be possible to deal with it by subsequent legislation.
I know that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are opposed to the scheme, but, assuming that the scheme becomes law, I know equally that they will do their utmost to make it work well and will never try to sabotage it in any way.
:We will change it.
:Therefore, I ask hon. Members opposite to consider this point as objectively as their feelings will allow.
:Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman elaborate Clause 3 (1, a )? What is meant by "predominantly British"? Are we to have no Wagner and Beethoven programmes?
:That is the difficulty. The interesting thing is that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been urging this in every debate we have had. It is no good the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), for instance, taking a high international line in his interruptions. I have listened to every debate and I have heard this insisted on time and again from the other side. We are trying to meet that. It is a requirement which nobody has so far placed on the B.B.C.
The way that it can be done is to select a good Authority and to get them to try it, especially in the field of performers. I do not think it would be so necessary in the selection of classical authors, but in selecting the artistes it undoubtedly has been the feeling of the House that this should exist, and we have tried to meet it.
rose —
:I hope that hon. Members will make only a reasonable number of interruptions. I always ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to restrict themselves, if possible, to one every five minutes, and I always give way.
The next question I want to deal with is religion and politics. The possibility that these subjects would be included in the programmes was foreshadowed in the last White Paper and seemed to command general support. The Government have decided to permit both under safeguards, and those safeguards are also provided for in Clause 3. Paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule is directed towards preventing political or religious advertising.
In the case of religion, the Authority is under an obligation to arrange for the assistance of a religious advisory committee to advise both the programme contractors and the Authority. The Government hope that this committee will be either the B.B.C. Central Advisory Committee or individual members of that Committee appointed by the Authority under another name. The membership will be the same in both cases. This general arrangement is welcomed by the British Council of Churches.
In the case of party politics, it is laid down in Clause 3 (1, i) that the B.B.C.'s party political broadcasts may be included in the programmes broadcast by the Authority, but they must all be taken or none. That is simply to keep the party balance which has prevailed in the past. Under proviso (ii), the programmes may also include discussions where political arguments are put forward so long as the discussions are properly balanced as between different points of view.
:They never have been yet.
:An obligation would be laid on the Authority to keep the same impartiality as the B.B.C.
:On the question of religion, would the phrase "predominantly British" apply to the Bible, or how does the right hon. and learned Gentleman get out of that?
:If the hon. Gentleman is being flippant—
:No.
I do not want to deal with it. If the hon. Gentleman is being serious, I should say that the Bible has been printed in this country and has been a leading Book studied by the people of this country for hundreds of years. His question simply does not arise at all.
rose —
:No.
I now turn to the question of important ceremonies and sporting events, because I think I ought to say a word about them. Clause 5 (2), line 37 and the subsequent lines, are designed to meet a particular need. Again, I hope I shall have the House generally with me upon it. There are a limited number of national events which the Government consider should be made available to the country as a whole, for example, the Cup Final, the Derby, the Grand National, the Boat Race and a few other events of that kind. They are, in my view, part of the British way of life. If any particular programme contractor succeeded in getting a monopoly for any of these, there would, without doubt, be great public dissatisfaction.
No attempt has been made in the Bill to list the events concerned, as this may need to vary from time to time, and it is hoped that all concerned will be able to come to an amicable arrangement and make it unnecessary to invoke this provision. However, in legislating one has to deal with unpleasant possibilities, and, if necessary, the Postmaster-General can in the last resort specify under this subsection the events which must be available to all broadcasting stations throughout the country if they are televised at all. It is the intention of the Government that reciprocal obligations should be laid on the Independent Television Authority and the B.B.C.
:In order to bring into being these conditions for broadcasting these public events, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that he is prepared to amend the copyright law in regard to this should any difficulty arise?
:If my recollection is correct, already an inquiry is in being with regard to the copyright law, and I should not like to prejudge the findings of that inquiry. It is obviously a question that has to be considered, and I understand it is being considered at the moment.
If I may summarise the purpose of the subsection, let me say that it is to ensure that every possessor of a television set should be able to see these great and special events. It is not the object that there should be only one camera taking a picture or that it should be limited to one person to take the photographs, but it is the object that everyone will be able to see them. I know it is a difficult subject and it is one which we all want to see solved properly. Before the machinery is finally settled it will be necessary to have further discussions with the sporting interests concerned. When I say "the sporting interests" I have in mind—I am not going to descant on it, because I know everyone in the House is aware of it—the effect that the televising of these large sporting events might have on smaller examples of the sport. I will not say any more on that, because everyone has it in mind.
I turn now to advertising, and the House will see that the rules about advertisements in the Second Schedule are in the main self-explanatory. They represent an effort to ensure that the introduction of advertisements, largely for financial reasons, is without detriment to the appeal of programmes to viewers, and that the advertising in itself is conducted fairly. If I might, I should like briefly to refer the House to one or two paragraphs. Under paragraph 2 it will be for the Authority to fix the maximum amount of time for advertising. Again, I ought not to prophesy at all, but the sort of thing I envisage—I may be wrong—is five or six minutes to an hour. However, it will be for the Authority to decide.
Under paragraph 3 it is made clear that the advertisements are not intended to be too frequent, because this would detract from the value of the programmes. Then, of course, there are certain programmes which would not have advertisements near them at all, and the sort of things that we have in mind are religious broadcasts, Royal broadcasts and even political broadcasts.
:Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether natural breaks would include, for example, pauses between the movements of a symphony, a concerto, a sonata, or between the scenes of a play?
:I really think that that is a matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope hon. Gentlemen will give me a chance to answer. After all, the hon. Member who is sitting behind the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey) began to make noises before I got to my answer. I take it good-temperedly, but I ought to be given a chance to reply.
I would say that it varies enormously. Suppose there is a two-act play and there is a really natural break between the acts, I cannot myself see any harm in an advertisement coming in there, especially if the first act has lasted for an hour and 10 minutes, and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members go to the theatre, in the interval they will find advertisements displayed on the screen. On the other hand, I can see that there are pieces of music where no sane person would dream of putting an advertisement. So I agree that there must be an element of discretion.
:Would the Minister consider the following as an example of what he means; that in between the acts of the play "Measure for Measure" it would be permissible to interpose the advertisement of a brewing firm?
:I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. If I may say so, his question has a faint whiff of the midnight oil.
:Paragraphs 2 and 3 refer to rules; do I understand that the Postmaster-General will make known those rules to this House?
:That is a point which will need consideration and which will have to be discussed thoroughly in Committee. There are objections and it would take a considerable time to deploy them. Incidentally, as they interrupt me, hon. Gentlemen are now seeing the reason I made my great gaffe of three months ago. I want to deal with interruptions, but we shall need to discuss that point fully in Committee.
After careful consideration, I prefer that we should not have a debate in each House on every change that the Postmaster-General may make, because it is a new medium. If we introduce these complications and prevent people from making a programme because we have to wait to find time in this House for discussion, there will be many difficulties. Therefore, my present mood is to be against it; I will be quite frank with the right hon. Gentleman. But it is a point worthy of discussion and I want to hear the arguments the other way.
Paragraph 5 deals with the specification and publication of charges made for advertisements. Paragraph 7 has been Inserted because of the doubts expressed in the debate last December as to whether television would fall into the hands of big advertisers and local advertisers would be ruled out.
I now want to pass from advertisements to the interest of advertisers and advertising agents and programme companies. The House will have seen that the directions which specify whether or not any person can be a programme contractor are laid down in Clause 5 (1), and advertising agents are excluded from being programme contractors. It was suggested to me by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) in the debate that advertisers should also be excluded. I will repeat shortly the answer I gave then—that to do that would be to exclude a large part of British industry, and the Bill does not do so.
:I appreciate the difficulty of the Home Secretary. Is not the position of the Government this, that advertisers on television may not influence programmes, but that there is nothing to prevent them from producing programmes?
:The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong—I am sorry if I have put that abruptly—because the answer to his point is that the powers of the Authority are quite sufficient for it to be able to deal with any programme company which allowed itself to come under the influence of any one advertiser. May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Third Schedule? They are to reserve in their contracts the right to call for scripts and particulars of programmes and the making of visual and sound records. They have the power to exert a close control over the programme of any programme contractor who shows himself to be, or is under the suspicion of being, susceptible to an undesirable influence.
:Will the Minister allow me—
:No.
:Order. The hon. Member should not remain standing if the Minister does not give way. If I might utter a word of caution, the hon. Member must be careful not to exhaust his right to speak too early in the debate.
:In the general way these powers are not meant to be used to censor programmes which the contractor may provide. The Authority is not expected to call for scripts as a matter of course. The powers are there, they are intended to be used judiciously and invoked to their full extent only in the event of constant abuse. I am prepared to look again at the drafting of that Schedule, but I do not accept the point that has been put against me in this regard.
There is one interesting point which meets some of the matters that troubled hon. Members and was raised by several of them in the debate. It has been customary for many years for voluntary control to be exercised within the advertising business in regard to the claims made in advertisements. This control is imposed by the official organisations and a good example of it is the committee which ensures the observance of the British Code of Standards in relation to the advertising of medicines and treatments. Members of this committee are appointed by the leading bodies representing advertisers, advertising agencies and the owners of media.
The two organisations representing advertisers and advertising agencies—the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers and the Incorporated Institute of Practitioners in Advertising—have offered to establish a committee or to co-operate with the I.T.A. if the Authority decides to set up an advisory committee on advertising under Clause 3 (3). I am glad to say that the Association of British Chambers of Commerce has made a similar offer. This co-operation, with the reserve powers of the Postmaster-General over the entire range of advertising arrangements, is, I believe, sufficient protection against the unlikely event of abuse creeping into the advertisements, and since the Postmaster-General is responsible to Parliament, it is clear that it will be kept in the public mind.
I now want to turn to the question of finance. There is one important change in the Government's scheme since the White Paper was issued, namely, the proposal to give the new Authority some revenue independent of advertising. Clause 8 of the Bill provides for an annual grant of up to£750,000. It is interesting to remember that these provisions were included in order to meet some of the criticisms put forward by the Opposition and others during the debate on the White Paper. Perhaps I may improve my own speech by making a quotation from what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South:
:That is a perfectly fair quotation, but is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he is still depending almost exclusively on advertising, and is there a word in that extract which indicates that I want the Government to do what they are doing—to dip in the Government's pocket and the licensee's pocket to help the advertiser? Not a word.
:I always had a suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman secretly believed in fairies. He says in that extract that there must be another source of revenue, but we are not to get it from the Exchequer and not from the licences. Really, the right hon. Gentleman has only one fault in debate—he over-estimates the naivety of his brethren in this House.
So that the right hon. Gentleman will not feel alone in the cold, I want to read a similar quotation from a speech by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East who said on 15th December:
:Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I was referring to programme companies and that under this Bill the programme companies are wholly dependent on advertisers?.
:That is quite a fair point but, strangely enough, the point that the hon. Member was answering, and the nub of the point, was the counterargument that we had put forward with regard to newspapers. He was saying that the difficulty here is that there is no other source of revenue. That was really the point with which he was dealing. I think that my answer is in point. I am quite prepared to answer arguments when the time comes, but there must be a certain consistency. It is a little illogical for the Opposition to object to this measure of independence being given to the Authority, to the extent of£750,000 a year, when they were previously objecting to the fact that the Authority was to be 100 per cent, dependent on advertisements.
One can put the matter in a few words, and again they are, of course, better words than mine. Opponents have described this as a subsidy to advertisers, but the "Economist," with much greater accuracy and point, described it as a subsidy against advertising. That is the true position. The money, of course, will not go to the programme companies but to the Authority. That is part of my argument. The Authority would not have to make calls upon it for the purposes specified in Clause 2 (2 a ) if it does not require to do so, that is, if the programme contractors themselves provide well-balanced programmes.
If the Authority found it necessary, however, to put on items in order to maintain a proper balance in the subject matter of the programmes, they would provide items which either were not attractive to advertisers or which, for various reasons, they did not wish to be associated with advertisements. Those might well include religious services, Royal occasions, and political programmes. I think that that meets some of the criticism.
:Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not appreciate that to the extent that the Authority is now to be limited in the production of its own programmes, in the way in which he outlined at the beginning of his speech, there is less justification for the subsidy being given?
:I do not agree at all. I have listened to all the debates on this matter. What was said was that the Authority must have another source of revenue and the reason for giving this money to the Authority is that it must be prepared to put on things which advertisers were thought by the critics, rightly or wrongly, not to like. The fact that there is the power for the Authority to put on and to pay for matters of that kind in my view justifies the money being paid. I am not running away from the criticisms that have been made. I shall deal with them. Apart from one or two matters, I have given way a fair amount. I hope that hon. Members will hold that in my favour. I shall try to be as quick as I can.
The fundamental principle of our opponents is, "No use of advertisements." The Government see the fundamental principle as the ending of the present monopoly in the field of television, and they feel that the revenue available from advertising should be used for this purpose. I have pointed out what I think is a measure of the unreasonableness of our opponents' argument about 100 per cent, dependence upon advertisement revenue. Equally, the Government do not accept the suggestion, which is airily or rather windily asseverated in certain propaganda not unknown to Members of this House, of a large and continuing deficit.
That is extraordinarily and completely at variance with the other suggestion that has been made against these proposals—that this step has been taken to put money in the pockets of the programme companies and the advertisers.
:Of course it is.
:If one goes with the right hon. Member in saying that this is a matter of making money, one cannot at the same time go up the same street with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East and say that this is going to be a matter of continuing deficit.
It is also a fundamental misconception to say that the money is being filched from the B.B.C. Let us look at the strict legal position for one moment, a joy which I do not often have nowadays. The amount which the listener or viewer pays for his licence is not paid to the B.B.C. Legally it is the charge for installing and working wireless apparatus and goes to the Exchequer, which finances B.B.C.
operations. It is paid by the listener who never listens to anything but Radio Luxembourg or the American Forces Network just as much as by hon. Members opposite who never listen to anything but the Third Programme.
It was made clear in the Government statement of 2nd March that the£750,000 a year had been found not out of the moneys voted to the B.B.C. but out of moneys which otherwise would have accrued to the Exchequer. The Exchequer has agreed to stabilise the contribution it receives at£2 million a year for three years instead of asking, as it might clearly have done, that the contribution should increase proportionately to the greater number of licences and the higher fee.
Again, if I may refer to the propaganda to which I have already referred, it is not a case of the B.B.C. paying Entertainments Duty, but of the listener or viewer paying the equivalent of Entertainments Duty for his year's broadcast entertainment, whatever its source, just as he pays tax when he goes to the cinema. Even if£750,000 could be regarded as coming out of the licence fees, the amount of money contributed towards the new Authority in respect of each licence holder would not be more than 3s. There is nothing new in licence holders paying for developments in advance. The sound listener has been paying for some years in advance for development of the B.B.C.'s television service.
I come to what I consider an extraordinary section of the propaganda, even for the hon. Member.
:Which hon. Member?
:The hon. Member for Woolwich, East. That is in regard to the Minister's powers under Clause 6. Apparently there have been criticisms of this Clause in the misconception that it puts the Authority completely in the hands of the Government. This is the most fantastic chimera of all. The power given to Ministers under Clause 6 (1) is very restricted and can only be exercised in connection with their "functions as such," that is, as Ministers. That power is intended for emergency. We all have to use it occasionally, for urgent police messages and matters of that kind. What has been suggested, and what really slightly annoys me, is that Ministers, of whatever party, are going to put on programmes instead of using this power for the purposes of their Departments.
:That is an argument used against the B.B.C.
:It is an argument used against the B.B.C. as well. I am glad to be helped by the right hon. Member. Under subsection (2) the Postmaster-General may ask the Authority to refrain from broadcasting. That power, also, is in existence and we know it is one intended for and always restricted to matters of high policy, such as defence, special circumstances in the international field, or something of that kind. Everyone who has had anything to do with government, of whatever party, knows that this power is very sparingly used. The corresponding powers, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Caerphilly, are contained in the Licence and Agreement of the B.B.C. The experience of the last 25 years shows there to be no real difficulty equally in practice.
I want to put to the House and have it on record that the general powers under the Bill are broadly similar to existing powers over the B.B.C There are certain differences, of which I will mention two. The first is of importance. Under the Bill the Postmaster-General can appoint and dismiss the members of the Authority. As the B.B.C. has a Royal Charter, the governors are appointed and can be dismissed by Her Majesty in Council, acting under the advice of the Government of the day. The power to dismiss is there in both cases. Again, I appeal to any hon. Member who has had governmental experience. All know perfectly well that that power would be used with the greatest care and only in special circumstances. A decision of that kind would never be taken without reference to the Cabinet and the Cabinet expressing its views.
Another point which shows the kind of thing that people have stooped to raise is the discussion about any members of the Authority ceasing to be members and whether that would affect contracts of the Authority. Of course it would not. The Authority is a corporation and the validity and continuity of the contract would continue.
The other particular difference from the treatment of the B.B.C. is that here we have to deal with advertisements and this is a new subject. Broadly, the effort has been made to make the obligations on the two corporations similar in their main outlines. The difficulty is that the obligations on the B.B.C. have grown up over a period of years and have gradually been incorporated in the Charter and Licence and Agreement, whereas these have suddenly to be placed in a statute and, therefore, they appear rather more extraordinary when they are first confronted.
I want to make this appeal to those who are considering the Bill. I think that every social observer will have noted that the usual pattern of development in our country is that new activities have started privately and then minimum standards have been imposed by Parliament as experience grew and people knew where the requirements existed. In this Bill we are trying to impose standards before the activities have come into operation. It is not an easy task and, whatever the views of my colleagues, I ask them to bear that in mind. The Government have made it plain throughout that their intention is that the powers of control should be held in reserve. As I have said, the powers in Clause 6 are parallel to those of the Postmaster-General over the B.B.C.
The fear expressed by the National Television Council that the exercise of the powers given by the board would open the way to complete political control of the Authority by the party in power, might just as well be expressed about the party in power over the B.B.C. and that is demonstrable nonsense.
Similarly, the argument about the difficulty of the Authority exercising its powers is based on a fundamental misconception as to the standards of private industry in this country. The powers put on the Authority by the Bill are necessary to deal with the isolated acts of the lawbreaker. Honest and responsible programme companies—the Government are convinced that those which are selected will be such—have nothing to fear any more than honest and responsible citizens have anything to fear. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the members of the Authority will be chosen for their ability, experience and public spirit. There is no reason to doubt that they will discharge their responsibilities in a way which will commend itself to all right-thinking men and women.
I have said before in connection with this subject that the middle course in dealing with a new subject matter is bound to have great difficulties, but I am sure that the typically British compromise which we have evolved will stand the stresses placed upon it and will achieve its fundamental purpose of giving the citizens of Britain the alternative programme which they want.
4.49 p.m.
:I beg to move, to leave out, "now," and at the end of the Question to add: "upon this day six months."
This is not a very popular Government, but, among the Ministers who are perhaps somewhat more acceptable than his fellows, is the Home Secretary. I like him, for example, more than I like the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. On the whole, I like him more than the President of the Board of Trade. It is always a pleasure to hear him doing an honest businesslike and workmanlike job of expounding a Bill, a Measure, or a policy. But, listening to him today, I did not think he had got his heart in it.
It seemed to me that the Chief Whip, or someone, had given the right hon. and learned Gentleman the instructions: "Stick to your brief and be polite—and be as long as you can." Because the Leader of the House, like the Shylock that he is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, in the matter of time, it is perfectly in order—like the Shylock that he is in respect of the time of this House, has given us only one day on the Bill. Someone has said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, "Use up all the time you can so that there can be as little debate as possible." So we have had the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaking to his brief, and, I must admit, being scrupulously polite. Well, what can you do about a man like that?
:Hang him.
:But when it comes to the higher controversial policy of the Bill, we have heard next to nothing. We are assured that the interests will not have any power over the Authority, whereas the whole purpose of the Bill is to give the interests power in the field of commercial television. I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the draft Licence, although technically he was guilty of a breach of faith and ought—formally, at any rate—to apologise to the House, even if he did not mean it. He should formally apologise for the sake of his brief, but I understand the point he made.
I do not know whether we want to put children's programmes into the Bill, although I think there is a great possibility of menace to the children in the Bill. But children have not much to spend, and so probably that point will not arise—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Hopalong Cassidy?"]. My hon. Friends seem to be indicating that I am wrong. Perhaps the children's allowances are going up, or something.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the advertising time will be in the region of five or six minutes in the hour, which means approximately 10 per cent. It will not be television in the ordinary sense; it will be advertising, and that is serious. Then we are assured that the morals of the advertising will be all right because, fortunately, there is to be a committee as guardians of the morals of the advertising—a committee of advertising men. And if they are not to be wholly trusted, they are to be assisted by representatives of the chambers of commerce. Therefore, he assures us, we need not worry, because the morals of the advertising will be all right.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman assures us that the Government will have no more power over the new Corporation than over the B.B.C., We are glad to have that assurance, because in some of the controversy about this business there have been implications that the Government run the B.B.C., which I agree is not true either in the case of this Government or the preceding Government. But in all the circumstances, I have moved, "That the Bill be read upon this day six months," which will be soon enough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] As my hon. Friends remind me, that means never.
Before I come to my arguments about the Bill, I wish to raise this primary point about public corporations and bring it to the notice of hon. Members. If the British Broadcasting Corporation were a private concern, and a Bill was brought in by a Conservative or by a Labour Government which affected the work of the undertaking, the undertaking would have the right to express its views in public about the merits of that legislative proposal. I entirely agree that public corporations must try to live at peace with the Government of the day. But Parliament and the public are at a disadvantage in that the people who know most about this matter, apart from Her Majesty's Government, who I agree know a great deal—they may put it to a bad use, but they know a great deal—are the very people who, so far as I can see, are forbidden to express their opinions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—yes, certainly—
:They are only prevented from doing so by broadcasting. Surely those people are not prohibited in any way from publishing their opinions?
:In fact, we are in the situation that although the British Broadcasting Corporation knows more about this than anyone, except the Members of the Government and the Post Office, we have not been enlightened by any public declarations, or statements of policy or observations and criticisms, which could be done within the limits of politeness. That is always a disadvantage to Parliament when it is discussing matters affecting public corporations. I am not raising this as a party point. We may have our responsibilities for all I know—
:Hear, hear.
:I am never more happy than when I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). It may be that we have a share of the responsibility. But remember the Transport Bill, the Iron and Steel Bill and so on. We ought to think about it. Just as the Luton Corporation had the right to issue a statement to hon. Members in support of their Bill, and the Bedford County Council had the right to issue a statement against it, so the British Broadcasting Corporation or any other corporation should have the right to make public statements or to circulate statements to hon. Members so that its point of view might be considered? I am not charging this Government in particular with having prevented it from doing so, but we ought to think about it, because otherwise Parliament and the public are at a disadvantage in these matters.
This Bill is really the sad story of a dogma, and, that being so, it is a lesson to us all. It is a dogma which is additionally offensive, because it is combined with sectional trade interests animated by the profit-making motive and not by the public interest—[ Interruption. ]The very fact that there are ugly noises coming from hon. Members opposite is conclusive confirmation of what I have said. These ingredients of dogma plus vested interest are not ingredients from which a public-spirited policy can be made. The trade interests are some of the advertising interests, not all of them, because some of the advertisers wish that this development were not taking place at all—and I admire them.
I have no personal prejudice against advertising men as such. I have written many advertisements in my time—very good ones too—and I know many advertising men. A lot of them are very nice people. But advertising men are not the kind of people who ought to determine higher television policy—even if some of them are Conservative Members of Parliament. I feel that this Bill would have been moved with more conviction and with more fire by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) rather than by the Home Secretary. I observe that hon. Members opposite do not know who is the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. But the Leader of the House and the Assistant Postermaster-General know him—they have good reason to.
In this matter the Government, against their will, have bowed to less than—or to a few more than—20 determined back benchers. That is all there were behind this Bill, and if we had a Leader of the House of Commons who really was a leader, he never would have given way. This mess called a Bill is the result of this situation, and it is a pity. It is a humiliation of Parliamentary democracy when 20 Members, some of whom have an interest in this matter, should have the power to cause Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill which I say a majority of the Cabinet never wanted to have brought in. But that is where we are, and to such depths has the Conservative Party descended that this thing is possible.
What is the dogma? It is the dogma of anti-monopoly. I have destroyed that argument before and, therefore, I do not wish to say much more about it. A public service like the B.B.C., with many sound competitive services, and itself seeking television competitive programmes—this public corporation which itself is allowed no editorial opinions of its own and which provides facilities for varying views, is no monopoly. If a second programme is wanted, the B.B.C. is willing to provide it, and I assume that everybody will be satisfied. I just mention it in passing, assuming that there is so much to be done on television that there is plenty of material available for two programmes. I merely mention that as a point worth thinking about.
Yet the Conservative Party are themselves the champions of monopoly. There is the Assistant Postmaster-General who is the champion of the Post Office monopoly. There is somebody else who was associated with the electric lamp monopoly. There have been others associated with the iron and steel cartel which existed before nationalisation, and which will come about again. There is I.C.I., and there are other people who make rules preventing co-operative societies from doing business in certain fields.
Therefore, who are the Conservative Party to be the anti-monopolists? They believe in private industry, in monopoly, and they practise it.
:Nonsense.
:It is not nonsense. It is true. I have not said anything about certain articles of liquid refreshment. The other day I went to my garage to buy some petrol. There is a certain brand that I like. I am not going to mention it, because I was criticised before for advertising when I mentioned my book.
:Hear, hear.
:Is not that a lovely voice? How thankful I am that I do not wake up in the morning to hear that voice. I hope we are not going to hear it on television, anyway.
I went to my garage and I wanted to buy my usual brand of petrol. What had happened? I do not know whether it was this Government or our Government, but somebody freed petrol. It could have been our Government, but it does not matter. Petrol was freed in order that supplies should be competitive and the pool abolished. Every free citizen could go and buy the petrol that was nearest to his heart, or to his carburettor, so that the people should be set free and could have a free choice. What happens now? I go to my petrol station where before I had a free choice, and now I have got no free choice at all. Every pump bears the same label. I said to the garage attendant, "I want so and so." He said, "Sorry, Sir, but you cannot have it. We have only got this."
:Go to the garage down the road.
:That is all very fine. I may have to go to four petrol stations before I can get the petrol I want. Thousands of pounds are being spent on advertising petrol. All this is being done not by Socialists but by good Tories, and consequently this anti-monopoly argument is the biggest piece of snivelling hypocrisy that we have ever heard from across the Floor of this House.
:I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he seriously think that the Conservative Party is not in favour of competition and private enterprise? Does he really think that the Tory Party is in favour of setting up a monopoly, in view of our denationalisation Measures?
:That is not an interruption. It is a mere argument, and it is an ineffective one. Even this television scheme is not anti-monopolistic. It is going to help monopoly. This television scheme is going to help big business which can afford expensive advertising and which will hurt—and it is meant to hurt—the little men in business who cannot afford television advertising. This is a Tory plot on behalf of big business against the little man. This Bill, like so much other Conservative practice and policy, is monopolistic in its tendency. It is anti-liberationist in its tendency, and, curiously enough, it actually means more Government control and not less. As a matter of fact, the Bill has come round full circle. It is a story of muddle, muddle, muddle. If the case is made for a second television programme, why not let the B.B.C. do it? If they want to do it on a competitive basis, why not let them do it?
Let us examine the story that is being put abroad about the cost of a second B.B.C. programme and the question of licence fees. By the way, I should like the Assistant Postmaster-General to explain where this £750,000 is coming from. The Bill says:
I want now to deal with a point which the Government have kept on repeating, as to what alternative plan we can put forward as compared with theirs. In my judgment, the Assistant Postmaster-General has grossly—I intended to say deliberately, but I suppose I had better not—misled the House with regard to the possible cost of a second programme financed entirely out of licence revenue. It will be recalled that during the summer the British Broadcasting Corporation issued a statement—
:I thought the right hon. Gentleman said the B.B.C. could not speak for itself?
:Not on the Bill. Really, the hon. Gentleman should not sit there trying to look smart. It has not issued a statement on the Bill. The B.B.C. issued a statement on its own 10-year development plan, which it is entitled to do, as the hon. Member will agree, in the ordinary course of business. In it, the B.B.C. said that it could put on a second programme and make a beginning with colour television during that period provided that it got the total proceeds, presumably less the G.P.O. costs, on a combined licence of £3 a year. That is the figure to which the licence fee has now been raised, but the B.B.C. is not to get the full proceeds.
The Assistant Postmaster-General dismissed this, and in effect called the B.B.C. liars by saying that in his opinion the licence fee would have to be raised to £5, £6 or £7—that was on 14th December—if the second programme were provided by the B.B.C. But he did not say that his calculation was based on the assumption that the B.B.C. second programme would be on the air for five hours a day in 1955, a performance which he alleges the new Authority will achieve, but which I do not believe it will.
I will first deal with this point. It must be obvious to everyone that it may well be much longer than another year before the commercial people can begin to radiate any programme, let alone for five hours a day. They have not got suitably equipped studios; they have not got the necessary equipment. How long, for example, will it take them to get hold of the necessary outside broadcasting equipment? Above all, the new Authority has yet to build the transmitters and masts.
The amount of the licence fee is equally bound up with the timing of developments. If these are arranged to a suitable sensible time-table, the natural growth in the number of licence-holders will provide the additional money required.
:What year?
:The B.B.C. said that it would begin its second programme in 1957.
:How many hours?
:The hon. Gentleman really cannot at this stage expect consideration of matters of such specific detail any more than he can give them on behalf of the interests whose point of view he represents. [ Interruption. ] There appear to be some inquiries from some of my hon. Friends about Cossor, but, as I do not quite follow the point, I will not develop it. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to help us later.
The B.B.C. said that it would begin its second programme in 1957, when the coverage of the first programme would be completed—and it is, after all desirable to complete the first programme before going on with the second—and that it would build it up steadily from a small beginning on this basis. We can surely accept the B.B.C.'s estimate that the whole operation could be financed with the whole produce of a £3 licence, and if the B.B.C. were pressed to go faster it could no doubt do so, covering its increased costs in the next two years by borrowing for the time being, which indeed it is proposed to do under this Bill.
So in this respect alone the Assistant Postmaster-General's assumption is liable to be inaccurate. Indeed, it is quite clear that he has misled the House, I hope not deliberately, and a number of other people, by frightening them with his estimate of this great increase in the licence fee.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
:It is arguable that even that fee would be little enough for the service that people get, but in any case the viewer is not, and need not be, called upon to pay it. The B.B.C.—these figures have never been refuted—could still undertake to provide the country with what it wants, a properly balanced alternative programme, planned to radiate, in due course, seven hours on the first programme and five hours on the second programme, for the present fee of £3.
:How does the right hon. Gentleman know? Can he give the origin of that statement?
:The hon. Member must take it on my responsibility, as we have to take things on his responsibility. It may be unwise to do so, but we have to do so now and again.
:Does it come from the B.B.C?
:It comes from me.
:Would the right hon. Gentleman—
:I can guess what the mischievous point of the hon. Gentleman's interrogation is.
:Mine?
:The hon. Member's interrogations never have any point.
If the Government still insisted on taking their 15 per cent, from the B.B.C., the maximum increase, unless there is startling inflation, would be to about £3 10s. a year, and we could still have the second B.B.C. television programme. But the Assistant Postmaster-General may say, "Ah, but the B.B.C. could not provide this alternative programme as quickly as the commercial organisation." I have already shown that he has already made certain false assumptions about the starting of the commercial system. But has the B.B.C. ever been asked how quickly it could provide an alternative programme? I wish the Assistant Postmaster-General to note these points and to answer them. Has the B.B.C. ever been asked how soon it could provide an alternative programme?
:Why should it be?
:Why should it not be? Now we know where we are. The alternative programme is to be thrown at the private vested interests, and the B.B.C. is not even to be asked whether it can provide it. That is the view of the Conservative Party; we have it from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The original B.B.C. statement which envisaged the starting of the actual radiation of a second programme, admittedly for only two hours a day, in 1957, was made in the light of the restrictions which had previously been imposed upon it with regard to the completion of its first programme. It is not the B.B.C.'s fault that it has not yet started an alternative programme. It is Government policy, which may be right or may be wrong, which has prevented the B.B.C. from doing so, and this is now used by Ministers and their supporters as an excuse to give the second programme away to the comercialisers.
:I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the Director-General of the B.B.C., at a Press Conference on 2nd March, himself stated:
"the revenue that the Government has estimated that we shall receive does not fall far short of what we estimate will be required over the next three years to carry forward the plan of development which I announced last summer."
Those were the exact words of the Director-General of the B.B.C.
:I do not think that that contraverts anything I have said. I think the hon. Gentleman borrowed the point of his interruption from somebody else. I now have him on the list, as well as the others.
I have, therefore, come to the conclusion, on the basis of the information available to us, that if the Government were to ask the B.B.C. to provide an alternative programme, the B.B.C. would and could do so at least as quickly as the commercialisers could; and that they could do so without any further increase in the licence fee, but the B.B.C. must, of course, retain the £750,000 annually which it is now proposed should be taken from them, directly or indirectly, through the Treasury in order that it may be filched for the commercial system. The B.B.C. would require to have similar borrowing facilities if it wished to have them.
This, then, is one practicable alternative to the Government's policy. There may be others. It involves none of those cooked up figures that were retailed in the House on behalf of the Post Office about a £6 licensing fee. There is no doubt that the Assistant Postmaster-General has gravely deceived us, or sought to do so. At least, I am inclined to think so. After all, deceiving people is not a criminal offence, or even Parliamentarily out of order.
rose —
:The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not been here very long. He must wait a bit.
:On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to my lack of education. May I therefore seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask whether there is not a distinction between misleading and seeking to mislead? Surely seeking to deceive is an imputation against the honour of my hon. Friend.
:That is not a point of order.
:If indirectly I have been able to contribute to the Parliamentary education of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I am very glad to have been able to do so. I say, with all seriousness and with all conviction, that in view of the partisan attitude of the Assistant Postmaster-General, and the way in which he has handled the alleged facts about this matter, not altogether fairly to the House of Commons and the public, he is unfit to stand at the Dispatch Box. He should resign his office because the House of Commons, above all, deserves faithful and meticulously truthful service from Ministers of the Crown on matters of fact of this sort. I think that he is convicted of misrepresentation which is calculated to mislead the House and the public.
If the Assistant Postmaster-General, from whom I hope to hear tonight, stands by his original figures, I ask him to publish a White Paper with a full examination of the position. I ask the Government to include in that White Paper the representations which the B.B.C. have, or may have, made to him and to the Postmaster-General on this matter. Let us hear and read the case that the B.B.C., on factual grounds and with politeness to the Government, may wish to advance. I urge the hon. Gentleman to authorise the B.B.C. to compile detailed estimates for a second programme. If these were published in a White Paper, the House could then judge for itself before the Third Reading of the Bill.
Will the Assistant Postmaster-General also tell us whether he has had any representations from the governors of the B.B.C. about an alternative programme? It is bad enough for him to ignore expert advice in this hole-and-corner way; but I ask that the House should be told what the B.B.C. Governors have had to say. Then let the House judge for itself as between the differing arguments on the point.
The Bill is the product of contradictory policies. It was to be commercial sponsoring, and that had such a miserable and bad reception that the Government ran away. I am not complaining. I helped to make them run away; we all did. Commercial sponsoring is what the limited band of buccaneers on the back benches opposite would still like. But public opinion disliked the whole business. Public opinion still dislikes this business, and so we get the so-called Independent Television Authority.
The title is silly. It really is foolish. One of the things that we have battled against as Governments of all parties is this. We have sought to disabuse the minds of some foreigners who believe that the B.B.C. is the authentic voice of Her Majesty's Government of the day; that it is official in that sense. Now we have to call this an Independent Television Authority, which implies that the B.B.C. is not an independent body. Ministers have not begun to think about this. They really are silly. They really are incompetent. They should not touch things they do not understand. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) says that if they touched nothing that they did not understand, they would have nothing to do and would be out of work. I have some sympathy with that point of view.
This is a misleading name. Therefore, I say that it is a bad title. The word "Authority" is not very good either. Why not call it what it is—a commercial television board? Or, if we wish to be more explicit, we could call it a "capitalist television board," an "anti-Socialist television board" or an "anti-public ownership television board."[ Interruption. ] I am being provoked to be out of order.
There are in addition under the Bill programme companies or contractors. There are the advertisers. It is said by the "Advertisers' Weekly" that the advertisers can get a grip of this show. That is what is said by the "Advertisers' Weekly," which is one of the weekly papers of the advertising business. I believe that for the first time with any public corporation, except the airways corporations, we are providing in the Bill for State aid. As far as I recall, the B.B.C. has never had a penny of State aid. On the contrary, it has given millions to the Post Office.
:What about the Overseas Service?
:Of course, but then it acts as an agency and it is all above board with the Foreign Office. I know, because I had a row about it when I was at the Foreign Office. I got into trouble with Parliament about it. For the first time broadcasting is to have a subvention in the shape of a loan which is to be repaid, or a straight—or is it straight?—subsidy of £750,000 a year for 10 years, which may go on thereafter.
This is for the glorification, the health, the vigour, the commercial independence and the prosperity of private enterprise. The public broadcasting corporation has not needed a public subsidy and has never had one. But directly these right hon. and hon. Gentlemen come forward, with their own principles of private enterprise which ought to flourish and to stand on its own feet, according to their own beliefs, what do they do? They put their hands in my pockets, as a taxpayer, and say, "You cough up." They put their hands in the pockets of the television licence fee-payers and say, "You have to help private enterprise. Private enterprise cannot stand on its own feet and it must be subsidised out of public funds."
To what a pass has the Tory Party come. What a combination of private enterprise capitalist incompetence this is. Not only that, but they have claimed that there is a great virtue in private enterprise in this matter, that there is a great virtue in "setting the people free" to quote the Prime Minister. I am sorry to refer to my petrol again, but I have got it on my mind. It happened only a few days ago.
Notwithstanding that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite say they believe in setting the people free and establishing free competition at the end of the day they are not establishing free competition. They have produced a Bill which is a mass of rules and regulations and red tape. We think there ought to be more rules and regulations. We shall probably move Amendments in Committee to that effect. I wonder what the hon. Member for Sevenoaks and the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) think about all these rules and regulations. How do they harmonise with the free enterprise doctrine of the Conservative Party? There are pages and pages in the Bill of rules and regulations saying, "Thou shalt not do this. Thou shalt not do the other." Why? Because the Government know that capitalist interests in this field cannot be trusted. Similar limitations on private capitalist enterprise have been contained in other legislation—in the Railways Act, 1921, for instance. There was a merger, so there had to be a tribunal known as the Railway Rates Tribunal. It is so in the iron and steel industry, and it is so in other cases. This is the Government's dilemma. The Government would like to set all these enterprises free but, when they come to the point, public opinion will not let them. There is more Socialist opinion in this country than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite like to admit, so that when it comes to the point they have got to compromise.
On the technical side of this business, I am told by authoritative quarters—though my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) can deal with it better than I—that this assumption that Band III is right is wrong. There are grave doubts whether Band III will be a success, but I cannot argue the case. I confess my relative ignorance. Just as the Prime Minister's father some years ago said that he could not follow the damned dots, I cannot follow these damned bands either. However, that is what I am told.
If the Bill goes through, how long will it take to implement it? I do not know. Nor do we know when the next General Election is to be. I do not want to be categorical about it, but we are in this difficulty in all these matters, that here is a subject which is nearly constitutional in character. It concerns the vast entity of the public mind, the level of the public mind. I cannot forget those musical and orchestral programmes of the B.B.C. during the war and the enormous job the B.B.C. has done in lifting the public taste in the field of music. I cannot forget when I was Home Secretary the vast audiences that filled the Albert Hall as well as the vast audiences listening to their wireless sets at home, and how the Albert Hall was crowded from floor to ceiling.
:We are proud of my right hon. Friend's part then, too.
:I thank my hon. Friend. A bomb could have gone through the rather ugly roof of the Albert Hall at any moment, but those listeners took the risk, and stuck it out. There is no doubt that the B.B.C. substantially improved and developed musical taste amongst the mass of my fellow people, and developed for the first time amongst some of them a cultural musical taste. That will not result from this sort of game. The providers of these programmes will be interested in mass audiences. The educative influence of the B.B.C. is a precious thing; it is an important thing; it is something we really have a duty to safeguard, not merely in the interests of political dogma, but in the interests of our country, especially the higher interests of our country and the character of our people.
So I am bound to tell the House something of my apprehensions if the Bill goes through. It is only fair to those people who may be putting money into this business that they should know how we should look upon it in principle if a Labour Government came in, as is quite likely, as the result of the next General Election. The Home Secretary said that he hoped there would be a certain amount of continuity in this matter. But there has not been any continuity. We ourselves asked him on the occasion of his unfinished symphony that night, characterised as it was by the best British taste, if this were not the kind of matter we should get together about around the table, to try to be agreed about it.
But no, the Government would not have it except on Molotov terms. They said, "If you will agree to the two fundamental purposes we have in mind, then we will talk." It would be a very interesting talk, doubtless, but it would not take long. That was what we were told by the Minister of State on that occasion. So this is a party Bill, a party-Government Bill. The Government believe that as they command a Parliamentary majority they have a Parliamentary right to pass it. I suppose they have. I do not know about the moral right, but they have a Parliamentary right. They must understand, however, and everybody else must understand, that another Government and another Parliament will have the Parliamentary right to modify it.
I have given the House the reasons why we regard the whole present scheme as objectionable and, indeed, futile. Let me state the attitude the Opposition take of how we should administer it if, as in my view is only too likely, the present Government disappear sometime in the next year or two. The exact date depends on the Prime Minister, and he has not told us. However, it is very much on the cards that a General Election may occur before the present proposals are properly working, or working to any perceptible degree. That is quite likely because it will take time to get the scheme working.
In that case, it will be simple to scrap it entirely and produce a more workable and satisfactory system and provide the money for what is wanted more, namely, the completion of the present coverage for the sake of the people in the sparsely populated districts. Why cannot the Government give them consideration, as well as the people in the great cities, out of whom more money can be made? Why not? Let us have completion of the present coverage with a single programme and then the provision of a properly balanced alternative.
If this scheme should already be working when we take office, the first thing we should do would be to maintain and enforce the full rigour of the safeguards already contained in the Bill, and others which, as the Bill makes its way through both Houses, may be put in. I gather that there are to be some attempts to get some out. We shall see the result.
At the same time, however, I must make it clear that the whole of this scheme is highly objectionable, and there is already substantial evidence that it may prove to be unworkable. In that case we shall certainly not scrap the safeguards, but must reserve the right to modify or, indeed, abandon the entire scheme, and this may well include the complete elimination of the proposals for advertising.
In any circumstances the Government's plans provide a most insecure and unpromising field for investment on the part of the programme contractors, and, in view of what I have said, they may well find in due course that they are put out of business. While we have no wish to take any vindictive action against them—[ Interruption. ] Do hon. Gentlemen opposite want me to be vindictive?
:I thought the right hon. Gentleman was already being about as vindictive as it was possible to be.
:I gather from my hon. Friends that the hon. Member has some association with the people who might be interested in the scheme, in the material sense of the term, but I assure him that I should not be vindictive about the matter, even to him.
While we would not wish to be vindictive in any way in action against them, it is quite clear that although the main physical assets are to be held by the corporation, nevertheless much of the capital of the programme companies will be sunk in organisation and in those intangible assets which are summed up in the words "know-how and goodwill"; and in these respects, anyway, we cannot guarantee compensation for the losses which they will sustain if they are put out of business. It is only right, it is only fair, that they should know the way Parliament is thinking on this matter—both sides of Parliament—before large sums are risked in such a dubious operation.
Let me repeat that our objectives will nevertheless remain: the establishment of a properly co-ordinated television service—which this Bill will certainly not provide and is not meant to provide—and a real choice of properly-balanced alternative programmes, with national coverage.
I am an opponent of the Conservative Party. I always have been an opponent of it, and I shall continue to be, but there was this to be said for the Conservative Party in history—it is not everything and it does not justify its existence: but there was this to be said, that it was the party of aristocratic culture. It has now become the party of capitalist commercialism. It is the enemy of a reasonable culture. This Bill is the enemy of a reasonable culture in broadcasting and television, and for that reason we shall vote against it in the hope that we can yet defeat it and prevent it from reaching the Statute Book.
5.43 p.m.
:We have listened with very great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), because we could not make out why he was taking so long and why he was indulging in so much mud slinging.
:That is very unfair. I took less time than the Home Secretary.
:The right hon. Gentleman is condemned out of his own mouth, for he attacked the Home Secretary for taking so long and explained that the Home Secretary was doing this with the object of absorbing as much time as possible on the Bill in order that it could not be discussed. Out of his own mouth, we must understand that that was his object.
But we forgave him when we heard the declaration which he had to make. This was not the full-blooded declaration which his right hon. and hon. Friends were awaiting. We must not, of course, look into the inner working of the party opposite, but if ever there was a declaration which bore the marks of drafting on every side, with everybody putting in a little bit of their own, it was the declaration which the right hon. Gentleman made to the House.
It is quite true that he prefaced it with a declaration which will do a great deal to improve the chances of our party at the next election, whenever it comes—namely, that if he were returned to power before the scheme was working, he would scrap it. But obviously it is very strongly in his mind that there is no danger of that, because he spent a great deal of time afterwards explaining exactly what his party would do, and exactly how they would proceed, if by some mischance they were returned at the next election but one, and the scheme had been working for some time before they came into office. He did not say anything about sweeping it all away. No; he was very careful, and it will be interesting to read closely, in HANSARD, what he said.
He will let it run on. He will work the scheme. He will, of course, look after the safeguards—but the safeguards put in by this Government. He may even wish to insert some others, and we shall see what other safeguards he wishes to insert. But, fundamentally, he will work on the scheme of the Bill, modifying it possibly, and, if it has proved unworkable, doing away with it; and of course, in such circumstances, if it had proved unworkable, paying for the assets and not paying for the goodwill. There would not be much goodwill if the scheme proved unworkable. The right hon. Gentleman's declaration was very carefully worded and it merely encourages anyone who is interested in commercial television to go ahead.
Apart from his tribute at the end to the Tory Party—that we had always been the party of aristocratic culture, a tribute which we were very glad to have—he passed off into the usual accusations of the debasing and degrading influence which commercial advertisement is bound to have and which is serious in this case.
But let us take the daily papers. Where is this degrading and debasing influence of commercial advertisement? Is it to be found in "The Times," for example?
:What of America?
:We are dealing with this country. I will come to America later.
We are told that advertisements will debase and degrade every aspect of the cultural and educational achievements of the B.B.C. In fact, we had a leader, a somewhat oleaginous leader, in "The Times" this morning on that theme, comparing the coming of competitive television with the danger of setting loose the hydrogen bomb—which seemed a little exaggerated, I must say. Speaking of the educational achievements and possibilities of broadcasting, it said: and we all think highly of "The Times" as an organ not only of news but of culture.
It seems very strange that advertisements should have this deadly effect upon television if the effect is so different upon the Press and when it is applied to anything else. Of course, when it is applied to "The Listener" it is holy there, too. The B.B.C. has no hesitation at all in plugging its own papers on its sound radio, which we are told is entirely free from any form of advertisement. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke about hypocrisy, I thought there was a good deal of hypocrisy in the arguments he was using and a great deal more in the arguments by which he is supported. Indeed, when we tried to meet right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite they were more indignant than ever.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), in a publication called "Dear Viewer …", said:
It is obvious that we are all agreed that we want an alternative programme. Advertising revenue is the only thing which is separating us. We say that this experiment should be tried out. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite say, as was said a moment ago, "What about the United States?" I should have thought that if there was one argument which could not be used at the present moment, it was the argument about the United States.
What is the greatest danger in the United States? The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and hon. Friends of his have often commented upon it. It is McCarthyism. The influence of McCarthy in the United States is one which everyone fears to tackle. The newspapers this morning stated that the United States Bar fears to tackle it, for it has not provided a lawyer to act as chief counsel to the committee to inquire into the matter. Who are the only persons in the United States who are tackling McCarthyism? They are the people who are responsible for this poor old squalid commercial television.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reputation of McCarthy among the American people who support him was very largely built up through television?
:McCarthy built up his reputation by means of his committees. It is through his committees, and the influence that he exerted through his committees, that he has built up his power, as everybody knows. That does not alter the fact that the only thing which is effectively attacking McCarthy in the whole world just now is commercial television in the United States.
That seems to me altogether to thrust out the arguments against commercial television in the United States. An aluminium company financing Ed Morrow is the only thing which is putting up an argument against McCarthy. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "That is all wrong. The radio and television networks in the United States ought to be put under the heel of the Government." That is, in effect, "under the heel of McCarthy."
:My right hon. Friend is making a very strong point about commercial television attacking McCarthy, but to say that it is the only thing is quite wrong. Many newspapers and magazines have adopted a very strong and courageous attitude towards McCarthy.
:I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. If I used the word "only" I was overstating it. I do not think I said that. I believe I said that it was the only thing which was effectively standing up to McCarthy. I do not think that anyone denies that the real weakening in McCarthy's position has taken place since commercial television began to put the case against him, since Ed Morrow began to put the case against him. Who should know that better than the hon. Member for Woolwich, East, who quoted and used so much of that material and was able to show us the whole thing in operation, which we should not otherwise have been able to see? I say that the United States and the world as a whole owe a debt of gratitude to the commercial firm which is financing that programme. To say that the position would be improved if commercial television was put under the heel of the United States Government is to fly in the face of the obvious facts.
We have here a Bill which for the first time will make it possible to have a real alternative programme, because the alternative programme will draw revenues from something outside the ordinary conventional sealed pattern way of raising revenue for sound and television radio. There is no other alternative source of income by which that could be achieved. We cannot achieve it simply by the B.B.C. putting up another programme. A man cannot play chess, right hand against left.
We cannot have the B.B.C. playing one programme of its own against another. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is doing it now."] No, it is not, and anyone who is in touch with the B.B.C. and working with the B.B.C. knows that. The policy of the B.B.C. and even the day-to-day working of the B.B.C. is very largely determined by the head office, and it must be determined by the head office.
It would be ridiculous and impossible to suggest that by merely throwing up other committees or sub-committees of the B.B.C. we could produce what we all want, some real alternative slant on affairs. If that slant is provided by the use, among other things, of commercial revenue, I do not think that it need necessarily be commercialised, debased and degraded any more than "The Times" or the "Manchester Guardian" are debased and degraded by the fact that they could not be carried on for a week without the revenues which they derive from advertisers.
I do not believe that the influence of the advertisers in this country will in every case be set deliberately, or even accidentally, to degrade and debase British television. The television of the Coronation, for example, was beautifully done by the B.B.C., but the Coronation was also beautifully done by the commercial cinema company which put on films which were a pleasure to see and which were in every way worthy of the great occasion which they set themselves out to represent. That was done by people who, according to the hypothesis of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, should have been seeking every opportunity to lower standards, degrade the life of the people and vulgarise the great occasion which was set before us. Yet they fully lived up to the standards set by even the most exacting of public corporations.
Therefore, let us try this experiment. It has been debated in the House of Commons eight times now. It is time for decision. I ask the House of Commons tonight to decide.
5.59 p.m.
:In considering the Bill, we must consider two very important Reports which were presented to the Postmaster-General, namely, the Television Advisory Committee Reports Nos. 1 and 2, which deal with the technical aspects of commercial television. It is interesting to note that the first Report was available in the Vote Office, but the second one is not and the only way it can be obtained is through Her Majesty's Stationery Office. If there is to be an intelligent technical discussion on the aspects of commercial television, it is essential that both Reports should be made available to hon. Members.
The terms of reference of the Television Advisory Committee were such as to make alternative programmes available in the home from both the B.B.C. and competitive organisations. What the Bill does is to make possible alternative commercial television programmes. I believe the recommendations of the Television Advisory Committee to be thoroughly unfair to existing television users and to users of very high-frequency commercial radio, as well as inimical to the furtherance of television on other wave bands.
The position at the moment is that, on Band I, we have the whole of the existing B.B.C. television programme, and I am pleased to note that we have also got provision on Band I for the coverage of Norwich, which, up to date, has been a fringe area. As far as Band II is concerned, we have the B.B.C. experimental station at Wrotham, the very high-frequency B.B.C. developments which are to take place in respect of audio-broadcasting, the gas boards, the electricity authorities, the Automobile Association and most of the police network.
On Band III, we have air navigation distance measuring equipment, taxis, municipal authorities and newspapers, and it is on Band III that there are two channels available which are now to be handed over to the commercial television companies when they are formed.
I suggest straightaway that these two channels on Band III are entirely inadequate for giving complete second programme coverage. In fact, it would be impossible to use Band III to give the people of Scotland the necessary coverage. It is only in the large urban areas of England that we shall be able to have second programme coverage on Band III, while in Scotland it will be entirely impossible.
I want now to deal with the recommendations of the Television Advisory Committee, whose Report suggested that this band should be entirely cleared, which means that all the different services I have mentioned, which are now on Band III, would have to be transferred to Band II. I want to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General if it was suggested by the Post Office engineers and recommended to him that air navigation distance measuring equipment should be transferred to Band II, because, if there is to be a clearing of Band III and all the services using it at present are to be transferred to Band II, it obviously follows that we shall merely be increasing the jamming which already takes place. Therefore, it seems to me that it is an entirely retrograde step. An interesting point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) in asking a supplementary question recently, when he suggested that this proposal would put the users of very high-frequency broadcasting on Band III to considerable expense, and that it would also mean interfering with the local authority ambulance service, for instance. I know that the Postmaster-General is safeguarded; in fact, one thing I learned from 5½ years in the Post Office was that the Postmaster-General was covered for everything, but I want to ask why, on the basis of equity, these users of Band III, who were given their licences by the Post Office in 1948, should be put to the expense of having their sets altered.
:In view of the hon. Gentleman's argument, will he suggest where the B.B.C. is to provide its second national programme?
:The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my speech. I was going to suggest Band IV, which is the only band available at present on which the B.B.C. could have its second programme.
Why was this recommendation made? It was based on a Minority Report signed by a Mr. Stanley, who is a rather famous person, being a director of Pye Telecommunications and Pye Radio, and he has got his own way. It is precisely because he has got his own way that we have this Bill before us, but I shall have more to say about that later.
What was the main argument that weighed with the Government in accepting this Minority Report? The main argument used was that these arrangements would help the export trade. In fact, the Report says, and I quote from paragraph 21: Our British television system differs from any other, and the differences are such that we cannot change them by merely changing one part or a set, or, by the substitution of one small unit on a home model, make that model available for use abroad. The British system is on a definition of 405 lines per picture and 25 pictures per second, which requires a narrower wave band. The standard continental system has a definition of 625 lines; in the United States, definition is 525 lines, with 30 pictures per second. The modulation of the British system is positive, whereas in the United States and Holland modulation is negative.
Sets made for the home market are useless anywhere else, and cannot be altered as a commercial proposition. That is why I say that the recommendations were entirely untrue. What is more important, people who manufacture these sets with British definition and lineage will not be in a position to have these sets tested in this country. It is absolutely impossible, because there is no broadcast.
Therefore, that argument that was used was thoroughly dishonest and entirely untrue. The only progressive development that can take place is on Band IV, and that has already been done in the United States. Transmitters have been manufactured in this country, and are at present at the B.B.C., which will operate on Band IV. Of course, we were told in the last debate that it was impossible for British manufacturers to make the circuits and valves for Band IV, but it is the general opinion within the industry that what we are doing in Britain is equal to, if not better than, what is being done in America.
The difficulty of going on Band IV, as far as the B.B.C. are concerned, when commercial interests are on the scene as well, is that with ultra-short waves we shall have less coverage but more stations, and, by having more stations, each costing £15,000, we should be in a very much better position to get national coverage. I was talking the other day to an engineer, and he told me that the ratio of expenditure on the provision of stations as compared with the expenditure of the people who have to have the receiving sets is one to 150. To produce a transmitter station, whether a B.B.C. station or one for commercial television, is cheap. The cost falls upon the people who have to receive the programme.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), who intervened a few moments ago, asked about the B.B.C. second programme and where we should put it. The answer is, on Band IV, and that is where commercial television ought to be. I want to ask why the brilliant engineers on this Committee—and they were brilliant engineers—agreed to this recommendation of Mr. Stanley, about whom I shall have more to say later. The fact is that it was implied in their terms of reference that they should get on quickly and make recommendations to the Government soon, in order that we could have commercial television. It was the time factor which caused them to make those recommendations.
The Bill has been brought forward out of a promise to the political supporters of the Government. We heard nothing about commercial television until the hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers), Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey), and Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) began it. It was when those Gentlemen came into the House in 1950 that we got this constant demand for commercial television.
It is one of the most blatant pieces of log-rolling I have ever come across. It absolutely stinks of Americanism and American business methods. In retrospect, when they come to read their speeches and consider their demeanour, those hon. Gentlemen will realise that their attitude was entirely wrong for British political standards. Of course, they were able to sell it with an eye to political propaganda. One of the causes of indecent haste about this scheme was that a second commercial programme should be available before the next General Election.
It may be that they will succeed; but hon. Gentlemen opposite had not realised the extent of the opposition to their first scheme, which was rejected almost with contempt and contumely in another place a year last July. The scheme is entirely different now from what it was originally. In other words, there has been a general retreat from the position. I hope that the retreat will be such that the Bill will be so changed in Standing Committee that it will no longer be possible to go on with it, and become a rout.
We have to consider very seriously the fact that no account has been taken of the tremendous progress in high frequency and ultra-high frequency broadcasting in recent years. When we started the television network when we were in power, it had to be done largely over co-axial cable. Experience of the radio link was not very great. Now it can be done by radio link more cheaply and probably more effectively. Doubtless that is the method that will be employed.
I do not think that this business is clean—I say this to the Home Secretary, for whom I have the highest personal regard—because of the pressure from the advertising interests in his party. I do not think he likes it himself. There have been alterations in the Bill, as compared with the first White Paper, but there has also been the unfortunate pressure of the manufacturers. That is also something that we have to consider. This brings me to the gentleman to whom I referred, Mr. Stanley. I think it is incumbent upon me to quote what the "Wireless World" said about the appointment of Mr. Stanley, whose Report is now accepted by the Government and has led to the bringing forward of the Television Bill. This technical journal said:
:I wrote a letter replying to that point raised in the "Wireless World." Unfortunately, it was not possible to publish my letter. The justification for having Mr. Stanley on the Television Advisory Committee was this: Is it not better when there is a minority opinion, as there was even in the Beveridge Report, to have that opinion expressed in the Report rather than to have the Report sniped at from outside from well-informed sources? We have to bear in mind that Mr. Darnley Smith is chairman of a radio company which is a subsidiary of a Rank film company. That might be said to be on the other side, that is, on the film industry side, which has in general opposed the introduction of better, competitive television.
:It is a bad analogy to compare the Beveridge Report with this Television Report in the names of Mr. Darnley Smith and Mr. Stanley, who sit on the Television Advisory Committee. They get personal benefit out of it. Mr. Stanley gets considerable personal benefit out of the recommendations of the Television Advisory Committee's Report. I hope to prove this beyond a peradven-ture. I do not speak in the House of Commons unless I know my facts, and I bring these facts to the attention of the Home Secretary. I believe that he is aware of them, and if my indictment is proved I have sufficient faith in the Home Secretary to believe that he will take action in the matter.
Mr. Stanley was a director of the Associated Broadcasting Development Corporation until a few weeks ago. When he was sitting on the Television Advisory Committee he was interested in commercial television. The Advisory Committee's recommendations were of such a character that he was able to get a Minority Report through in favour of a changeover of the wave band. How does this come about? Mr. Stanley's firm supplies approximately 85 per cent. of the very high-frequency sets provided on Band III and Band II. He has almost a monopoly through his companies. What happens? When television is transferred from Band III to Band II—
:I have no interest in the matter in connection with this firm, but the hon. Gentleman's statement is completely inaccurate. Marconi, the General Electric Co. and Standard Telephones and Cables are all competing on mobile radio with Mr. Stanley. To suggest that Marconi have only a 2 per cent. share of the market while Mr. Stanley has 85 per cent. is plain nonsense.
:It may be nonsense in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, but that is not the point. The fact is that Mr. Stanley's firm are providing these sets and will benefit by the changeover from Band III to Band II.
If I buy a set and want to alter it because of Government action making commercial television possible and making available channels on which it can take place, it is obvious that I shall send the set to the makers. That is entirely wrong. There is even worse to come. The second Television Advisory Committee's Report suggests that Band II should be changed and made free. There must be alterations again, and benefit will come to the very gentleman who sat on the Committee. That is all wrong, and I hope that the Home Secretary will look at the matter because it is entirely alien to British practice.
I do not think that sufficient attention has been given to the cost of the needed alterations to sets to make the second programme available. We are told the alterations will cost between £5 and £6, but my estimate is that it will be nearer £9. We have had price quotations for adaptors, but no quotations for aerials, which will also have to be altered. Another case against this proposal is that it is obvious that when the B.B.C has its second programme, it will have to operate on Band IV. If there is to be pioneering work—which I do not accept, but I will assume it on the basis of hon. Gentlemen's arguments—the public will have to pay for the development of the service. Therefore, it seems that the B.B.C. has hardly been treated fairly in 'this matter, although I have not the slightest doubt that it has the engineering skill requisite to get over any complications which are supposed to exist on Band IV.
I appeal to the Government to have second thoughts about the Bill. They are staking public finance for the purpose of private profit for advertisers. I do not think that British people particularly want their entertainment provided out of public funds. Above all, as I have endeavoured to show, I think that the recommendations which the Television Advisory Committee made and which made the introduction of this Bill possible, and made it a practical and feasible, proposition, are based entirely on wrong conceptions, are inaccurate and against the best interest of the furtherance of television. I conclude by saying that in the interests of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, not only should the Bill not be read this day six months, but that it ought never to be read at all because, quite frankly, the way in which these commercial undertakings are to work as a result of the allocation of channels is such as will hinder the development of and the complete coverage of the country by a second programme.
6.20 p.m.
:The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) has made various charges against Mr. Stanley and against the findings of the Television Advisory Committee, and, much as I should like to follow him, I cannot do so because, of course, I have no knowledge of the particular position of Mr. Stanley. However, I have not the slightest doubt that in due course those charges will be answered.
It seems to me that a great deal of the hon. Gentleman's argument—in the way it was applied—would mean that there should be no alternative programme at all. In any case, I am advised that in a few years' time, when Band V becomes available, the channels then open to us will be legion. Then, of course, the whole problem will have to be looked at again.
I look upon this Bill merely as an interim Measure. We had what I might call a rumbustious speech from the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), in the course of which we had something of a knockabout turn. I thought he attempted to cover up a good deal of the uneasiness he felt concerning the attitude which the party opposite have officially adopted towards this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is nothing if not a politician, and let it be understood by every owner of a television set that if the Socialist Party ever have their way there will be no programme which is not put out by the B.B.C.
I have heard that many people are utterly "fed up" with the present television programme. From the purely political angle I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman made that statement, and I can assure him that we shall make the most of it. I welcome the Bill, and I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. Its purpose is to introduce competitive television and to break the B.B.C. monopoly. Let me tell hon. Members opposite that that is not merely the will of a caucus of 20 back benchers of the Conservative Party.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South probably knows all about caucuses running political parties. I would point out to him—I am sorry he is not present, but I cannot help that—that this Bill is supported by the overwhelming majority of the Conservative Party, and if he wants any evidence of that he has only to refer to their proceedings at Margate last October.
As I say, that object has my wholehearted support, and although we have debated this question of monopoly almost ad nauseam, I must make one brief reference to it. Support for the monopoly comes from two sources. The first source is the Socialist Party. I find that quite understandable, because the whole thesis of that party is State monopoly, and, therefore, that they should support it in a medium of the mind such as television is perfectly understandable.
But what is not understandable is the opposition which comes from other sources. On the subject of the Socialist Party and monopoly, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South is occasionally at pains to argue that, of course, the B.B.C. is not a monopoly. All I would say to that is that as far as the Beveridge Committee was concerned, it certainly thought it was, and went into the subject at great length in its Report. It came to the conclusion that the monopoly should be retained, apart from the Minority Report of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State.
Support for the maintenance of this monopoly has come from a number of people who have banded themselves together under the organisation known as the National Television Council. They appear to be animated by the view that the public should have only what it is thought good for them to receive by authority. What have the would-be arbiters of public taste and morals been doing in the present controversy? They have been putting out nothing less than a flow of misleading propaganda, of which they should be thoroughly ashamed, and they have themselves brought out the dangers inherent in a monopoly of the mind of this sort controlled by people who think themselves superior.
I will give the House one or two examples. I gave some on the last occasion when I spoke, but this sort of misleading propaganda continues to be put out by this body, and they have announced their intention of opposing this Bill root and branch. In one of their latest circulars they say:
In this connection, I now turn to something which the Association of British Chambers of Commerce has to say on the subject. No one, I think, will deny that that is a very responsible body and one to which we should pay some regard on important matters of trade and export. It says: favour of this Bill. It would be literally suicidal for us in these days and in the years to come, when everyone knows that we have to produce every ounce of energy we can to sustain 50 million people on this island, to neglect a medium of that sort, which will play a large part in our exports and home sales in the future.
In its endeavour to meet some of the genuine misgivings about commercial television I think that the Government have, in this Bill, leaned over too far backwards. To assuage what I would call reasonable misgivings they have bowed more than is necessary to hysterical opinion. Although my right hon. and learned Friend has reassured me on many counts I still fear several things in the Bill as drafted.
Some of the restriction goes so far as to deter really first-class programme companies from entering the business. If that happens it will be a pity from two points of view. We shall not get the best programmes, and may not get the entire second programme which we want. If my fears are correct, a further mischief will be that the I.T.A. will gradually become a second empire because, if sufficient good programme contractors do not come forward it may have to step in under its reserve powers. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that it is not the Government's intention that the I.T.A. should become a second empire.
Whatever we do, we shall not appease the opponents of the Bill. On ideological grounds the Socialist party will oppose it tooth and nail, so nothing we can do will make any difference to them. The others we have met in several respects—for instance, over the £750,000. Having met them in that they accuse us of filching the money from the B.B.C. So, whatever one does it seems that they will not be appeased. As I say, the great danger would be that if the programme contractors do not come in, I.T.A. will become a second empire. In process of time it will merge with the B.B.C. and we shall be back to the monopoly with which we started.
:Would the hon. Gentleman tell us precisely which restrictions in the Bill are likely to keep out the best companies?
:I think some of those in the Second Schedule. I do not want to take the time now because these are really Committee points, but there is another in, I believe, Clause 4 (6). Under that Clause it is not possible to have either prestige advertising or documentary films. If that is impossible—and as the Bill is drafted, I believe that it is—that is a great mistake. It would be a great pity if, say, the Rolls Royce Company cannot have prestige advertising by documentary films, particularly if such films are in time broadcast over the world. There are many things like that which should be looked at.
Why not let the public judge this matter? The party opposite, and certain other elements, seem to be terrified of the public. Frankly, I say that no one will know exactly how this will turn out until we have the alternative programme based on advertising. What I and those opposite say is, to some extent, guesswork. But to go on the basis that one can never trust the public or the commercial firms of this country—which is the attitude of the party opposite—is absolutely wrong. For that reason alone I believe that we should press on with this Bill.
As I began, so I conclude. I believe that when the public have seen the programmes they will realise they have something worth having. It will be worth having not only for the public, but for our export trade. I would press the Government to get on with the Measure as quickly as possible. Whatever the Opposition may say I am certain that the Government will have the complete support of this party.
6.34 p.m.
:We were very interested to hear what the Home Secretary had to say about the safeguards which it is proposed to include in the Bill. We have already had serious objections to those safeguards from the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) articulated that point of view in no uncertain manner. But before speaking about them I want first to refer to a remark made by the Home Secretary in his peroration.
He said that the viewers of Britain would be given the alternative programme which they want. I think that he put it in rather a peculiar way. I do not know whether a census has been taken on the subject, but I do know that those with television sets are asking for an alternative programme. But whether they have ever asked for an alternative programme sprinkled with advertisements throughout is very debatable.
In the ordinary way they would have had their second programme. All arrangements had been made, and the public had been told of the plans which had been prepared. We all knew that the British Broadcasting Corporation had plans ultimately to provide not only colour television but to give a second programme when the first programme had completely covered the country. What the Government did at the psychological moment was to hamstring the B.B.C. and say, "No, you cannot go forward. We propose an alternative arrangement and to finance it in a certain way."
I have no doubt that the Government have been very considerably influenced by the debates on the White Paper in this House and in another place. The Government were then very severely criticised for the way in which the whole scheme had been conceived. They were placd upon the horns of a dilemma. That dilemma was that they knew that the advertising interests would never pay for the programmes which would be provided on an alternative network if, at the same time, they were to be subject to all the regulations which this House would rightly wish to impose.
Therefore, a new scheme was devised by which there would be created a new authority financed largely out of public funds and licence fees. This scheme enables them to impose the conditions for which, in the normal way, the House would ask. When the announcement was made that the Government proposed lending the new corporation the sum of £2 million to be payable over 10 years—and even then not to ask for it to be repaid if it was inconvenient for the Authority—and to earmark £750,000 per annum out of the revenue from licences, I can imagine the big advertisers being gleeful. In that way their costs using this new medium would be reduced. The public were to pay the cost; and what proportion of the cost only the experiment itself will show, if it ever gets to that stage.
Among some advertisers there was talk—I heard it myself—of £300 to £500 a minute. They thought it was going to be a very expensive proposition. The Government have now conceded the principle of one public corporation breaking the monopoly of another. This will mean the waste of duplication, and instead of the normal growth of the great service which we have already established we shall have this new and expensive scheme.
I am not permitted to go through the Clauses of the Bill, but in Clause 3 there is what the Americans would call a code of conduct. The Americans know what that means. Clause 3 (1, a ) lays down the requirement
I noticed that when the Home Secretary came to the word "predominantly," he did not give it its robust meaning. He was skating on thin ice, and was not too sure what that term meant. But somebody has to interpret it, and presumably the new Authority will do so. It is very interesting to compare this country with America, which knows all there is to know about commercial advertising on radio and television.
A similar organisation to that proposed in the Bill has been established in America to supervise the conduct of commercial stations. That authority is called the Federal Communications Commission, and from time to time it issues conduct guides and implores the various networks and individual stations to observe the rules, but I can assure hon. Members that those rules are observed in the breach rather than in the observance. Some court cases have arisen as a result of breaches, but almost invariably the poor old Federal Communications Commission has lost the day. It has not been able to impose its good conduct conditions, and it is very difficult to see how similar conditions can be successfully imposed here.
Clause 3 (1, c ) of the Bill states that the programmes must maintain
I asked my American friends about it and they said, "We can do nothing about it. Unfortunately, we started in this way, and, having done so, we can never get sponsored programmes off our backs." We shall never have a proper balance unless the Authority is given sufficient finance to provide many sustaining hours. The term "sustaining hours" is used in America, but most networks and individual stations simply ignore the relevant regulations, and whole programmes are let out to sponsors and advertising. How a proper balance can be achieved in those circumstances, I do not know.
Another condition laid down in this Clause is that
I should like to know what the Home Secretary feels about that. He would relieve my anxiety enormously if he would agree with that view, because I believe that we should encourage British films. Given decent and free competition—which it does not get in the world today, with the great American market against it the whole time—our film industry could produce films as good as those of any other country.
Some time ago, on a day when the House rose early, I was looking in quite casually at a B.B.C. television broadcast. Mr. Seymore Seigel, who is the manager of the only non-commercial, city-owned radio station in America, and who is a friend of mine, was being interviewed. The talk was on American and British radio and television. When he was asked, "What is your typical fare in a day's listening in America?" he said, "Well, on commercial stations"—that excluded his own—"a tremendous quantity of music is played by so-called disc jockeys, who put in all sorts of 'commercials.' They play a record which lasts for about three minutes, and then spend a minute or two in an attempt to sell anything from funeral parlours to 'Ex-Lax.' We also have a great deal of soap operas and'singing commercials'." That is television and radio in America.
My friend went on to say, "A 'singing commercial' is a device which sets a limerick to music and keeps repeating the so-called values of a certain product, whether it be cigarettes, gasoline, automobiles, toothpaste, or anything the advertiser wants to sell to the American public." It may be said that we shall never have anything like that here, but I believe this Bill is the thin end of the wedge. Unless these conditions can be rigorously imposed the situation in America will be repeated here, as sure as tomorrow's sun.
It seems to me that the first task of the independent Television Authority will be to keep the promotion companies in check. It is to be the defender of public standards, and it will have an exceedingly unenviable job. I should like to refer to a point which, I think, ought to be stated now. It is also to be, if I may put it that way, the "defender of the faith." It is to establish a religious advisory committee or have the benefit of the Religious Advisory Committee of the B.B.C.
Unfortunately, the Religious Advisory Committee of the B.B.C. has been the defender of orthodoxy, and to safeguard the situation the Government have in- cluded in the Bill, in subsection (3) of Clause 3, the provision that:
There are, of course—and I say this with very considerable seriousness—if I may put it this way, ethicists and humanists who do not get a look in at all. Then there are all the religious minorities, the small groups with specialised views on the Bible, and so on, and they are not in at all? This is all wrong in a democracy. They should all have their place. They have the right to express their views. The Government say that they have taken the pattern from the B.B.C. If that is so, the pattern is not right, and we ought, at this stage, to have a look at the matter altogether in a new light.
I was a member of the Beveridge Committee. The Committee spent many months investigating the whole situation. I came to the conclusion that television programmes in Britain were some of the finest in the world. I have heard these remarks during the course of some of my own personal experiences: "The American television programmes do not compare with ours. They are positively ruined by patronising and objectionable advertising."
On one occasion I saw Gertrude Lawrence, an English actress, who died recently, in a play called "Biography"—a well-known play. It was provided by the Prudential Assurance Company of America. There was an advertising announcement at the beginning of the play and special intervals—not normal pauses—when the advocate of the Prudential Assurance Company came again and again before the viewers to put to them the great advantages which this Company conferred upon the policy holders. During the play this was done by a speaker who appeared on the screen with his sales talk promotion matter.
The play was specially devised. It was not the original play. It was made very much shorter. It was truncated and there were not the normal pauses and normal acts. It was completely rearranged to suit the needs of the sponsors and the advertisers, and the whole atmosphere of the play was lost. I knew the play, and I felt how superior—how incomparably superior—our B.B.C. was when producing a play. I considered that play to be a complete monstrosity.
I think that the B.B.C. has had a raw deal. It has done magnificent work in its time. We have had reference to the educational programme which the B.B.C. provides for children. It has no parallel anywhere in the world. It is unique, and when the Minister was asked whether the Independent Television Authority would be expected to continue that kind of work, well, of course, he had to give a negative reply.
Only a public body like the B.B.C. could undertake this purely educational and cultural work in the way that it has been done. I could compare the B.B.C. television programmes for children with those given in the United States. No doubt hon. Members will have heard of "Hop-along Cassidy." About 5 o'clock he comes on day after day there, advertising this, that and the other. My American friends told me that his influence on the children in America was such that parents were worried to death. They are urged to buy this, that and the other, and the children are not satisfied until father or mother makes a purchase. He is a sales promoter par excellance. I ask the House: Is this the kind of service we want to see established in this country? No, I think we should be proud of our B.B.C. as we are of our art galleries and other services.
The B.B.C. leads the world, which pays homage to our radio and television achievements because we have the best. It would seem that the Government, out of sheer cussedness and doctrinal stupidity, are determined to disfigure and undermine one of our most treasured national assets. Future generations may have cause to lament the opportunism of this Bill. Never before have so few— but powerful—interests, working behind the scenes, sacrificed so much of the public weal for private gain.
6.59 p.m.
:No one will disagree with the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) to the work done by the B.B.C. Before I deal with that point, I should like to take this first chance that has come to me of being able to refute the propaganda widely circulated that I personally have a financial interest in television. I have even had the honour of appearing in "Tribune," where it has been suggested that I belong to an advertising agency. I am a public relations consultant. My firm is not owned by an advertising agency and we cannot, will not, and do not undertake advertising, and we have no financial interest whatsoever in television. Having said that, I should like to say that, of course, I have some kind of interest in being a member of the Advisory Council of the B.B.C., and I hasten to add that that work is unpaid.
I began to favour a change in the present system only gradually and after I possessed a television set and had had the opportunity of appearing on television, both here and in America. I would say to the right hon. Member for Lewis-ham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) that the question we are discussing this afternoon is much bigger than simply whether we want an alternative television service to the present one.
To my mind, there are two reasons why we want a change. First, there is the undoubted and immense power of television, with its power of persuasion over the human mind, which should not rest with one master. Then there is the dynamic nature of what is, without doubt, a new science, of which we do not yet know enough and which needs more than one system to develop, to experiment and to thrust on, through success and through failure, in what is at present only a growing venture.
Therefore, when I consider the Bill, I ask whether in its present form it answers my two reasons for a change. I say quite frankly that it is rather a hybrid Bill. I support it on Second Reading because I hope to change it in Committee, but I recognise it as a compromise. It has been a compromise because of two things: first, the practical fact of the limitations of Band III—although I feel rather like the right hon. Gentleman, who says, "I cannot follow those damned bands"; and second, because it has been a definite compromise to try to meet genuine differing views. Although I think we all agree that compromise is good in politics, it is only good if one is met halfway, because otherwise it becomes appeasement, and it is never wise to pay Danegeld.
I am not going into all the details which are Committee points, but I sum up my main objections in two ways; first, they are some of the financial questions and, second, the very wide political and possible State control. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary reassured me on these points during his speech, but I think I was right, because the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South said quite plainly that were the Labour Party returned to office they would use all these reserve powers to their fullest extent. If any party says it will do this, we must ask ourselves whether it is wise to have these provisions and whether under these provisions it will be possible for the service to work.
I do not support the £750,000 loan, because private enterprise has said quite plainly that it can provide the service without it. I realise, however, that certain principles in the Bill cannot be amended in Committee, but our intention in Committee will be to get a workable arrangement, which I personally regard entirely as an interim measure.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General a specific question. The original White Paper said on page 4 that the present policy
It may be asked why, as I serve on the Advisory Council of the B.B.C., I do not support a second B.B.C. television programme. I do support such a programme, but not as the only service. I have made my views plain. I think that the B.B.C. should improve its existing television programme and should extend the hours. I speak not as a technician, but as a viewer and as one who has always been deeply interested in what I consider to be a fascinating medium. I have always immensely enjoyed what are called the outside broadcasts; but after all, they are really only technical excellence in production and photography, because the programme material is already there, whether it be the Coronation or a Test Match. There are a great many of the programmes which I find both boring and trivial. Even if eventually, as I hope, we have two B.B.C. services, we shall not get over the fact that while the same master controls them, they will be bound to have the same character and we shall not escape from the fact of having one employer. The position of the B.B.C. is secure, because even should it lose popularity to its rival that would not alter its privileged position, because licences are paid not to listen to the B.B.C. but to use receiving sets.
The opposition to the Bill has come under two main heads: a dislike of advertising as such on television, and the belief that the advertiser or the programme company, or both, will seek the mass audience and will appeal to the lowest common denominator of taste. This is an extremely important issue, because, after all, it is the advertiser who has to pay for all this.
I say at once—hon. Members may find it illogical—that I do not like advertisements on television; but that is entirely a matter of personal taste. I am prepared to put up with it because the advantages to be gained far outweigh the disadvantages.
:What are the advantages?
:I ask hon. Members to consider the influence of the advertiser and the programme company under the Bill as it is drafted. If he is wise, the advertiser will not only seek numbers, but will also seek leaders of opinion. For instance, the F.C.C. in Washington licensed over 244 channels for educational purposes alone. The advertising profession in this country is becoming increasingly aware of its responsibilities to the public to lead in matters of taste. We are a commercial nation, and most advertising is increasing both in quality and in manner of presentation. Why, therefore, on television should it suddenly become a baleful influence? While the advertiser naturally considers his relations with his client, he must also mark very carefully his relations with the consumer, because the basis of all commerce is confidence. A consumer only feels confidence in advertising if he knows he can expect fair dealing—in other words, that claims for goods will not be overstated and will be made from fact and not from propaganda. Exactly the same applies to television advertising.
What of public taste in programmes? Without doubt, it is in the long-term interest of the programme company to raise the standard of consumers' taste and judgment, because good presentation will create and keep that intangible quality of good will which is the only successful basis of commerce as we know it.
In matters of taste, the general public are today searching for quality. There has been a much wider appreciation of the beautiful since the starved days of the war. One sees it on every hand in the shape of demand for good theatres, houses open to the public, fine china, and good quality standards of goods. This sense of taste comes from every walk of life and the public are searching for guidance and appreciation in standards of taste. If the advertiser and the programme companies are wise, they will try to give the public what they seem to want.
:Before my hon. Friend finishes with the question of taste in advertising, does she not agree that there is a great difference between an advertisement in a magazine or a newspaper Which can be read without the impact of a personality, whereas on television it is often found that a healthy male stands up and presses with unctuous voice some deodorant or some medicine or something which he does not use himself? I think it is the abnegation of human dignity.
:I know that the hon. Member has spent a good deal of time in Canada and in America and does not like the system there at all. He has also been associated with one of our great national newspapers. But I would say to him that I think in this country the state of public demand and public taste at the present time is such that we are not going to get the kind of presentation which he does not like and which I also do not like. There are certain views put forward by distinguished leaders, both of the church and education, on moral and educational grounds which, I think, it is our duty to examine with the greatest care on the Second Reading of this Bill. They are twofold, firstly, that in television itself lies inherent dangers and that it is unwise to increase listening hours; and secondly, there is the fear that the content of the programmes will be debased.
Of course, it is bad for children to be glued for hours to the television screen, but I submit that it is the duty of parents to keep the balance in allowing their children to view programmes. Personally, I think television can have a profound influence for good in the family. It often pulls them together to spend evenings at home where otherwise the young would scatter to the dance hall and the husband to the pub. When the performance is over, think of the argument that goes on in the family circle. They have shared something together. Nowadays the mother tied at home, and even the grandmother, is often the most informed in the family circle.
But, apart from that, as I have already said, I do not think that the programmes in this country will be debased and in any case many hon. Members in previous debates have mentioned programmes by the B.B.C which greatly lacked taste and which were entirely disadvantageous. The question is whether we are seriously to maintain that a nation, where we have National Service for our young people and where we have adult suffrage, cannot trust the people to chose between one form of television service and another.
I want particularly to deal with the views which are put forward by many people who take a big part in education and university life. I was always taught that the purpose of education was to try to teach men and women how to reason wisely for themselves, and I am quite certain that wisdom is not won by sheltering from life. I can only speak from the experience I have had of bringing up two children to the age of 19 and 17. I can only say this, that I have always tried to let them knock about, I have talked to them of many things and I have tried to answer every awkward question, because I know perfectly well that life will not shelter them for ever. If they can get some kind of idea of certain clear standards in the early years, there is more chance that they will keep their heads when they meet the world.
I would just say in conclusion that the whole point of having this Bill is to check the abuse of power. Parliament and the people of this country have always been wary of giving too much power either to an institution or to an individual. It was Montesquieu who said:
7.15 p.m.
:We have had a very carefully prepared defence delivered by the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), but I think that except for some political theorising towards the end, the only point that she made was when she said that in this country we are not likely to have in any system the grosser crudities that are found in American television, and for that we may be thankful. I think that with that sentiment hon. Members on all sides of the House will agree. It is not likely that anyone, whether commercial or non-commercial, would permit some of the major errors of taste which can be found in Trans-Atlantic presentations.
My attitude towards this Bill is that if there were really no danger in commercial television, we would not require a Bill of this kind at all, because were we dealing with a body which is responsible in the sense in which the B.B.C. is responsible to the public, we would not require to fetter it in all these directions, any more than we require to fetter the B.B.C. The B.B.C. has a specific responsibility where religion or politics are concerned, but there is no need to put down a number of conditions—and they are hampering conditions—for the B.B.C. as some of the supporters of commercial television obviously feel must be set down for their body.
I know that there are a number of hon. Members who wish to speak, and I have undertaken to be brief. I intend to confine myself to one special aspect of this Bill. But before I reach the point on which I want to make some special observations, I must just say one word as the representative of a Welsh constituency. Since the Government's proposals to have commercial television were first mooted, I have had a larger correspondence from outside my own constituency on this subject than I have had on any other subject since becoming connected with politics. I have had a number of constituency letters on the matter which is natural enough, but I have had from all over North Wales letters from educational bodies, from teachers, from associations such as the Workers' Educational Association, from religious bodies, from cultural bodies, and from Women's Institutes. Every single one without exception has implored me to oppose commercial television.
I have not had one communication from any person asking me to support commercial television except the circulars which all hon. Members have received from the Popular Television Committee. I have had none whatever from any Welsh source. As one of the representatives in this House of the Principality, I should like that to be known, and moreover the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who as usual is acting in a dual capacity, should know that there is a very strong feeling indeed in Wales against this proposal for commercial television.
That is based on two considerations. The first is the respect which Welsh people entertain for the cultural standards established by the B.B.C., and, secondly, the knowledge that the Welsh speaking part of our population do not constitute a mass audience and are not, therefore, likely to be served by any future commercial interests. They feel they would be far better served by seeing the money to be devoted to commercial television interests devoted to the extension of the services of the B.B.C.
Having said that, which I was in duty bound to say, as a Welsh Member, I want to turn to the wider interests of British culture and the British entertainment world. This matter has been touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) and it is dealt with in this Bill in Clause 3. With great respect, the part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman dealing with this matter was one of its weakest parts. To my mind the Home Secretary failed to convince us that the Government intended to do anything effective to ensure that these commercial programmes will be what most of us would regard as predominantly British.
As a previous speaker opposite suggested, the fact that there are restrictions in this Bill upon the operation of the commercial advertisers may mean that some of those who are in the strongest position in the advertising world may find it difficult to carry out the full extent of their operations; in other words, the programme contractors may not be as commercially successful in this matter as they had supposed they might be. I cannot help feeling that there is a real danger that they will turn to cheaper material which would, of course, be the imported films.
As a member of the council which advises the President of the Board of Trade on safeguarding British interests in the cinematograph film industry I want to put to the Home Secretary certain points arising from my experience. I believe that one reason why this Clause is so vague, and uses such phrases as "so far as possible" and "a proper proportion," may perhaps be because those concerned have had in mind similar experience to my own. They may have said, "We always find it extraordinarily difficult to enforce the British quota for films, so we do not want to put ourselves in the position of having all those difficulties, and possibly others also, in enforcing a British quota for television."
If that is so, I can well visualise the Assistant Postmaster-General going to the President of the Board of Trade and asking him about this, and the right hon. Gentleman saying, "My dear chap, have nothing to do with it. It causes me endless trouble. I am always being criticised in the House because I cannot enforce the quota and I advise you to have nothing but the most general terms in the Bill and to do all you can to escape from any fettering Clauses." I suggest that the conditions are entirely different because it is the exhibition end which is dealt with by quota in the cinematograph industry. There we are dealing with a large number of cinemas all over the country, from the large circuit cinemas to the small independent cinemas, particularly in Scotland, where the programmes are changed three times a week and which are never able to make ends meet.
It is because we are dealing with a wide variety of cinematograph exhibitors that the Cinematograph Films Act contains vague words comparable with those in this Bill. They have been used again and again as a loophole and, because of that, I am anxious that the position should be absolutely clear in regard to television. The Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, allows the Board of Trade to exempt exhibitors from quota obligations if it can be shown that, owing to the character of the films available or to the excessive cost of such films, it was "not commercially practicable" to fulfil quota requirements. That does not apply to the conditions of television where there will be a small number of programme contractors, all virtually on the same footing.
Therefore, I ask the Home Secretary to look seriously at this point because I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House are deeply concerned over the character of these programmes and over the possible temptation to use cheap material which has already met all its costs in the United States. The Home Secretary said that we did not want to do this at the beginning; that it is a relatively new medium and so we ought to leave things flexible and have only general powers at this stage. But that is precisely what happened in regard to the film industry. We started ahead with films, just as we have started with television, and then, owing to the circumstances of their domestic market, the United States went into mass production long before we were able to do so here. They then recouped themselves by exporting their films to this country. They worked their way into our industry to such a degree that it has been extremely difficult for our film producers to catch up and, in fact, they are subsidised now from public funds.
I urge the Home Secretary most earnestly to look again at this matter and to take, if possible, the 80 per cent, which the entertainment industry has not unreasonably asked for. I ask him to realise that the conditions in television are quite different from the conditions of the cinematograph exhibition industry and that there is no excuse for the really ludicrous vagueness of the phrases used in this Bill. After all, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is an experienced lawyer. I put it to him, as a lawyer, could he not drive a coach and four through every single one of the provisions of Clause 3?
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe indicated dissent
:I have a higher opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman than that and I have no doubt whatever that he could do so. I ask him to look again at the phrases "as far as possible" and "a proper proportion." They must be closely defined. If they are not, they are useless; in fact, they are worse than useless because they give a spurious protection.
I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman also to look more closely at what is meant by "of British origin," because we have had certain films, familiar to all those who know the industry, shot in North Africa, with American film stars, a French director and an address in London. However, that is a matter for the Committee stage and I am only giving a warning that it is a point which must be looked at properly later.
I have spoken of only one aspect. If time permitted I should like to have said much more than I have done, because many of us on this side of the House are deeply concerned with the prospects, more particularly for the younger generation, and if the Government were really easy in their consciences about this project they would not have found it necessary to produce what has been rightly called a hybrid Bill.
7.29 p.m.
:As I have been listening to this debate I have amused myself by wondering whether the House has passed the rather severe test set out in Clause 3 of this Bill. Perhaps, on the whole, the Opposition are now beginning to achieve a proper balance in the subject matter. We seem to have left the high comedy level, but I am not so certain about the due impartiality. I am always a little embarrassed when I hear an attack made upon somebody who is not here and does not know about it.
I wonder who this Mr. Stanley is? I remember that a man of his name had rather disreputable associates, but that was a different Stanley. It is difficult to get down to discussing this subject without hearing with impartiality about the alleged wickedness of a Mr. Stanley. Again, do you not find it distracting, Mr. Speaker, to hear that old donkey brought out that if the Conservatives do anything they are always under a pressure group that has big finance behind it? It seems extraordinary that the Opposition always seem to think that people operate almost entirely from financial motives. I wonder whether that has been their experience of life and they therefore rather tend to take that sort of view.
The opposition today has been a sort of mixed bag, though I make no complaint about it. There is the extreme Socialist who says, in a healthy Conservative way, "There has been a B.B.C. all these years and we will not have an alteration in anything." These are sentiments which could only be associated with the Conservatives of the age of Lord Eldon. There is the moderate Socialist who follows the party line and then there is the person who always knows better than someone else, particularly how he ought to live his life, ecclesiastics and noble public servants who want to be godfathers and godmothers to everybody. Then there are the ordinary people who, with a general fear complex, think that if anything is strange or new there must be something wrong about it. That is the sort of mixed bag that has opposed this Bill.
But the thing that quite genuinely united those people was that they took the view that if we had any form of non-Government control, unlike the B.B.C., any form of organisation in which commerce would have any say at all it would inevitably debase everybody who looked at it and would sap their taste and eat away at their morals. That is the banner which was raised and the rallying point before this Bill was brought forward.
The criminal, the bad man in the story is, of course, that notorious, ill-famed animal the advertiser, a man who, I am ashamed to say, actually endeavours to make a profit and actually wants to live on the profit he makes. This wicked animal has no restraint whatever and no conscience. As Belloc said: "His hide is covered with hair." This disgusting object has apparently prowled about unnoticed by any of us for many years and is now going to pounce upon the world with alarming results.
That is the monster that we have to consider whether this Bill controls and, with respect to the second bench below the Gangway, which is not occupied now by the third party, we could change the well-known verse to read:
Socialists should look at this Bill by which we have sought to draw the claws of the monster. Let us first look at the word "Authority"—a respectable man who looks as if he ought to wear a bowler hat and spats in a respectable way. He is to be appointed by the Government and that should be sufficient for anybody. The Authority includes no sheep. That is to say, nobody who teaches a recognised religion is allowed to be on the board. As counter-balance the board is not to include any goats which means, of course, politicians. It is to be composed of people capable in industry, and so on—the usual formula.
It is interesting to note that this board has to make decisions not only about industry and trade but about really important things, such as the balance between this and that and what is due impartiality. It has to make moral decisions almost, as well as financial ones. At any rate, that is the Authority. It looks fairly remote from the wild beast that we have been discussing. In parentheses, I might say that it would seem from the provisions of Clause 1 that it would be a very audacious Minister who dared to appoint to that Authority anybody who had been so incautious as to marry an American. The next series of safeguards might be prudently described as the Seven Commandments. They are to be found in Clause 3. It is not, perhaps, necessary to go through them all. Hon. Members, of course, have the Bill in front of them and they will have noticed with glee, like myself, that so anxious are we to keep this beast at bay that the Authority must secure in the arranging of programmes not, Mr. Speaker, as you and I might, just a balance but "a proper balance."When any question of accuracy arises we do not take any undue risk. The Authority is required to ensure "due accuracy." The same applies to impartiality, though it is equally difficult to discover the difference between impartiality and "due impartiality" as between accuracy and "due accuracy."
I should have thought that under that Clause this beast was fairly well caged, but we have not done with him yet, because under Clause 4 he cannot cash in on culture. There is no danger of his showing that he is anything but a beast. He cannot come out and say, "I have provided money for the Philharmonic Orchestra and perhaps when you are choosing your toothpaste you will not forget me." Except through the programme contractor he cannot have anything to do with culture, and if he were so rash as to wish to refer to religion he certainly could not do so without going through a very complicated procedure.
He must keep at arm's length from the programme contractor, and if he finds a good scoop he must make sure that the B.B.C. shares it. He had also better not cultivate the programme contractor too much, since that contractor may be out on his ear very shortly and the Authority may be his contractor. Therefore, he must keep an eye on the fact that the Authority may want to help him when the contractor has passed on.
What about other restrictions on this savage beast? I invite hon. Members opposite to think of any more restrictions on this beast that can be put in the Bill.
:One could abolish him altogether, of course.
:That, of course, is not a restriction. One can cure a toothache by cutting a man's head off, but it is often thought rather an extravagant way of doing it. The claws of this savage beast, which we all want to chain up, have been drawn. Some of us think that it has been practically emasculated. The Government are satisfied that this at any rate shows that they have enough power over this monster.
The Bill itself shows that the Authority is to have power to provide parts of the programme and the whole programme itself. Not only that, but, in one coy little phrase such as companies tuck away in their reports, it is shown that it will have power practically to run any sort of business it likes to run as a sideline, in addition to selling television matter. That is an odd commentary on the idea that this Bill is sponsored by people who want to sell wireless programmes when the Postmaster-General can set up a rival concern. There are grants and loans.
I agree that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, but it would be wrong to say that I am satisfied with it as it stands. I share some of the criticisms made by hon. Members opposite although, rather wisely, some of those hon. Members have now left us. I think the specified handicaps about dealing with advertisers in so far as they indicate a policy are good, but, in fact, they are unreal in the sense that the draftsmen are exaggerating anticipated evils. I hope that the Bill is only a temporary Measure. I believe it a bad precedent to make a rule that Christian bodies should not be allowed to be programme contractors, as they are in America. It seems an odd thing to say that a programme contractor who has to maintain this standard must never come into existence unless he is merely dealing with commerce.
I confess that as the Bill stands I have great doubts whether even the limited objects it endeavours to secure will be obtained. When one of my hon. Friends was speaking I heard an hon. Member opposite say, "It will fail," meaning, as I understood, that what was hoped for would fail. That is a very tragic thing because, if this Bill fails, much else fails as well. It is an effort forward which, if it is once checked, ends and will never be tried again. I make no complaint about it, but it is clear now that the objection to this Bill is not an objection to advertising. Hon. Members are not objecting to advertising, but are in favour of this particular monopoly and believe it to be the best. They believe it better to have one source of information in this powerful medium.
:Is not the real objection to this whole proposal that it proposes to hand over to a very small number of very rich concerns an enormous social power?
:I should be glad to carry on this agreeable controversy, but I am reminded of what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said when he was interrupted on one occasion—the purpose of an interruption should be to elicit some information, not to engage in a kind of back-chat. That is the point of view of the hon. Member and, no doubt, he will have an opportunity of putting it, but it is not the construction which is put on the objection by other parties.
We start with a principle, which is that this powerful medium should not be in one person's hands. What, on the surface, appear to be good reasons are not necessarily valid. I think it has been properly observed that no person ever surrenders his liberty except under the delusion that he will get something for it. For too long we have surrendered the liberty of this expression to the liberty of a corporation. If this Bill should fail, even though it does not meet with a lot of the criticisms of my hon. Friends, or criticisms which will be made by hon. Members opposite on Committee stage, we shall be left with the B.B.C., confident, enthroned, inflated, untouchable and there it will remain.
The B.B.C. will say, "They once tried to compete with us and they could not do it." We shall be left with this static control, this enormous body which, in a conservative way, will be able to say, "For 25 or 30 years we have maintained a proper balance between music halls, natural history, football, politics and religion." There are your masters—the B.B.C.—to tell you how much politics you can have and how much religion you can have. We shall be returning to the B.B.C., which will ration what the people want to see of politics and of religion which, after all, are the intelligent interests of intelligent men.
7.46 p.m.
:In spite of all the wit and facetiousness of the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), I think he has misconceived what is the real opposition to the Bill on these benches. I was rather sorry that he brushed aside the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), because my hon. Friend was asking the hon. Member the crucial question. The question is whether the television service shall be handed over to an authority which is under the control and domination of advertising. That really is our objection to this proposal.
It is not a question—to me at all events—of breaking the monopoly of the B.B.C., although in the first White Paper we had on the subject the breaking of the monopoly was the issue which was put and advertising was never mentioned. In the first White Paper, in May, 1952, it was said:
Apparently, the suggestion is that there is no other way of financing an alternative programme or an alternative corporation. That seems to be the case of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. There is no reason at all to my mind why the expanding revenue from the combined television and sound radio licence should not have been used to enable an alternative corporation, if that is felt to be necessary, to conduct an independent television programme on B.B.C. lines. That, surely, would have introduced the element of competition to which such importance is attached by the Government.
But that is not the proposal and never has been, and the assumption is that only by an indirect form of taxation on the listener or the viewer through advertising can the necessary finances be found for the alternative corporation and programme. In many countries it is true that reliance has to be put on collecting revenue through advertisements, probably because of the size and expanse of the country or the difficulty of collecting licence fees from the consumer. One can well imagine that in many countries there is not the machinery to collect money direct from the consumer. But that is not an argument which can be used in favour of advertising revenue as the alternative in this country. We could collect from the consumers any fee they felt it reasonable to pay for the services they got.
I know that the Assistant Postmaster-General said in one of his earlier speeches that if the licence fee got too high it would tend to encourage evasion. But there are safeguards against evasion. There is no real difficulty in dealing with people who evade the payment of licence fees, any more than in providing safeguards against the evasion of any form of revenue payment, especially Income Tax and other forms of direct and indirect taxation. It cannot be pleaded that revenue from advertising is the only way of finding the money.
Then why is the advertising element in these proposals given such importance? Who came first on the scene? Was it the monopoly-breaker or the advertiser, or did they come in together? Certainly the one we first saw was the monopoly-breaker and the advertiser seemed to come in immediately behind. But even if we admit the monopoly-breaker—and I do not propose to pursue that argument now—and the monopoly-breaker had come in alone, we could have dealt with the matter in a more reasonable spirit than is possible now that the advertiser has come in immediately behind.
:I am interested in what the hon. Member said about financing the new Authority by other means than advertising revenue. Is he suggesting that it could be financed entirely out of licence fees?
:I was coming to that point. The last time we discussed this matter we were discussing an Authority which was financed wholly from advertising revenue. There was to be no independence whatever given to the Authority from the financial control of the advertiser. The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East made a witty reference to this savage beast and referred also to the steps being taken to cage the monster. The reason why it is necessary to cage it is because this monster is in control of the whole situation. It would be just as necessary to cage this monster if in the same way it controlled the Press of this country.
It is true that advertising revenue is a dominant if not the predominant element in newspaper revenue. But at any time the newspaper proprietor feels that the control which the advertiser has over him is becoming intolerable he can dismiss the advertiser and make a direct appeal for support to his readers. The readers of the "Manchester Guardian" or "The Times," or the "Daily Herald," or any of the newspapers, might, in certain circumstances be prevailed upon by the proprietors to pay 6d. or a 1s. a day to keep those papers going in order to free them from the domination of advertisers who might be seeking to direct the policy of the paper in a manner objectionable to those who support it—not only those who own it, but those who read it.
:Is the hon. Member aware that when there was a Royal Commission on the Press there was no evidence that any advertiser ever tried to influence the editorial opinion of a paper? Secondly, is he aware that every time there has been an attempt to run newspapers without advertising the public have revolted against it because they want advertising?
:The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have been saying. I did not say that there was any evidence that advertisers had tried to dominate the policy of newspapers in which they advertise. What I am saying is that a newspaper proprietor has a line of escape from the domination of the advertiser. He can make an appeal to the consumer which this Authority cannot, because it has no right to ask the viewer to make a licence contribution to its revenue. What the Government have done to meet objections to an authority wholly dependent on advertising revenue is to provide an annual grant of three-quarters of a million pounds which, directly or indirectly, is to come out of licence fee revenue in order that the Authority shall not be so completely under the control of the advertisers.
This bad Bill could be made somewhat better if that contribution were substantially increased. The only way to make this Authority as independent of the advertiser as it should be is to provide for a larger grant from the licence fee revenue to give it that degree of financial independence. That is the only way in which, as I see it, this Bill can be amended to make it acceptable.
:We do not even agree that we want a new Authority.
:I know that many of my hon. Friends are wholly against the Bill and desire that nothing of this kind shall be created. There is that view, but I am saying that if we are to have an Authority of this kind it can only be made more independent of the advertiser if it has a greater revenue from non advertising sources.
The only other point I wish to make is why do we want all this advertising anyway? What are the economic circumstances of this country which lead to a stimulus to consumer purchasing power, especially in the direction in which many advertisers will wish us to spend our money? When one examines the distribution of advertising at present, one finds some £55 million is spent on Press advertising. There are several millions a year spent on advertisements for patent medicines. We have tobacco and smokers' requisites, toiletries and cosmetics, food and drink. All these now occupy a very important place in the total expenditure on advertising at the present time. Do we want any more of this?
Last year consumption was at its highest level for many years. To what extent do we want to go on encouraging people to buy more and more consumer goods when what we really need to do is to divert as much of our production as we can to exports? All this terrific cost of advertising is charged on the consumer, subsidised very substantially by remissions of taxation. After all, every adver- tisement which appears anywhere, everything shown on television, will be paid for up to 60 per cent, by the Inland Revenue. Everything those companies spend on advertising will cost them only 40 per cent. of its nominal price. In those circumstances it is clear that some curb is necessary rather than an expansion of advertising.
I sincerely hope that in Committee there will be a further move made by the Government to make this Authority more financially independent of the advertisers in order that they can, if they care, cock a snook at the advertisers, produce their own programmes, maintain their own standards and give us an alternative programme which will be able to look the B.B.C. television in the face.
If the Government will not accept the alternative Corporation on B.B.C. lines, if they are still insistent that advertising revenue must form part of the income of the new Authority, then the best that they can do with this bad Bill is to increase the revenue from non-advertising sources in order to give the new Authority some reality in its title of Independent Television Authority.
8.1 p.m.
:I am very glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in what, for me, has been a very interesting speech, because I want to deal very largely with the advertising content of this Bill. Here I declare without hesitation that I am an advertising man, and I suppose, if I accept the description of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), I fall into that category of the small number who appear to have influenced the Prime Minister so greatly over the past months. I find that a highly complimentary but not a particularly realistic description.
I should like to examine this question of the nature of television. I think that we are very much inclined in this House to be misled in our evaluation of it by the fact that television was started under the B.B.C. Therefore, so far as many people in this country are concerned, the B.B.C. is the natural organisation because they have not known any other kind of television. In those circumstances, I am amazed at the number of people who write about their experience of commercial television when, in fact, they have never had any experience of it at all.
:We do not want to.
:But that is a very conservative point of view. A little progressive exhilarating enterprise might be more fitting on the part of the hon. Gentleman.
:We can all get Radio Luxembourg.
:If the hon. Gentleman can get Radio Luxembourg, he is luckier than I am, because I cannot.
Television is an instrument of communication, and I am amongst those who believe that an instrument of such power of communication should not be vested in one single authority. I am glad that the Government have decided to create another and separate Authority. I believe that eventually, as has been indicated in some of the speeches this afternoon, the spread of television will be so considerable that this Bill will have to be regarded as a temporary and transitional Measure, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). I think we are being very shortsighted in our attitude if we think of it as the basis for all future operations. What matters to me, in terms of monopoly, is not necessarily the monopoly of the organisation itself, but the monopoly of technique and manner of approach which must be shown in the B.B.C. To say that the B.B.C. should have a second programme does not overcome that fundamental objection.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. May hew)—and, one might almost say, for Lime Grove—
:That applies to others as well.
is one of those who has been particularly successful in his programmes on the B.B.C. I even look at them myself when I can get away from this place. There are probably many others who have not been so fortunate as the hon. Member for Woolwich, East, and their chances of making a success on the B.B.C. are not very great. An additional chance will be provided if an additional medium of expression is introduced. That principle applies not only to the type of programme with which the hon. Member for Woolwich, East is associated, but also right the way through in the other forms of entertainment for which television is suitable. Television is comparable in that respect to the theatre and the cinema. I have yet to hear it suggested that all films and all theatres should be governed from one source.
Perhaps I might take up a point made by the hon. Member for Sowerby. He used the phrase that television was to be "handed over." I am sure, because of his reputation, that he did not want to mislead the House or anyone outside this place. There is no question of handing over the B.B.C. The B.B.C. remains. Most of the reasonable and sincere fears that have been expressed—the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) made a most impressive appeal—have been answered, first by the fact that there is a B.B.C. and there will continue to be a B.B.C., just as we assume that there will continue to be on it an hon. Member for Woolwich, East at whom people can look; and, at the same time, the Bill has guarded against many of the abuses to which reference has been made. Incidentally, I join with those of my hon. Friends who think that some of the guarding is a little too extreme.
The hon. Member for Greenwich said that the Americans know all there is to know about commercial television advertising. I agree that they know all there is to know about commercial television advertising to Americans. But we in this country are not concerned with commercial advertising to Americans. I join in the plea of the hon. Member who asked my right hon. Friend to look more closely at this question of the British content of the programmes and the possible canned programmes that might come over. I think that if we can have an assurance that he rejects, as I do, the type of programme showing Errol Flynn winning the Battle of Britain single handed, that will meet the requirements of this situation.
Television is a medium of expression, in the same way as the Press is. In this controversy the Press has been almost universally against the introduction of commercial television, and I think it is only right to point to the fact that by the introduction of commercial television there will be a competitor for the advertising revenue of the Press, and the Press is fully aware of that fact.
:Would not the logic of the argument that the hon. Gentleman is using be that there are already sufficient opportunities for advertising, and that the introduction of a new factor like advertising on television will compete with the existing advertising space?
:I am glad the hon. Gentleman has made that point. Of course, it is true that it will compete. This is the point that I would make to the hon. Member for Sowerby. The total volume of advertising revenue will not increase because that is related, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to sales, turnover, profits and the rest of it. Therefore, there will be no increase in the total amount of money available for advertising on commercial television. My hon. Friend will in fact do well to remember that when he is looking to advertising to provide the revenue for this new programme of his, because it must be a competitive force in advertising, and I do not see that there will be an increase in the total volume of advertising available but a redistribution of the resources of advertising over television as a medium as compared with other mediums.
If hon. Members opposite take the view, however, that this instrument of expression, communication and entertainment should be in the hands of only one authority, they are following the pattern of a different type of government and society from the one to which we subscribe. They are giving complete support to the views expressed by a gentleman who, I am glad to say, is no longer with us, and whose name was Dr. Goebbels. I said that I was glad to follow the hon. Member for Sowerby because, as an advertising man, I should like to express quite straightly the view of the advertising community on the subject of this new advertising medium. We are not prepared to oppose, as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey) suggested we might, the introduction of a new medium of advertising. That is not our function. We are prepared to see safeguards imposed upon advertising over television in the same way as, in the past, we have imposed safeguards on advertising in other mediums. Some sarcasm has been expressed by some hon. Members that advertising should be concerned with this restriction, but I would remind them that when they were the Government the late Sir Stafford Cripps made an appeal for self-control on the part of the advertising fraternity, and it was imposed from within the industry by the very organisation which has made recommendations to my hon. Friend which are included in the Bill.
Advertising has to face the fact that, as has already been intimated, we are here concerned with a medium of leisure and pleasure. It is a difficult and dangerous advertising operation, but it has the sanction of the viewer whereas the B.B.C. because there is no alternative, can continue to put on its programmes whether they are liked or not, and I understand that some dissatisfaction has sometimes been expressed in the past. But serious damage would be done to any product which was put over by any really bad and distasteful advertising programme. I take that to be one of the greatest sanctions and safeguards in the whole of this Bill, although it is not written into the Bill.
Gross misrepresentation has taken place about advertising itself. I know perfectly well that there are hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who dislike advertising as such, not only advertising as applied to this particular operation. I appreciate their point of view, but let them admit it and not take the high and mighty line that they are speaking in the name of culture. They are speaking in the name of prejudice and, in certain cases, contrary interests. I hope that in the case of that very august body, the National Television Council, it will not have escaped the notice of Members on both sides of the House that the honorary secretary has a direct association with the film industry and that the large number of vice-presidents and supporters include people who have been intimately associated with the B.B.C. itself or competitive instruments of entertainment and sport.
I do not object to that if it is freely and fairly admitted that they are fighting on the other side for their own interests, but when they profess to be fighting on the other side in the interests of higher culture it makes me wonder whether there is that veracity behind them that they claim—
:Might I ask the hon. Gentleman what other interests these other individuals represent, people like Lord Waverley, Lord Samuel, Lord Halifax, Lord Layton and Lord Brand.
:They profess to be speaking only in the interests of British culture and morality. I think they are speaking in the interests of those organisations which are opposed to the introduction of commercial television with which they have personal association. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to tell me that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East is not uncoloured by his very profitable association with the B.B.C.
I do not pretend that I am not coloured by my association with advertising, but I have admitted it here. Incidentally, although I have admitted an interest, if I understand correctly the case made by the other side, the whole of this operation will be a great financial flop, so therefore I do not stand to make a financial gain but to sustain financial loss.
In fact, it will be for the advertising agencies a very doubtful venture, and the advertising agencies know it. It is, therefore, ridiculous for the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South to make speeches about the friends of the advertising agents, because advertising agents have to face up to handling a completely new field of operation in which there will be increased overheads and in which the outcome is not particularly certain. As to the risk of the return to office of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends after the next election, I think that is something which the advertising agents, together with the rest of the general public, can reasonably take without much danger.
This Bill is, of course, as has been admitted on all sides, a compromise, but many very profitable and effective things have been done in the House as a result of compromise. I see no particular objection in that there are certain aspects which hon. Members on both sides of the House have already intimated they will seek to amend in Committee. I have no doubt that that will be effectively done. My hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General must recognise that the limitations which he has placed upon advertising, and they are very definite limitations with regard to what can be done and how it shall be done, may be very damaging to his revenue in certain cases, because advertising for leisure and pleasure periods over television has to find its own medium and character. Merely to insert a bald announcement between programmes might be as offensive as some of the measures envisaged by hon. Gentlemen opposite. All that has to be worked out by experience.
I believe that the Bill provides, and will provide, an alternative system under different management, and that is something which is extremely good to us on this side of the House. Let us give this Bill and the new system a chance to be put into practice. That is my view because I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South trust the people of this country to exercise a right judgment. There have been occasions, as in 1945, when there have been slips, but in this case I am prepared to rely on the judgment of the people of this country when they have seen the alternative, and to abide by their decision.
8.20 p.m.
:I wonder whether the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) chanced to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), who said that she actually disliked advertisements on television. Although some of the speeches would hardly indicate it, we are tonight facing a really great issue in our national life. Nearly 30 years ago a Conservative Government, with both Liberal and Labour support, established the British Broadcasting Corporation to ensure that commercialism and commercial interests should not taint sound broadcasting.
I believe, and I think that most of our citizens agree, that the British Broadcasting Corporation is second to none in the world. The people have a great affection for it. They particularly developed that affection during the war. I cannot for the life of me understand why, if the case of the Government is so strong for advertising upon television, they have not an equally good case for scrapping sound radio and letting the commercials have a go there.
:It is.
:If the advertisers get in on television, they will get in on sound radio and we shall all have to listen every night to the advertisements for deodorants and other things. I happened, the other night, to tune in by chance to Radio Luxembourg and I was told all about the soap suds of various detergents. I listened with interest, and then a Beethoven symphony was played. I thought how revolting that was. I am sure that that is the kind of thing we shall have in this country if the thin end of the wedge of commercialism is introduced in television.
On the benches opposite there is a group who favour commercialism. They have sat there all day. Most of the speeches from this side of the House have been greeted with smiles and ridicule, but I have noticed that some Members of the Conservative Party have absented themselves from this debate. How many of them will vote with the Government tonight solely because there is a three-line Whip. We have had the spectacle of seeing one Member of the Conservative Party, the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter)—
:Who?
:The hon. Member for Southgate. Hon. Members opposite do not know the constituency. They do not know one of the great stars of the commercial world. He came into this House, he interrupted the speech of an hon. Member opposite and put a most pertinent point against the Bill, and then he walked out again in disgust. I wonder how he will vote tonight. We shall watch the Division Lobby to see whether at least he has the courage to abstain.
This being a great issue which is not a party issue, why could not we have had a free vote? It has not been approached by me on a party basis, and it certainly is not a party matter. I have listened to many speeches and I have read the debates in the House of Lords. I have read all the arguments which have been put on paper, as far as I could acquire them. I was delighted when the hon. Member for Harrow, East was called, because he is the authentic voice of the case for the Bill. I thought, "It may be that although I have tried to find the arguments in favour, although I have searched diligently, I have never really heard the authentic voice, and now I have an opportunity." I listened for the argument, but it did not come.
The hon. Member put the argument of the advertiser which is, "Let us have a chance; let us get in and we will show you what we can do." But we do not want them in. The Government have moved in this matter from sponsoring to commercial television. These programmes will be almost wholly dependent upon advertising revenue. The £750,000 will not go to the programme companies. It will go to the Independent Television Authority and, as I understand, the programme companies will make the money. It is they who will get the money from the advertiser. It is they who will have to make a profit, and no doubt they will. I submit that to be successful the programmes must have a mass of viewers. The object will be to get not a cultural or educational programme but one which will appeal to the lowest common denominator of the greatest number of people.
It has been said that the Press is against the Bill because it makes money through advertisements. The Press does not depend upon advertisers as the programme companies will depend upon the advertisers. The Press certainly does not compel people to read the advertisements. One can read "The Times" from end to end, as I frequently do, without ever looking at them The Press has an entirely different object in view. It does not attract the pennies because of the advertisements; it attracts because of the news.
The object of the programme company is not to give a programme of news and music; obviously, the object is to attract audiences in order to advertise. The purpose of the newspaper is quite different. The advertising organisation uses the medium solely for the purpose of selling goods. I should have thought that there were in existence already plenty of mediums for advertisement. There is the Press, the cinema and, unfortunately, the horrible signs which disfigure some of our most charming country roads and villages. Why not leave the B.B.C. and the television service alone, and let the advertisers carry on with the media which they already have?
I understand that the cost of an hour's programme is £2,000. It will not be the little man who will be advertising at that price. It will be the big combines and monopolies. The hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) suggested that we should get magnificent programmes because Rolls Royce might put some on. I never heard such a ridiculous suggestion. Rolls Royce have a large factory in my constituency, and I know the cost of their product. Does anybody think that it would be worth while having a television programme for a £5,000 Rolls Royce or an aero engine?
How many buyers would that attract? I am certain that Dr. Llewellin Smith, the general manager of Rolls Royce, in Crewe, would not pay a penny for a programme of that kind. He does not fish in the waters in which an hon. Member opposite does. He does not want pennies from fools; he wants large cheques from a few people who can afford to pay for the very fine motor cars which are produced at Crewe.
The advertisers who are behind the Measure do not like the safeguards contained in the Bill. I am sure that during the Committee stage there will be attempt after attempt by hon. Members opposite to whittle down the safeguards in the Bill in the interests of advertisers.
:The safeguards are practically word for word those which were drawn up by the Incorporated Institute of Practitioners of Advertising and the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers. What the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is untrue.
:I am obliged for the intervention. I now understand why they are so sketchy. Hon. Members opposite will raise many Committee points in an attempt to give advertisers more control over the programmes. If the advertisers are so pure, and their motives so high, why do they want these safeguards? The very fact that the safeguards are inserted demonstrates that the programmes would otherwise be debased. What are the safeguards? I defy any lawyer to interpret them.
:Then, get a good doctor to do so.
:The first safeguard is:
Another alleged safeguard is in respect of natural breaks. We asked what a natural break in a programme was. We were told that there could be a natural break between the acts of a play. Someone has recently said that all one has to learn is the word "off" so that one can turn off one's set. The trouble about that is that one does not know when to turn it on again in order to see the rest of the play. Unfortunately, there will not be a bell like the bell which rings when we are in the theatre foyer to summon us back again. If a bell could be provided, we could turn the set off and then switch it on again when the advertising was over.
:Might I make an entirely constructive and helpful intervention? There is a very simple method which I use. It is to turn off the sound, and then when the man has finished opening and shutting his mouth, to turn it on again.
:I am sure that we are all obliged to the hon. Member for his intervention. I am sure that it will be noted by the Press and by the public. It is an extremely good tip. I do not know what his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East will think about that and how long he would get money from advertisers if that sort of thing happened.
:I suggest that it is a system which could very usefully be introduced into this House.
:Then I could turn the Member off.
It is clear that the object of the advertisers to get on the inside of this business. The advertisers disclosed this on 11th March in the "Advertisers' Weekly," in which it was said:
:Look at the other side. The hon. and learned Gentleman will see the National Television Council.
:I do not know whether the licensed jester of the House has a copy of the "Advertisers' Weekly" or whether he will deny that the advertisement is there.
:On the contrary, I read the "Advertisers' Weekly," unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman, who does not.
:As I expected, the licensed jester does not reply to my question. The "Advertisers' Weekly" published that, and the hon. Gentleman does not deny it.
There are ample opportunities for advertisers to advertise their goods in this country without handing over the medium of the television service to them. They have the Press, the hoardings and the cinemas, and I myself would suggest that that was ample opportunity for the resources of the hon. Gentleman.
I have heard only one good argument in favour of another television service. I think it is a good one, and that some attention ought to be paid to it. I think it is undesirable that there should be only one employer, and that, if we could devise another corporation—not an advertising corporation, but a parallel public corporation—it would be worth paying a little more in order to keep out the advertisers. The way to solve this problem would be to have another public corporation alongside the B.B.C. and independent of the B.B.C.—[ Laughter. ]I do not see why that should be a matter for mirth.
:Silly idea.
:I am sure that a remark like that condemns the utterer.
It was suggested by an earlier speaker that those who were against this Bill were irresponsible people who could not see an argument. It will be remembered that, in another place, a number of Conservative peers were against this Measure, including Lord Waverley and Lord Hailsham. I am quite convinced that, if there had been a free vote in this House tonight, we should have had a number of Conservatives voting against this Bill, but, because the Whips have been put on, hon. Members opposite will not vote against their own Government.
This Bill has been condemned by 14 university vice-chancellors, including the vicechancellor—[ Laughter. ] I think we must have a crazy gang with us tonight Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman I have mentioned will note the fact that 14 vice-chancellors—[ Interruption. ] Remembering the contrast between the broadcasts of the B.B.C. and the commercial broadcasting of other countries, we are convinced that to place television on a commercial basis must mean that the programmes will be determined by the criterion not of merit but of popularity and that we shall be throwing away an instrument of very great possibility for good.
I suggest that the House should conform to the view of the two vice-chancellors of the old universities and 12 of the new, to the confusion of the crazy gang who have been laughing at serious arguments.
8.40 p.m.
:If 14 vice-chancellors wrote to me, or to anybody else, I would immediately be rather suspicious, because they never combine together, except for some motive which may be honourable to themselves but is not likely to be in the interests of the public. I am not very impressed on that account.
The hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) said that the Government had introduced safe- guards into the Bill because they knew only too well that advertisers would otherwise debase our standards. It is about time that that sort of talk stopped. It is absolute nonsense. It is not fair that people like the hon. and learned Gentleman should say that in order to make a debating point. It is a very bad debating point, because it is only running down their own country and the standards of our people. It is absolute nonsense.
There are a lot of safeguards in the Bill, and I say frankly that there are too many. They are there because of people like the hon. and learned Gentleman on that side of the House, the National Television Council and the Governors of the B.B.C. They are the people with whom the Government have tried to find a compromise. There is no need to have any doubt about the standards that our advertisers would set; they would even be leaning backwards to see that they satisfied the public at large.
We are told that the only case for the Bill is on behalf of the advertisers, but that is not the only case for the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to break the B.B.C. monopoly. That has become an agreed point on both sides of the House. We say strongly on this side of the House that the best way to break the B.B.C. monopoly is by injecting the fresh, virile blood of free enterprise, at the least possible cost to the receiver and viewer. That is implicit in these proposals. Moreover, it is no use talking about hon. Members on this side obeying the Whips. Although in some respects I am a critic of the Bill, I would vote for the Second Reading even if there were a free vote. I believe in the principle of the Bill. What is involved at this stage is the principle of commercial television within the framework of the Bill. It has nothing to do with Whips.
On the other hand, I am afraid I have some grave criticisms of the Bill. It is sometimes said that we should try to keep our criticisms for the Committee stage, and most of my criticisms I certainly shall. Certain of my objections are so fundamental that it would not be fair to leave them till the Committee stage. They can be classed under two headings. The first are what I call the trading capacities inherent in Clauses 2 and 4 which are given to the I.T.A. The other main objection is in regard to the advertisers regulations in Clause 4 and in the Second Schedule. I hoped most sincerely that when it was decided to set up a second Corporation, now called the I.T.A., the purpose would be strictly confined to ensuring that the standard and code of the British way of doing this thing, in which we all so heartily believed, would not of itself, even as a reserve power, have trading facilities.
I am sorry that I was not convinced by the Home Secretary this afternoon that these are necessary reserve powers, which are only to be used for that purpose. I am sure that he was sincere in saying that it is the intention of the Government only to use them as a reserve power, but it is not safe. There is some danger that it may spread. Once we set up this organisation it may be difficult even for the Government of the day to control it as they would wish. We have seen it happen in State organisations only too clearly. It comes to the stage where we hesitate to do anything about it because it is the day-to-day business, and the Minister does not like to do it. We suffer many things in silence which we would like to see corrected, but the Minister will not interfere.
The danger is the same here, and I do not feel that there is a necessity for it at any time. It is argued that the Government must ensure that the scheme will work, but that is a matter of how the Bill is drawn and how the licence is worked out. There is some doubt about making it attractive. We need Amendment there, because it is not sufficiently attractive to ensure adequate financial backing. I hope it will be successful. I am sure that there must be security of tenure and a reasonable opportunity to attract the necessary finance to make the thing secure, because do not let us think that this £750,000, which is for a (specific purpose, is going to do very much in this field. It is going to do a great deal in the limited field for which it was provided, but a very large sum of money will be required if there is to be a full number of hours in a first-class alternative television programme.
:Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that the people of Shipley should provide funds for a second programme which they cannot enjoy?
:I am quite used to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) because he is my constituency neighbour and we sometimes join in writing in the same newspaper, though I am bound to say that his Press contributions are much better than some of the speeches he makes in this House. The actual amount is extremely small; it is only a few shililngs. But the subtle point is that if it was not done in this way it would cost a lot more.
I was not impressed with the case made this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Morrison) that viewers could have a second alternative link for 10s. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of £3 10s. for both B.B.C. and alternative B.A.C. I am sure that he was quite sincere about it, but I just do not believe it. It is my word against his, which may not be very much, but, as I say, I just do not believe it.
As far as my people in Shipley are concerned, they will be perfectly satisfied if they get an alternative system of the standard which we are going to ensure for a mere matter of about 3s. a year, and so will the people of Keighley. Let the hon. Gentleman make a constituency speech there and see if he gets away with it.
To return to the question of controls, I fear that they have been overdone. I hope that thought will be given to the point that I have been making, which is that I see no need whatever for the I.T.A. to be a trading organisation in this field. Where there is a need for something with which to fill in the programme, they can contract out. For instance, I see that under one of the Clauses—I am trying not to use my notes because of the time factor—they can fill "any lack" or "temporary lack" of a programme. I object to the words "any lack." A "temporary lack" may happen, but "any lack" should come out. But that is a Committee point.
If there is anything of that nature to be filled, they can contract the programme out. I should like the programme carried out in toto by the contractors as they are called in the Bill. I see no reason why the rest of it should not be contracted out. The only thing is, of course, that the I.T.A. would keep control in so far as sections of the programme were contracted out when it is part of the pro- gramme provided by the £750,000 subvention. We could get rid of a great deal of the controls, many of which arise by reason of the fact that the I.T.A. is allowed to trade in competition with the producing companies.
Clause 5 is somewhat remarkable, and also, I think, unnecessary and absurd. Why it should be the duty of the Authority, as provided in the Bill, to consult the Postmaster-General as to the classes and description of goods or services to be advertised, the methods of advertising that must not be employed and further, that the Authority shall carry out any directions that the Postmaster-General may give, I cannot honestly see. We are going to appoint responsible people to the I.T.A. Surely they can be trusted to take decisions as to what goods should be advertised or what advertising methods should be used. Why must we bring that into the field of the Postmaster-General? Once he has appointed sound people to control general policy, then, with all due respect to him, the less he has to do with it the better.
In spite of what the Home Secretary said—although he did help materially on this point—I am not happy about subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 6, which I think particularly sticky. There the Postmaster-General can require the Authority to broadcast at his dictation or to refrain from broadcasting. I feel that it is going further than necessary with a so-called Independent Television Authority to say that the Postmaster-General can insist upon it broadcasting or refraining from it. There is far too much Government control coming down through this organisation.
I most strongly object to the fact that the Postmaster-General can lay down the minimum or maximum number of hours, or both. This is to be a commercial venture, and those running it are expected really to put their backs into it. They cannot be expected to do so unless they know what security of tenure there will be, or what the hours will be. Apparently the charges will be controlled. Let us have control to ensure that the standards are right, and let us have the full sanctions—I do not mind how stiff the penalties may be—provided that at the end of it all there is a proper opportunity for free enterprise and for the initiative which will make it a success. I am concerned, quite rightly I think, with Clause 3, which deals with the provision of programmes. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary again helped me when he went further than does the Bill at the moment and spoke about the tone and style of the programmes being predominantly British. I think I could read into his words that they had to be predominantly British in content as well. That is important, but I think it is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules as to what shall be shown or not shown. It takes time to build up the necessary stock and flow of programmes, and some flexibility in that must be left to the producing companies.
Ultimately I think that is important, because we know the extent of canned television in the United States. It runs into tens of millions of feet. It is quite colossal. We want to be sure that we do not get a flood of American canned television in this country. We want our own product and to be able to build up our own export trade in canned television—which potentially most decidedly does exist—not only to the Dominions and Colonies, but to other countries. Though I am not a technician, I suppose such programmes could be dubbed for export just as a film may be. By that method there is a chance to build up British prestige in those countries.
I am not at all happy about the Second Schedule. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will give a little more elucidation to what my right hon. Friend said with regard to advertisements. I am thinking in terms of documentary films, which can be so invaluable, and which, in the case of heavy industries, can do a tremendous amount to advance the prestige of British goods. But they must, by their very nature, have the name of some particular firm or manufacturer. That is part of the good will. Firth's stainless steel is known the world over and propaganda in respect to it is of great value. There are many other items which cannot possibly be entirely free from advertising. What is to be done about them?
We want the very best programmes, but firms are not going to spend the prodigious sums of money required to put on Yehudi Menuhin or other great stars if they are not going at least to be allowed to get a little kudos by saying that they provided them. That would not vulgarise the programmes. It would not be like American television. Their methods are not ours. It would be just a sensible method of ensuring first-class programmes, which would not be assured by ordinary rates. We want the people to see many better programmes than the B.B.C. has ever provided. It can be done, but there must be a little give and take in this matter.
Having ensured the sanctions, we can trust the British advertisers, especially the big ones, to play the right game. It is not going to pay the big advertisers to annoy people by offending against general standards of taste. That is common sense, and any argument to the contrary is not common sense. It will not pay any firm to put over something which is likely to offend the people who see it. It just is not sound business, and whatever may be said about the big advertisers, they are generally connected with first-class, sound businesses. They are not fools, and no amount of talk from the benches opposite will convert them into fools.
The White Paper on Television Policy, Cmd. 9005, said:
There is no danger of standards being debased. There never was, or could be, under this Bill. The only danger is that in our commendable desire to meet all the views of various people, many of whom have not the slightest intention of agreeing to a compromise, we have gone just too far in our conciliation, and thereby endangered the capacity of this fine project to work satisfactorily.
8.58 p.m.
:This has been a remarkable debate, especially in view of the fact that not a single Member who has spoken has given this Bill his wholehearted support. Not even the Home Secretary did that, because he said that he was prepared to amend it in Committee. It is rather remarkable that a matter which has been the subject of so much contention and controversy should still cause so much controversy after two years of deliberation.
We are glad to see the Assistant Postmaster-General back, and hope that his indisposition will not inconvenience him when he replies to the debate. That does not mean that we shall spare our blows, but we hope that he will bear up under them.
I was rather surprised at all the apprehensions in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken in this debate. Every one of them wanted the abolition of controls. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) was so much in favour of vigorous, full-blooded competition that he wants to shut out competition from outside, and he wants to stop the I.T.A. competing with the advertisers. These are the people who talk about competition. Yet they say that this Independent Television Authority which is being set up must not be permitted to compete with the advertisers.
During the debate we have had all the old arguments rolled out again. The argument about monopoly, about power being in one hand, about the purity of the advertisers and what decent chaps they are, about trusting the people.
:Who has put on the shackles?
:I suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should put that question to his right hon. Friends. It is they who have laid the shackles upon us.
Then there is the desire for alternative programmes. I must say that the Home Secretary rather surprised me. In addition to his duty as Home Secretary he is also the Minister for Welsh Affairs. He said that the Bill will give us a second programme. Will it give it to a single Welshman living in Wales? The fact is that the Government have decided that the channels which are available should be for commercial television, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has a particular responsibility for Wales, has agreed in this Bill to take money off the Welsh viewers in order to subsidise a programme which they will never see. Of course, he is a Scotsman.
rose —
:I cannot give way. I promised to sit down at half-past nine, so that the Assistant Postmaster-General should have an opportunity of talking out the Second Reading.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a Scotsman. No Scot's viewer will see this programme. I should have thought, in view of his obligations, in particular, for the Principality, he would have seen to it that those people at least would have had a fair deal. He has not done that, and I think that is a question which will chase him for a very long time.
Hon. Members opposite who have spoken in support of the Bill, with all its reservations, have a right to complain. The Government promised this commercial venture in May, 1952. That was when we had the first White Paper. We had another White Paper in November, 1953. We have had a further statement of policy earlier this month; now, after two years, we get the Bill.
This subject has been discussed, as the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) said, eight times in this House—eight separate debates. Through all the turns and twists of these debates, the Government have retreated step by step. Each document which has been considered has been different from the previous one, and even the Bill before us is not the one which was originally provided for in the White Paper.
The difficulty, of course, has been this. The Government have had a dual obligation: how to disarm the critics and how to please their commercial friends. That has been an extremely difficult thing to do. That dualism has run all through the debate. The Assistant Postmaster-General has been put up to satisfy the pressure group. His right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has cast the light of a diaconate mantle over his hon. Friend. That is the sort of thing that has gone on through all the debates. In every concession that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made to public apprehension, his hon. Friend has got a financial concession for the commercial groups behind him.
In this matter the businessman has outsmarted the lawyer. The noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) said it is always wrong to pay danegeld. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has been doing to his hon. Friend. Every concession that has been made to this side, to progressive and enlightened thought, has been compensated by financial advantages to commercial people who are behind commercial television. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, we will see.
As I say, we now get the Bill after two years' deliberations. Like many hon. Members opposite, I agree it is a monstrosity. It is a public service head with a private enterprise body. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that the Government had brought in a skunk and now the difficulty was how to stop it stinking.
The title of the Authority amused me. It is called the "Independent Television Authority." Does the Home Secretary really think it is independent?
indicated assent.
:The right hon. and learned Gentleman could not have listened closely to what his hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) had to say. It is not an independent authority. Hon. Members below the Gangway have said that it will be independent. We hear that a meeting took place upstairs yesterday evening in which the dissident elements among the party opposite were able to express their opinion and a deal was made. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is mythical."] It may be mythical, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman today has gone out of his way to say to some of his hon. Friends behind him, "Do not worry, boys. It will be all right in Committee." Time after time we have been referred to the fact that hon. Members opposite have been reassured by what the Home Secretary had said.
In theory, it is not an independent television authority. It is responsible to the Postmaster-General for many things. It is the Postmaster-General who will say what it can televise and how frequently it can televise. He will lay down the code and determine the form of contract. In fact, it looks as if this "independent" Authority is more responsible to the Governmental Minister than is the B.B.C.; the Postmaster-General has greater authority over it than he has over the B.B.C. What becomes of all the arguments that it is wrong to concentrate all this power in one pair of hands? In this case, greater power is being given to the political head of the independent authority than he has ever had in regard to the broadcasting system.
The Authority is not independent in so far as it gets its cash. Hon. Members opposite made the point very well that all the means of broadcasting will be in the hands of the Authority. It will have only such means as the Government permit it to have. It is a development programme and the money to be spent on it will be obtained with the approval of the Postmaster-General from public funds. This independent free enterprise body is to have its legs provided by public funds. Do hon. Gentlemen who want sponsoring agree with that? If the Government provide the money they are entitled to have come control, or is it the point of view of hon. Members opposite that the money should be given without any control?
:No supply without redress.
:As my hon. Friend says, no supply without redress. Are we going back on that?
It is remarkable that the amount of money it is to get is not going to provide stations for Wales, for Scotland or for rural England. The amount of money allowed under this Bill will permit it to establish only three stations, one at Manchester, one in London and one in Birmingham. How is it to get the money for running its programmes?
I understand that there has been some controversy in the "Economist" about this. The Assistant Postmaster-General gave the answer when he said:
:Three pounds.
:It is 2s. 9d. out of the £1 increase.
:Out of the £3 licence fee.
:I have always noted that when the hon. Gentleman finds the argument going against him he is likely to play about with the arithmetic and write the figures down.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went even further this afternoon. Instead of saying that it was 3s. 3d. in the £ from the licence fee he said it was 3s. I do not know whether it was a mistake and whether he really meant 3s., or 3s. 3d.? Which is it?
:I thought it was the average of 3s. 3d. and 2s. 10d.
:How misleading that is. The Government are to give £750,000 a year to the Independent Television Authority to run programmes with money out of the three million licence fees, and it may well be 5s. each licence. Let us assume that there is a slight increase in the number of licences.
:It is calculated on 473 million.
:I know that is the assumption. The fact is that it is more than 3s. 3d.; it will be more like 4s. 3d.
Let us accept the Postmaster-General's statement that every television licence will make a contribution of 3s. 3d. to programmes that are going to be shown in Manchester, Birmingham and London. Why should Welshmen pay this? They are not going to benefit. Why should Scotsmen pay this? They are not going to see the programmes.
The Assistant Postmaster-General argued this matter in our last debate and so did his right hon. and learned Friend, but they found no substantial reason for doing it. Now they come forward with this Bill to provide for the same thing.
:I am following the right hon. Gentleman's arguments very closely, but does he not realise that the television service of the B.B.C. has to date cost £20 million, and that £16 million of that has come from sound licence holders, who have received no immediate benefit from television?
:The interjection of the hon. Gentleman misses the point. After all, the subsidy now being taken from the televiewers in Scotland, Wales and the rural parts of England is to subsidise the brewers, not a public undertaking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is to subsidise the advertisers, the Jack Solomons and other people. When the hon. Gentleman plays with figures, as I have said, if they are in his favour he tends to write them up.
My right hon. Friend has referred to the £5, £6 and £7 licence fee which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in connection with a second television programme. On what assumptions are any of those three figures based? Which is the figure at which the Assistant Postmaster-General has really arrived? Where did he get it from? I noticed in an answer he gave yesterday that he said it was based on an
How is this matter put to the commercial viewers? How are they to be satisfied about getting funds? Surely in this way, that the cost of those parts of the programme in which they are not interested, which do not lend themselves to advertising, will be borne by the Independent Television Authority and in that sense the advertising will be cheaper because the non-advertising element in the programmes will be carried by the £750,000 subsidy.
I should have thought that this in itself was attractive to the advertisers and, of course, there is the other financial consideration. Under the old scheme the station operators would be private people and the stations themselves would be owned by the operators and not by the Independent Television Authority. All the advertisers have to do now is to invest money in programme companies and programme supplies. No money will be invested in physical assets. [An HON. MEMBER: "In studios."] Under this proposal even some studios will be provided by the Authority, because there is provision in the Bill. So that when the penalty of cancelling a contract is imposed, the programme companies or the operators will find that their financial loss is much less than otherwise it would be. The sting, therefore, is being taken out of the tail.
Under the First Schedule the members of the Independent Television Authority may be able to have contracts with it. The Schedule simply specifies that they must disclose their interest in any contract in which they are personally involved and that they must not take part afterwards in any consideration by the Authority of that contract. The member can, however, still remain a member of the Authority. It seems to me that we are allowing people to gang up in such a way as to be able to do favours to one another. It is of the greatest importance that this body should be completely responsible to this House in order to stop relations of that sort.
As to the Second Schedule of the Bill, can the Assistant Postmaster-General tell us what will be advertised? What will be in the list of those things that shall not be advertised? Is beer to be advertised, or pools, or betting? We ought to have some indication of the kind of things that will be advertised over commercial radio. We ought to know what the Postmaster-General thinks it is improper to advertise. He ought not to be in difficulty. Hon. Members opposite have assured us that advertisers will do nothing to debase standards. We are entitled to ask, therefore, that there should be a willing disclosure of the list of things which the Government think ought not to appear on television programmes.
What do the advertisers think? One of my hon. Friends has referred to the "Advertisers' Weekly." It is interesting to note, as an indication of the way in which things are drifting, that a conference is to be convened in Bournemouth in May. The "Advertisers' Weekly" says:
:As the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to mention me, may I tell him that the distinguished political figure at our conference last year was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)?
:That is a very fair point, but I am sure that the hon. Member will agree with me that it will not be my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) this year.
:Nor the right hon. Member.
:Let us see what the "Advertisers' Weekly" says about this Bill. Despite all the criticisms that we have heard, it says:
"Restrictive legislation is refreshingly absent from the Bill."
Then it goes on to describe how the advertisers can work with the programme contracting firms. In other words, what the "Advertisers' Weekly" has done is to provide a device whereby hon. and right hon. Members interested in it can dodge the controls which have been inserted in the Bill. It does look as if we shall get what, at the start, we all thought we should get, a close approximation to the American system of sponsored television.
:Quite untrue.
:We regard this Bill as a great danger to the mental and cultural outlook of the people of Britain.
Reference has been made to "The Times" leader of today. I thought it faced this problem soberly and with judgment. We shall fight this Bill line by line. If it goes through we want to make it clear that when we are returned to the other side of the House—[ Interruption. ] We have much more confidence in that than hon. Members opposite have in their Bill. We shall reserve the right to eliminate commercial advertising altogether in this very important medium for influencing men's minds.
:Can the right hon. Member give a categorical assurance to the House that, in the event of the Labour Party being returned at a future Election, it will take the advertising element out of this service and charge it on a fee basis, or abolish the second service altogether?
:The hon. Member ought to know that we want a complete second programme with national coverage. We say that that can be and will be obtained, and can only be obtained by the removal of commercial television.
9.28 p.m.
:I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) for his good wishes for my health. Perhaps, in advance, I had better apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House if my voice is not all I would wish it to be.
I have heard all the speeches in this debate except two, and to those two hon. Members I apologise. I must confess that many of the speeches to which I have listened bore a striking resemblance to the speeches we heard in the discussion of the two White Papers, one last year and one the year before. Very few speeches, except that of my right hon. and learned Friend who opened the debate, were addressed to the Bill itself.
The right hon. Member for Caerphilly was very worried that no provision was being made for Wales. I hope he will be glad to hear that the two channels in Band III which we are proposing to allocate to commercial television will be sufficient, without any others, to give a service to Wales and also to Scotland. I hope it will not be very long before commercial television is extended to those two countries.
:Could we have an assurance that there will also be television programmes in Welsh?
:The hon. Lady is asking quite a lot. The whole idea of local stations is that the appeal of those stations should be to local sentiment, and I think that the use of the Welsh language would come into that.
The next point which the right hon. Gentleman raised was regarding the provision of studios. I think the words he used were that the Authority was to provide the studios. If he reads the Bill he will see that that is a purely optional power. They may provide the studios, but I do not envisage many studios being provided by the Authority. It is certainly not the intention of the Government that they should do so. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if we consider the amount of money at stake in this venture the overwhelming percentage will be the capital invested in the programmes and studios by the programme companies, and not the amount invested by the Authority itself.
He also asked a question, to which I do not imagine he expected to get a definite answer tonight, about what is to be advertised. As he knows, the Postmaster-General is authorised to draw up a code of advertising. That code, as approved by the Postmaster-General, is subject to Parliamentary Question in this House. I imagine that what will be authorised for advertising will be something similar to what may be found in a decent daily newspaper, which does not seem to give much offence to anybody.
There is one question regarding documentary films which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). I wish to clear up this matter because perhaps the Bill does not quite cover it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary dealt with this in a speech which he made in this House in December last. He indicated that in many cases documentary films would be dealt with as advertisements. The second programme we have in mind will include documentary films—travel films which may be made by a shipping company, or an advertising film for a seaside resort made by a local corporation, or a film on life in the Persian oilfields by an oil company, and things of that kind. It was certainly never the intention of the Government to exclude those films, and if it is felt that Clause 4 (6) of the Bill has that effect, I think we might try to alter it on Committee stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley asked why Clause 4 (5) was required at all and why it was necessary to consult with the Postmaster-General. The answer is because a pledge to that effect was given in the discussion on the White Paper. He also mentioned charges for advertisement. He did not like that matter being controlled by the Postmaster-General. But charges are not to be so controlled. All that is said is that the charges for advertising are to be published beforehand so that everyone will know what they are in respect of a particular time.
The question of sponsoring also was raised. The Government have always made it clear that this scheme does not entail sponsoring which means that the name of a particular advertiser shall be associated with a particular programme. What is interesting to me is that the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, who are a very representative body, are also equally opposed to sponsoring in that form.
There is a technical point to which I ought to refer, and that is the location of transmitting stations. I should make it clear that the final decision on this matter should be made by the Authority itself. But there is a great advantage, both financially and technically, if the masts and the stations can be shared between the B.B.C. and the new Authority. The financial advantage is I think obvious, and was put by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves), who felt that this scheme might entail a certain amount of overlapping and waste of money. It would be ridiculous for the B.B.C. and the new Authority to put up twin masts some hundreds of feet into the air if one mast could do the job.
There is another advantage for the B.B.C. if this can be arranged, and that concerns technical staff. I know that this is a matter which has concerned hon. Members opposite. They have felt that one of the results of the creation of the Authority would be a scramble for technical staff. I believe that that is a real danger. If the job can be done with the same staff, on some commission or rental basis, it would obviously be a tremendous advantage to both bodies. After all, both are public corporations and both are spending public money.
The technical advantages at stake are even more overwhelming. If we have two masts some distance apart sending out different programmes, there is a very real danger that one programme may interfere with the other and in some cases ruin it. It will certainly inevitably mean a much more complicated aerial unless the one aerial can be used for both programmes. In New York City, where there are seven television programmes, everything has been centralised on the Empire State Building and all the stations use the one mast. I sincerely hope that it will be possible for the same sort of thing to happen here. It will save us men and is obviously the right thing, technically, to do.
There has been criticism that the scheme is so hedged around with rules and regulations that it will not work. It is what I call a variant of the "Caliban in chains" argument. I feel that some of the people who put forward the argument are guilty of wishful thinking. They really mean that they hope that it will not work. The hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrision) was very pessimistic. He thought that, if it worked at all, it would be much longer before it worked than we anticipated.
I can give some reassuring news on this point. It certainly is not the view of the potential programme companies that the scheme is unworkable. As the House is aware from my answers to Parliamentary Questions, we have had some dozens of applications from potential programme companies. Even if we whittle the number down a little, I can assure the House that the number of potential companies which are prepared to take on the job and are financially capable of doing so is far greater than we really want.
The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which has more than 77,000 members who, to a large extent represent the type of firms which are likely to advertise on these stations, said in a pamphlet, which, I imagine, all hon. Members received yesterday or this morning, that the major principles of the Bill are wholly acceptable to commerce and industry. The associations representing advertising agents have also expressed the view that the Bill is a good one.
:Can we have a few examples of the firms?
:There are 77,000 of them, if we are talking about the same sort of firms.
I must remind the House, and especially my hon. Friends on this side, that there is nothing particularly restrictive in what we are proposing to do in this Bill. The restrictions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I thought somewhat depreciatingly, come not from any desire on the part of the Government to poke their fingers into other people's business, nor even from a desire to cater for a hostile Opposition, but for a quite good technical reason.
That is that in Band III there are only a limited number of wavelengths, and it would be quite intolerable to allow a complete free-for-all on two wavelengths, quite apart from the fact that the Government from the beginning have said—and there is nothing new about this—that they think that this new venture should proceed with some degree of caution. When this experiment has proved itself and we get into Bands IV and V, quite different methods may be possible. I think that answers the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), and I hope the hon. Lady will be, satisfied.
:Would it not have been far better at the start, instead of coping with all the difficulties in Band III, to have started in Band IV, where the choice is infinite and where we can get complete coverage?
:Band IV, which is much more experimental than Band III, also costs more. There are two channels in Band III, and I think we could be justifiably criticised if we launched forth into Band IV while Band III is available.
After all, such restrictions of liberty as do appear in this Bill are not made in order to hamper anybody except those who deliberately and consistently break the spirit of the code which I hope the House will accept tonight. It is one which the advertising agents themselves have accepted, and these other Clauses about which fear has been expressed are only like the clauses one finds in the lease of a house or flat, which very few people take the trouble to read, and which deal with the keeping of bulldogs or leaving the radio on all night, and are only intended for people who are not prepared to play the game. The restrictions in this Bill fall in the same category. The whole idea and intention of the Bill is that the programme companies shall be free to produce programmes and not be interfered with by the Authority or by anyone else.
Now, I should like to address myself to the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South, and first of all, to thank him and also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly for giving us in very general terms an idea of what may happen at a future date if the Labour Party were to get into power. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, for reasons which perhaps he may not appreciate, because he has given us a most excellent election cry. What he has enabled us to say—and I will read it very carefully in HANSARD, although I thought the right hon. Gentleman was very "cagey" at one stage of what he had to say—is "Vote Labour and Lose Your Second Programme."
:If the hon. Gentleman is to remain Assistant Postmaster-General, he should forget that he is Press liaison officer for the Conservative Central Office. The hon. Gentleman heard me say quite clearly that we were in favour of and would continue the second programme with national coverage. He is not entitled to say that.
:"Whose finger on the knob?"
:Then we must slightly amend our slogan and say: "Vote Labour, and pay more for your Second Programme." The right hon. Gentleman also made a personal attack upon me and said, among other things, that I ought to resign. This is getting a part of almost every debate. Almost every one of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this bench is being invited to resign.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to give him the answers to two questions. The first question was: "Did we ask the B.B.C. what they would need by way of licence fee if they were to do the second programme?" The answer is "No." We did not ask them. We had no intention that they should do the second programme. The second thing he asked me was to explain the apparent discrepancy existing in his mind with regard to the £5 licence fee. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South also referred to that point. Let me read what I said in this House in December last: Later on I said:
I still affirm that that statement is true. I will proceed to satisfy hon. Members opposite that it is so. It must have been clear to all hon. Members that I was comparing on the one hand a programme done by an authority now, and a programme done by the B.B.C. now. If there is any misunderstanding on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that is where it has arisen.
:I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Why did he put in the qualifying, or unqualifying words "straight away" and "now"? Surely we are sufficiently well informed on this point to know that it cannot be done straight away and now. Has the hon. Gentleman put these words in in order that he can build up his £5, £6 and £7? If so, is that fair controversy? Is it not misleading the House about the facts?
:There is no desire on my part to mislead the House. In their 10-year plan published by the B.B.C. last year, they said that if they had the full licence revenue of £3, without any £2 million a year deducted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any £1½ million deducted by the Post Office, they could provide a second programme, not earlier than 1957, starting with an hour or so a day and building up. If the British public want a second programme now, and if various deductions are to be made for the Post Office and the Treasury, then my original figure of £5 stands.
:That is the very thing I was complaining about when I said that the hon. Gentleman ought to be fired. First of all he says that if the B.B.C. did it straight away now it would cost so much, when he knows perfectly well that nobody can do it straight away. Then he replies: "The commercial people can do it straight away now," when he knows perfectly well that they cannot do anything of the kind.
:Let us compare like with like. What I mean by "now" is when the commercial people are in a position to do it—
:When?
and that, I estimate, to be within a year of the passing of this Bill. What the B.B.C. has said is that it could do a second programme on a very modified scale from 1957 if there was no deduction for the Treasury and none for the Post Office. That statement fits in exactly with what I told the House in December last, and with what I have consistently told it since then.
Therefore, the question we are really deciding is that if there is to be a second programme, how it is to be paid for. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are, I gather, quite prepared either to wait until 1957 or else to put up the licence fee. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Then how is it to be paid for? That is a purely practical question. Are they prepared to wait until 1957, or are they prepared to put up the licence fee at this juncture.
It may well be that in due course the B.B.C. will add a second programme. I am certainly not ruling out that possibility tonight. At the moment, the B.B.C. is concentrating—and I think quite rightly —on, first of all, providing a first programme for the whole country, next on increasing the number of hours of broadcasting, and, thirdly, on improving the quality of its first programme. When all these things have been done, I do not see any reason at all why it should not be in a position to come to the Government in 1957—as it has always said it would—and say that it is ready to do another programme.
:Can the hon. Gentleman now say when "now" will be?
:Several hon. Members opposite have objected to the £750,000 being given to the Authority from public funds. They say that it is robbing the B.B.C. But apparently the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) did not think it enough, because he wanted to increase it. It is very difficult to follow the reasoning of the Opposition in this matter. There seems to be an idea that the B.B.C. has a sort of prescriptive right to the whole of the licence fees paid—a sort of perfect road fund. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] That has never been so. In fact, in the whole history of the B.B.C., only for a period of 18 months has it so happened that something was not deducted from the total licence revenue in order to help the Exchequer. It was the late Government that put the percentage up to 15 per cent. I do not blame them for doing it. Indeed, I think that they did the right thing at the time.
:Will the Minister allow me to interrupt him for a moment?
:I do not want the hon. Member to think me ungenerous if I do not give way, but I have given way quite a lot during my speech.
The idea has grown up that both the Exchequer deduction and what the Post Office gets for collecting the revenue is a sort of imposition which should be got rid of as soon as possible. In this case, what is quite certain is that if the £750,000 did not go to the new Authority it certainly would not go to the B.B.C. The Exchequer would get it.
I find it very difficult, too, to understand some of the figures which have been bandied about with respect to this £750,000. It has been suggested that over a period of 10 years the new Authority will get £9½ million—in one case it was made out to be £10 million—of public money. There is supposed to be something wrong in all this. Incidentally, £2 million is for capital expenditure, and the Authority is under an obligation to pay that back. But £750,000 is the maximum grant, and in any case it cannot apply for more than nine of the 10 years of the Bill. What I find so illogical is that the Opposition is apparently quite happy that the whole of the expenditure on the second programme should come out of licence fees. That would mean a steep increase in licence fees.
We had hoped that the grant of £750,000 to the new Authority would
have done something to meet the criticism of those people who felt that it was wrong that the new Authority should be entirely dependent upon advertisement revenue. It is now not dependent on that. And it is only fair to say that no potential programme company itself has asked for this money or said that it needed it.
I can perhaps summarise the philosophy underlying this Bill. First, we believe that there should be a second television programme. Secondly, that competition, which has brought so many benefits to the people of this country when they go into the shops, is equally good in the field of entertainment. It is for this reason that we have decided to end the B.B.C. monopoly. Thirdly, we do not believe that the Government should do what private enterprise can do equally well. That is why we have evolved this scheme of programme companies. Lastly, we have accepted that our approach to the development of television should be both cautious and guarded. That is why we have set up a second corporation—not to produce the programmes, but to accept responsibility for what goes out on the air. I am quite convinced that this empirical method of approach is one which will commend itself to the vast majority of our people.
rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, "That 'now' stand part of the Question."
Division No. 56 AYES (10.0 p.m. Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H Alport, C. J. M. Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Brooman-White, R. C. Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Bennett, William (Woodside) Browne, Jack (Govan) Arbuthnot, John Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Bullard, D. G. Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Birch, Nigel Bullus, Wing Commander E E. Astor, Hon. J. J. Bishop, F. P. Burden, F. F. A Baker, P. A D. Black, C. W. Butcher, Sir Herbert Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Boothby, Sir R. J. G. Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Baldwin, A. E. Bossom, Sir A. C. Carr, Robert Barber, Anthony Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A Cary, Sir Robert Barlow, Sir John Boyle, Sir Edward Channon, H. Baxter, A. B. Braine, B. R. Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Beach, Maj. Hicks Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Braithwaite, Sir Gurney Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Cole, Norman Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. Pitman, I. J. Colegate, W. A. Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. Pitt, Miss E. M. Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Iremonger, T. L. Powell, J. Enoch Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Cooper-Key, E. M. Jennings, Sir Roland Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Craddock, Berestord (Spelthorne) Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Profumo, J. D. Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Raikes, Sir Victor Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E Jones, A. (Hall Green) Ramsden, J. E. Crouch, R. F. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W Rayner, Brig. R Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Kaberry, D. Redmayne, M. Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Kerr, H. W. Rees-Davies, W. R. Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Kerby, Capt. H. B. Remnant, Hon. P. Davidson, Viscountess Lambert, Hon. G. Renton, D. L. M. De la Bère, Sir Rupert Lambton, Viscount Ridsdale, J. E. Deedes, W. F. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Roberts, Peter (Heeley) Digby, S. Wingfield Langford-Holt, J. A. Robertson, Sir David Dodds-Parker, A. D Leather, E. H. C. Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) Donner, Sir P. W. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Robson-Brown, W. Doughty, C. J. A. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Roper, Sir Harold Drayson, G. B. Lindsay, Martin Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond) Linstead, Sir H. N. Russell, R. S. Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Llewellyn, D. T. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. Duthie, W. S. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton) Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Shepherd, William Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Longden, Gilbert Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) Erroll, F. J. Low, A. R. W. Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Fell, A. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood) Finlay, Graeme Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Snadden, W. McN. Fisher, Nigel Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Soames, Capt. C. Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. 0. Spearman, A. C. M. Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury) McAdden, S. J. Speir, R. M. Fletcher-Cooke, C. McCallum, Major D. Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.) Foster, John McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Macdonald, Sir Peter Stevens, G. P. Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.) Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell McKibbin, A. J. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Storey, S. Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Maclean, Fitzroy Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) Gammans, L. D. Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield W.) Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) Garner-Evans, E. H. MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) Studholme, H. G. George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Summers, G. S. Glover, D. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Sutcliffe, Sir Harold Godber, J. B. Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Gomme-Duncan, Col. A Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) Gough, C. F. H. Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. Teeling, W. Gower, H. R. Markham, Major Sir Frank Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford) Graham, Sir Fergus Marlowe, A. A. H. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Grimond, J. Marples, A. E. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Maude, Angus Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.) Hall, John (Wycombe) Maudling, R. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth) Harden, J. R. E. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S. L. C Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. Hare, Hon. J. H. Medlicott, Brig. F. Tilney, John Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) Mellor, Sir John Touche, Sir Gordon Harris, Reader (Heston) Molson, A. H. E. Turner, H F. L. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Turton, R. H. Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Moore, Sir Thomas Tweedsmuir, Lady Harvie-Watt, Sir George Morrison, John (Salisbury) Vane, W. M. F. Hay, John Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Nabarro, G. D. N. Vosper, D. F. Heath, Edward Neave, Airey Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) Henderson, John (Cathcart) Nicholls, Harmar Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone) Higgs, J. M. C. Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Walker-Smith, D. C. Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Wall, P. H. B. Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Nield, Basil (Chestar) Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) Hirst, Geoffrey Nugent, G. R. H. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. Holland-Martin, C. J. Nutting, Anthony Watkinson, H. A. Hollis, M. C. Oakshott, H. D. Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster) Holt, A. F. Odey, G. W. Wellwood, W. Hope, Lord John O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay) Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.) Horobin, I. M. Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare) Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence Osborne, C. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Page, R. G. Wills, G. Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Perkins, Sir Robert Wood, Hon. R. Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. Peyton, J. W. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.) Pickthorn, K. W. M. Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and Hutchinson, James (Scotstoun) Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Sir Cedric Drewe.
NOES Acland, Sir Richard Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) Mulley, F. W. Adams, Richard Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Murray, J D. Albu, A. H. Grey, C. F. Nally, W. Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Neal, Harold (Bolssver) Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Griffiths, William (Exchange) O'Brien, T Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Hale, Leslie Oldfield, W. H. Awbery, S. S. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Oliver, G. H. Bacon, Miss Alice Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Orbach, M. Baird, J. Hamilton, W. W. Oswald, T. Balfour, A. Hannan, w. Padley, W. E. Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Hardy, E. A. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Bartley, P. Hargreaves, A. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Palmer, A. M F Benn, Hon. Wedgwood Hastings, S. Pannell, Charles Benson, G. Hayman, F. H. Pargiter, G. A. Beswick, F. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Parker, J. Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hewitson, Capt. M. Parkin, B. T Bing, G. H. C. Hobson, C. R. Peart, T. F. Blackburn, F. Holman, P. Plummer, Sir Leslie Blenkinsop, A. Holmes, Horace Popplewell, E. Blyton, W. R. Houghton, Douglas Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Boardman, H. Hoy, J. H. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Proctor, W. T. Bowles, F. G. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Pryde, D. J. Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire). Pursey, Cmdr. H. Brockway, A. F. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Rankin, John Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Reeves, J. Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Reid, Thomas (Swindon) Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Reid, William (Camlachie) Brown, Thomas (Ince) Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Rhodes, H. Burke, W. A. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Robens, Rt. Hon. A. Burton, Miss F. E. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Jeger, George (Goole) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Callaghan, L. J. Jeger, Mrs. Lena Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N) Castle, Mrs. B. A. Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Champion, A. J. Johnson, James (Rugby) Ross, William Chapman, W. D. Jones, David (Hartlepool) Royle, C. Chetwynd, G. R. Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Shackleton, E. A. A. Clunie, J. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley Coldrick, W. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Collick, P. H. Keenan, W. Short, E. W. Corbet, Mrs. Freda Kenyon, C. Shurmer, P. L. E Cove, W. G. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Silverman, Julius (Erdington) Craddock, George (Bradford S.) King, Dr. H. M. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Crosland, C. A. R. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) Crossman, R. H. S Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Skeffington, A. M. Cullen, Mrs. A. Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield) Daines, P. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Lewis, Arthur Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) Darling, George (Hillsborough) Lindgren, G. S. Snow, J. W. Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M Sorensen, R. W. Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Logan, D. G. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Davies, Harold (Leek) MacColl, J. E Sparks, J. A. De Freitas, Geoffrey McGhee, H. G Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Deer, G. McGovern, J. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. Delargy, H. J. Mclnnes, J. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) Dodds, N. N. McKay, John (Wallsend) Stross, Dr. Barnett Donnelly, D. L. McLeavy, F. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. Driberg, T. E. N. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Swingler, S. T. Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. Sylvester, G. O. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Edelman, M. Mainwaring, W. H. Taylor, John (West Lothian) Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Thomas, George (Cardiff) Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Mann, Mrs. Jean Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Manuel, A. C. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin) Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Mason, Roy Thornton, E. Fernyhough, E. Mayhew, C P. Timmons, J. Fienburgh, W. Mellish, R. J Tomney, F. Finch, H. J. Messer, sir F. Turner-Samuels, M. Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) Mikardo, Ian Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn Follick, M. Mitchison, G. R Usborne, H. C. Foot, M. M. Monslow, W. Viant, S. P. Forman, J. C. Moody, A. S. Wade, D. W. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Morgan, Dr H. B. W Wallace, H. W. Freeman, John (Watford) Morley, R. Warbey, W. N. Freeman, Peter (Newport) Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Watkins, T. E. Gibson, C. W. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.) Glanville, James Mort, D. L. Weitzman, D. Gooch, E. G. Moyle, A. Wells, Percy (Faversham) Wells, William (Walsall) Willey, F. T. Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside) West, D. G. Williams, David (Neath) Woodburn, R. Hon. A. Wheeldon, W. E. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery) Wyatt, W. L. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) Williams, Ronald (Wigan) Yates, V. F. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y) Younger, Rt. Hon. K Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W Williams, W. R. (Droylsden) TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Wigg, George Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.) Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) Wilkins, W. A. Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. Studholme.]
Committee upon Monday next.
Housing, Dagenham
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Studholme. ]
10.12 p.m.
:I wish to raise a matter of importance not only to my constituency, but to other local authorities when they know what the decision of the Minister has been in this case. I refer to the fact that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has refused to confirm a compulsory purchase order issued by the Dagenham Borough Council to take over Eastminster Estate to fulfil the needs of its large housing list.
It so happens that in Dagenham we have a rather special position. Of about 30,000 houses, 17,000 belong to the London County Council. Three thousand belong to the Dagenham and West Ham Borough Councils and 10,000 are privately-built houses. In other words, about two-thirds of our housing is municipally owned and only about one-third privately owned. Of the very large section built by the London County Council—the 17,000 out of the 30,000—most of the houses were built between 1925 and 1933. The result is that many families in these houses have been living there for between 20 and 30 years. The families are growing up and there is a considerable lack of room in the area for the building of houses for the children of these London County Council tenants.
The London County Council allocates 50 houses a year to the Dagenham Council, which the Dagenham Council allocates to those on its waiting list. It makes a financial grant to the London County Council for this privilege but, in general, vacancies on the London County Council housing estate are given by the London County Council to Londoners, who come out to live in Dagenham, and not to people who have grown up in the area. I am not now putting the case for the taking over of a council's estates outside its own boundaries and giving them to the local council on the spot—that will have to be done sooner or later; but it means that there is now a big need for houses in the district which the London County Council does not meet and which the Dagenham Borough Council has to try to meet.
It so happens that inside the Dagenham Borough Council area there is little land left that is not zoned either for green belt purposes or industrial purposes. We have a housing list of 4,400 families. Only about 170 applicants from Dagenham have so far been placed in the new towns in Essex such as that at Basildon and the one at Harlow. In fact, we are faced with the position that these families will go on growing up and they will have to go and seek homes elsewhere. There is no room in Dagenham for nearly all the available land for building has been built upon.
At the present time, there is one big estate in Dagenham still being actively developed by the council, the Marks Gate Estate. Apart from that the only large area available in Dagenham for building and which the Dagenham Borough Council wish to take over is the Eastminster Estate, and for it the Minister has refused to give a compulsory purchase order.
This Eastminster Estate has had an interesting history. There is the possibility of building there something over 200 houses. Development was proposed by private enterprise before the war. It was encouraged by the Dagenham Borough Council, but little progress had been made when the war came in 1939. In 1944, the whole of this estate was placed by the Greater London Plan inside the green belt area. The council never accepted that particular ruling, and it made a number of efforts to get the area removed from the green belt so that it could be developed for housing purposes.
In 1946, the council put forward a scheme either for the owners to carry out development on its behalf, or, if that was not possible, for a compulsory purchase order to be made to take over the estate. The Essex County Council refused to agree to these proposals In 1948, the council appealed to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Town and Country Planning, but again they were turned down. However, permission was given by the Ministries for the borough council to build 10 houses in one part of the estate and eight houses in another. On that occasion a compulsory purchase order was confirmed and the land was acquired and the houses were built by the Dagenham Council.
The Council, at the same time, lodged an objection against the Essex County Development Plan and again tried to get the whole area made available for housing, again unsuccessfully. In 1953 Messrs. Parrish, a firm of private building contractors, applied to erect houses on the site, and again the planning officer refused. The matter was, therefore, argued out with the Essex County Council planning authority.The Dagenham Borough Council supported the application of the private builders, though it still wanted this land itself, and it had the intention, if permission to build were granted, to ask for a compulsory purchase order to get the land and build on it.
The reason why they acted in that way is that in the whole of the East London area it is difficult for any local authority to get any available land for building purposes because the owners get more money if they offer the land to private developers. Therefore, in the whole of this area the general custom has grown up, if a local authority wants land for building purposes which has been zoned for agricultural purposes, to back any application for building on it and then to ask for a compulsory purchase order. That is exactly what happened in the case of the Marks Gate Estate, which I have already mentioned.
Finally, permission was given by the Essex County Council planning authority for this land to be used for housing. When this matter was taken to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, he refused to allow the compulsory purchase order to go through on the grounds that he had issued Circular 21/52 of 12th February, 1952, asking local authorities to avoid taking over land belonging to builders who were prepared to build. I should like to make the point that this land did not belong to the builders either at the time the whole matter was under discussion with the Essex County Council planning authority or when the compulsory purchase order was being prepared.
It so happened that this land belonged to a Colonel Thomas England, who owned a great deal of land to the East of London in Romford and Dagenham and other parts, and who has done very well between the wars and since the last war out of its development. He owned the land in 1948 When the borough council obtained a compulsory purchase order, and was still owning the land when the matter was being argued out last autumn with the Essex County Council. Parrish's had an option on the land which had not then been exercised. Only when it was found that the Dagenham Borough Council really intended to put through a compulsory purchase order was the purchase completed and the land taken over by the builders.
There is a feeling in Dagenham that there has been a "fiddle" in this matter. It is felt that these builders were allowed to get possession of the land so that they came within the terms of the Ministry order to enable such a decision to be made. It is very unsatisfactory that the Minister should have given his sanction in this way. What is to happen to the houses which are being built by the private builders? Of the 206 which it is proposed to build for sale, 113 of the plots have already been sold to people living outside the Dagenham Borough Council area, and 93 to people living inside. Of the 93, 59 only are on the Dagenham Borough Council housing list, and only two out of the whole 206 are in the first 200 names on that list.
In other words, 204 families whose need is not particularly great are being given the chance to purchase houses in preference to 204 families many of whom have been on the local housing list since 1947. That is what the Ministry decision has meant to this town, and there is a good deal of feeling on this matter. Only 33 of the families have any real housing need, and they are not in the category of being considered either because their need is not as great as that of families on the list, or because their applications are only recent ones.
This decision of the Minister is surprising and has created much resentment because it means that a section of the people whose housing need is greatest are being cheated of their chance to have a house so that others, whose only real qualification is that they have the money to buy the plots, can take the houses. Money rather than need is the criterion in an area where there is a large housing shortage.
There is a further grievance. Under the 1946 Act which governs the conditions for the compulsory purchase of land any objector, however tuppeny-ha' penny his objection may be, can demand from the Minister that there shall be a public inquiry against a compulsory purchase order, and it is granted. Yet if a local authority wants to take over land by this process the Minister need not hold a public inquiry. Indeed, in this case he has refused to hold one despite the fact that the local authority asked for one to be held and that I myself put up various facts to the right hon. Gentleman.
It means that because there is not a public inquiry it is not possible to bring out the full facts of a case so that public opinion can be formed about the matter. I submit, therefore, that there is a strong case for altering the law on this matter, so that if a local authority which is considering the need of over 200 families wants a public inquiry, the Minister cannot refuse to have one.
To sum up, we feel that this is not merely a matter of local importance. If in an overcrowded area round London this kind of thing could happen, the same thing could happen in a great many areas round industrial cities. If the Minister is to adopt a similar policy when local authorities come forward to ask for a compulsory purchase order to buy land to meet their housing needs, the Minister will be found to be turning down all sorts of working-class families who are worse off and whose needs are greater in favour of the rather better off sections of the population who have the money to buy plots of land.
Many of us feel that this is a real example of class war being waged by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government against people whose needs are the greater. We feel that it is an example of playing party politics and of bringing in the doctrinaire idea that private enterprise should be encouraged at all costs, as opposed to the public need, even if it means suffering and great hardship for some sections of the population. We believe, therefore, that this matter has a much more than local interest and should be ventilated in this House and that the Minister should pay attention to it. There is a great deal of feeling about it. If this policy is pursued in other areas that feeling will grow throughout the country and become very intense.
10.27 p.m.
:The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) had a difficult three or four minutes at the start of his speech owing to the noise in the Chamber, and I congratulate him on the brave effort he made at that time. But the moment the noise subsided the hon. Member said a number of harsh things. He used the words "fiddle" and "cheating" and said that party politics were coming into this matter and that this was a doctrinaire move on the part of my right hon. Friend. It is obvious, therefore, that he feels very bitterly on this issue.
I have been Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for two-and-a-half years. I have gone through this correspondence very closely and have studied this case from beginning to end. I have never felt as strongly about a case as I have done about this one. I shall seek to prove as dispassionately and calmly as I can, and without venom, what I feel about the facts.
Let us examine the facts. On 27th November last Dagenham Borough Council made a compulsory purchase order. On 5th December my right hon. Friend received it. There were 139 objections, 65 of which came from residents who were constituents of the hon. Member. On 14th January, 1954, my right hon. Friend rejected the order. The hon. Member raised two points, the first legal and the second a matter of equity. On the legal point, he said it was wrong that my right hon. Friend should refuse to confirm a compulsory purchase order without a public inquiry, but the law as it stands so empowers my right hon. Friend.
In a debate in another place on 17th February it was made quite clear that there is nothing sinister in a Minister rejecting an order without an inquiry. It was stated in that debate that, House of Lords, 17th February, 1954; Vol. 105, c. 1004.] For example, there could be a case where there is no objection to acquisition in principle, but there is a dispute about the price to be paid. That is a matter for the land tribunal and not the Minister.
The Minister may, if objection is not made, and he thinks fit, confirm an order with or without modification, but in every other case, before confirming an order, he shall cause a public inquiry to be held. He is not required to hold an inquiry when he is not going to confirm the order, and he may reject an order, whether objected to or not, without holding an inquiry if, on policy grounds, he thinks it is the right thing so to do. In the present case he thought it was the right thing so to do, and I shall try tonight to prove that in equity my right hon. Friend made a decision which was perfectly right.
Let us look at what has happened from the beginning of this case. I am going to try to survey events in chronological order from November, 1952, to the present day, and I shall rest solely on the correspondence which has passed between the interested parties. The interested parties are the Dagenham Borough Council on the one hand, and Parrish, builders, on the other hand. For the convenience of the House, if I can call one Dagenham or the local authority, and the other party Parrish, it will simplify my task. I shall not rely upon verbal interviews or rhetoric, but purely on the correspondence which has passed, and the House and the public can judge who has been fair in this case.
First of all, the landowner negotiated with the Dagenham Council and, in effect, did a deal with them. It was, like all things in British arrangements, a compromise, and the compromise was that the owner would not press his case on a particular piece of land and the Dagenham local authority would give him permission to develop another piece of land. It was an honourable deal between gentlemen. That is what I shall seek to prove, and I shall seek to prove it, in what the hon. Gentleman called an interesting history, purely by correspondence.
On 24th November, 1952, the landowner's agent sent this letter to the Town Clerk of Dagenham:
The next letter is dated 1st January, 1953, from the Town Clerk of Dagenham to the agent who is representing the private enterprise builder, and this is what they say in answer to that proposition:
On 23rd January, 1953, Dagenham wrote to Parrish on the lines that I have indicated, and they acknowledged Parrish's application to develop that particular land under the Town and Country Planning Act. They said, "It is all right. You must get your planning consent, and we shall do what we can to support you." There was what might be called a quid pro quo. Dagenham Council agreed to let that plot of land be developed which is the subject of this Adjournment debate if the landowner allowed Dagenham Borough Council to take 93 acres above it. That was the deal. In principle, the council did not have a leg to stand on. I have never felt so strongly about an issue since I came into my present office.
That is the principle, what about the details? On 17th July correspondence started which supported the principle I have enunciated. A letter from the council to the private builders said: and committing itself in writing. It sent a letter on 17th November, 1953—remember this started a year before—saying:
This private enterprise firm had written to 523 applicants on 18th November. It was only the day before that the letter came from the local authority saying that they wanted the land. I think that the local authority have been cynical and have disregarded the rights of individuals. I am quite certain that the hon. Member for Dagenham, who is a Fabian and has a great intellect, would never have supported his local authority in this matter if he had read the correspondence which I am quite prepared to send to him.
What about the objections of people who have objected to the Minister? I have here an enormous batch of letters from constituents of the hon. Member, which may not matter much to him, because he has the third largest majority in the country. But some of these people who have written have lived in Dagenham for 28 years with no hope of getting a house. I will quote from one letter:
:There may be someone with a much better claim.
:That may be so, but local authority has done a deal of this nature and now wishes to try to reverse it. A deal is a deal and a local authority, more than anyone else, must be circumspect in its dealings, for a public body has a tyrannical power with which, if it wishes, it may crush an individual.
Normally, I am a mild sort of person and do not make a habit of speaking as strongly as I have spoken tonight. But of all the cases I have had to deal with in the Ministry this is the most cynical—I had better not use the word "callous," because that might make for harsh feelings. I will send the hon. Member extracts from the correspondence and if he wishes to raise the matter again I will challenge him to do so after he has read those extracts. There is much that I would like to say on this matter but I have only half-a-minute left in which to speak. I hope, however, that I shall never meet a similar case. I would say to the members of the Dagenham Borough Council that if they search their hearts they will find that they have the weakest case that they could possibly have.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.