"I would like to refute completely certain statements attributed to me in your issue of January 22.

I gave this interview in the belief that there was considerable misunderstanding about the contribution to Children's Television which ITV has made since its inception and in particular the contribution of my own company Associated-Rediffusion.

Questioned about the overall attitude of ITV to Children's Programming I said I thought it was remarkable that from the very start of Independent Television Associated-Rediffusion had maintained a full children's programme service, although from the strictly business point of view this service was of little value. I also pointed out that we are the only company which consistently cater for very young children with a special quarter-hour programme of their own, in spite of the fact that these quarter-hours, due to the restrictions on permitted hours of transmission, could have been used far more lucratively in the evening. From this point of view. the money allocated to Children's Programmes was, in fact, an extravagance and the fact that the programmes existed was a source of confidence in the desire of the Independent Television Companies to provide this essential service.

I was questioned further whether there would be any advantage in an interchange between adult and children's programmes. I said that I felt that although such an interchange might work with certain subjects such as dramatised classics and certain feature subjects it would hardly be possible to institute a general two-way interchange. Children's scriptwriters work to a very rigid code and although many of the stories are first-class entertainment they nevertheless deal mainly in black and white conflicts and ignore the dubious greys so beloved of the adults writers. Conversely the adult programmes would rarely translate to Children's Television. In this respect I added that I thought in many ways the children's scriptwriters had the harder task as they had to maintain the interest and drama without resort to the natural drama provided by crime and adult behaviour.

From this point of view I added that it was much harder to find people willing to write for Children's Television. If they were already first-class writers, they would of course find it more profitable to write for the theatre or adult television, but there were, thank goodness, a few good writers who looked upon children's television as a special challenge and who were willing to work within the rigid limits imposed. In this fiction field Associated-Rediffusion has for some time transmitted a live serial play every week as well as half-hour plays and dramatised excerpts of books.

On the percentage of studio time taken up by Children's Television in Associated-Rediffusion I was sure that a recent estimate of approximately fifteen per cent would be near the mark. I was asked in this connection whether in fact the Children's Section received fifteen per cent of the total budget. Of course it doesn't. The cost of programmes depends on many things - time of day, type of programme, artists used, etc. Of course we would like more money for programmes - what Head of Department would say otherwise - but the economy of overall output has to be balanced to the best overall purpose. But a fat budget is no guarantee of quality and this commodity was the most jealously guarded thing in Children's Television. This quality is preserved by the constant hard work and vigilance of a dedicated staff. Work in the Children's Section is hard, but the people who do the work do it well for they are given the freedom to interpret their own ideas within the general framework.

Apart from the compensations of doing a worthwhile job for an appreciative audience, there are other compensations, especially for directors who have been concerned with feature programmes. The absence of all forms of politics in Children's Hour means a welcome escape from the speaker who says one thing and means another. Children are particularly quick to detect evasion and soon dismiss it as so much humbug.

In response to a question about the top line artists who appeared on such programmes as 'Lucky Dip' and 'Miniature Music Hall' I expressed my appreciation for the great interest shown by many artists in Children's programmes. It was a tribute to their awareness of the importance of such programmes that quite often simultaneously with engagements in top variety shows they agreed to appear on such relatively unimportant shows. Several such artists have, in fact, said they feel they are appreciated more by the audience we command and this would certainly seem to be so from the average age of young people who buy 'pop' records.

Asked again whether Children's programmes would benefit from more money I replied again that any increases in budget would be welcome but money is not necessarily the sole answer to children's programmes. Quality and understanding of children's needs must come first. Even more important than money was time. Given more overall transmission hours, Independent Television would cater more generously for all minorities including children.

But if budgets were increased I would certainly hope to extend the international range of the programmes instead of relying so much on the more economical home market. I said I believed that one of the most important things television could do was to reduce the barriers of ignorance between peoples, and the best place to start that was on Children's Television

Yours faithfully,

John Rhodes.

Head of Children's Programmes.