HL Deb 25 June 1952 vol 177 cc426-42

4.42 p.m.

LORD MORRISON rose to call attention to the need for an early solution of the problem of the presentation of sporting events of national importance in television; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the interesting and enjoyable debate concerning the method of transacting our business, I venture to direct the attention of your Lordships' House to quite another subject. As your Lordships know, there have recently been a series of debates in both Houses of Parliament on broadcasting, television, sponsored programmes and so on. Your Lordships may be wondering, therefore, why I have the temerity to start yet another debate. The answer is simple. My Motion deals with a phase of the problem of interest to millions of people, and upon which, up to now, no clear statement of Government policy has been made.

I have read all the debates in both Houses, including last Monday's in another place, and the present position, as I see it, would seem to be something like this. The Government are committed to a policy of sponsored television programmes. The Opposition, including, I think, the Liberals, are strongly against it. The Government say that it will be some time—and there has been some discussion about the meaning of "some time"; I think it is generally understood that it means several years—before this policy can be applied. The Opposition say that the Government may not remain in office long enough to apply it. Future policy, therefore, would seem to be somewhat obscure, or, as the B.B.C. weather announcer might possibly say, "stormy, unsettled; visibility poor." Unfortunate as this political deadlock is, I do not wish my Motion, which is of a much more limited character and more urgent, to become involved in the same sort of deadlock as the other one appears to be, and I see a danger of this happening. If it does, our great national sporting events will continue indefinitely to be seen by thousands when they might be seen and enjoyed by millions.

For nearly eight years the interests involved have been seeking a solution of this problem—seeking, but not finding. So far as the man in the street is concerned—or perhaps I should say, the family in the home can see—no progress has been made. Before I go any further, I wish to say that I am not speaking in this short debate on behalf of any interest, sport, television or advertising. I did not take part in the recent two-day debate in your Lordships' House, although my Motion was on the Order Paper before that debate took place. I purposely refrained, because I hoped for a Government statement which would have made my Motion unnecessary. As it turned out, I was too optimistic—not unusual for me. There was no statement upon the future of our national sporting events on television—perhaps I am wrong; there was a statement, if it can be called a statement, by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. He was replying to my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt, and he made such an unusual contribution to our debate that I think I had better read it to your Lordships, so that you may be able to follow my subsequent remarks. Reverting to broadcasting language again, I will read it at dictation speed. The noble Earl said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 176, col. 1343): One last point which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, raised related to the question of sporting events. I agree with him about the importance of this matter. If I were not in office, I could hardly think of a word he has said which I should not wish to say. But would your Lordships be good enough to allow me to leave it at that? The subject is an extremely difficult one. It is tied up with the law of copyright and with some intensely difficult principles. It is clear that the really satisfactory solution would be that the parties most closely concerned should get together. I do not think it is desirable at the moment to attempt to answer the noble and learned Earl at greater length. I do not think it is desirable that a settlement in this matter should have to be imposed by the Government. Therefore, if your Lordships would be good enough to take that from me as being as much as I wish to say at the moment on the subject, I should be grateful. I do not disagree with the noble Earl and that statement. I admit at once that the subject is very difficult. I admit also that it is tied up with the law of copyright. But, having said that, I feel inclined, when the noble Earl asks:

"Would your Lordships be good enough to allow me to leave it at that?," to reply with one of those Americanisms to which we are all becoming accustomed: "Well, isn't that just too bad?"

I should like to ask the noble Earl not to be so secretive about this matter; to take us a little more into his confidence and to tell us more about it. He said that he did not think it desirable at the moment to enter into greater details. I think the public want to know. This matter has been under consideration by Government Committees for years, and it is because of the complete failure to reach a decision that I am raising it now. Millions are keenly interested to know why they cannot see national sporting events on television. In particular, we are all looking forward to Coronation year, when many special sporting events are certain to take place. Are they to be seen only by thousands, when they could be seen and enjoyed by millions, in their homes and other places? So I ask the noble Lord not to be so "hush-hush" about this matter.

In the statement which I have read he used the words: … the really satisfactory solution would be that the parties most closely concerned should get together. To what parties was he referring? And why are they not getting together? I believe that he had chiefly in mind—the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—three separate organisations: the sports organisations, the cinema interests and the B.B.C. May I call the noble Earl's attention to a brief summary of what has happened?—much of it, I hasten to say, before he took office, and he will understand I am not trying to put any blame on him. He said the subject was tied up with the law of copyright. Let us examine that point for a moment. Curiously enough, we shall find, on examining the problem, that members of your Lordships' House are heavily involved. It will soon be eight years since the Hankey Report was published, in December, 1944. That Report, in paragraph 38, called attention to the public showing by third parties of sporting and other public events which introduced special difficulties which were already being experienced before television had closed down at the outbreak of the war.

Arising from Lord Hankey's Report, the Television Advisory Committee was set up, presided over by one who was at that time a Member of another place but who is now a member of your Lordships' House, Lord Trefgarne. Conferences were held with interested parties; but nothing appears to have transpired arid, so far as I can gather, when Lord Trefgarne resigned from the Chairmanship of that Committee, the matter was next referred to the Director-General of the B.B.C. More conferences took place, but apparently he had no power to do anything. With the rapid development of television, the subject became more acute; and the noble Earl's predecessor ordered yet another conference of interested parties and the B.B.C. Then another committee came into being—the Sports and Television Advisory Committee. The Chairman of that Committee was, again, a member of your Lordships' House, Earl Beatty. Again, so far as I can see, nothing definite has resulted. So we come to January, 1951, when the Beveridge Report was published.

In the same year yet another Committee was formed and, again, the chairman was a member of this House, the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. The terms of reference of this Committee were: To consider what changes may be desirable in the law of copyright. Evidence was given, and I think that the Committee has reported. I know that the chairman has resigned on taking up his present appointment as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. But no Report has yet been published, and perhaps the noble Earl may be able to tell us during his reply when we may expect to see that Report.

hope I am not wearying your Lordships, but my summary will not be complete without mention of another committee—the Association for the Protection of Copyright in Sport. It consists of the representatives of ninety-four sports organisations, both professional and amateur. It was formed at a meeting of sports bodies which was called by the Racecourse Association. Apparently the Epsom Grandstand Association had pointed out to the Racecourse Association that serious questions had arisen in connection with the televising of the Derby in 1938 and again in 1939 which were of such a nature that it was imperative that they should be dealt with satisfactorily from the point of view of the promoter of any sporting or spectacular event. That committee has now been in existence for seven years. It has given evidence before four Government committees. But, after all this, the public are still in the dark. Apparently, so far as one can judge, a solution is no nearer.

The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, briefly referred to this issue in the two days' debate that we had in this House recently, to which I have already referred. I have already read to your Lordships the Postmaster General's reply. He said: I do not think it is desirable at the moment to attempt to answer the noble and learned Earl at greater length. There can be no doubt that the ninety-four sports organisations are anxious to get the question of copyright settled. They have good reason: at present they have no copyright in the spectacles they promote. I am no lawyer, but I think I am right in saying that it is possible from the top of a ladder in an adjoining garden, or from the window of a house, to take a film of a big sporting event, reproduce it, publish it, or sell it to those who want to reproduce it at home or abroad, without even saying, "By your leave." I have reason also to believe that the B.B.C. fully appreciate this point and have, throughout the long discussions, been most co-operative. The attitude of a third party which represents certain film interests, frankly, I do not know. It would appear, therefore, that although it is nearly eight years ago since Lord Hankey's Committee called attention to these difficulties, there is still a deadlock.

Now may I go back to the noble Earl's statement? He said that it was not desirable to say any more at that moment. I should like to ask whether he used those words because he is hopeful. I ask him plainly now, is he hopeful? Do those words mean that the noble Earl is bringing a fresh mind to this longstanding problem and that at last he begins to see some signs of a solution? If he can assist in finding a solution, he will be the most popular Postmaster General since Rowland Hill. If he is not hopeful, I beg him not to treat this subject as one that needs great secrecy. The public are tremendously interested in this, and public opinion might be very helpful to him.

His Parliamentary Secretary in another place, on May 7, said: In the six months ended 31st March, 1952, the number of television licences increased by approximately 500,000. On the same day the Parliamentary Secretary was asked by a Conservative Member of Parliament: whether he was prepared to initiate action in view of the difficulties about copyright in sport in television, which has been a contributory factor over many years in preventing some of the outstanding sporting events being seen by viewers, and which is likely again to prevent the Derby being televised this year? His reply was: My noble friend feels that it would be inappropriate for him to intervene in this matter while the question of copyright is being examined by the Copyright Committee appointed by the Board of Trade. I hope that the Postmaster-General is not going to give me the same answer to-day because, in plain, non-Parliamentary language, it means: "I don't know the answer, so I 'pass the buck' to the Board of Trade."

I should like to ask the noble Earl three questions of which I have given him notice. The first is: Does he accept the principle that all those great sporting events for which our country is justly renowned should be made available, through the television screen, in the homes of the people? The second question is: Will he tell the public what is the present position of the negotiations between the interested parties? He said, as I have already quoted, that: the really satisfactory solution would be that the parties most closely concerned should get together. I agree but, as I have pointed out, after seven and a half years' trial of this method of sitting round the table, with no apparent signs of a solution, surely it is time that the Government, who represent the public interest, took a more active part. My third question, therefore, is: In view of the importance of Coronation Year, will the Government give urgent attention to resolving this apparent deadlock, and thus enable the public at an early date to see events which to them are of immense interest?

If the noble Earl will permit me to add a postscript to these questions, for which I apologise for not having given him notice, I will put it in the form of a suggestion to which I should be glad if he would give his immediate attention. I am sure that he is as anxious as I am to meet the case I have put. He may tell me that the Copyright Committee Report (not yet published) will need legislation, and he may tell me—I know it is quite correct—that it will be difficult to get it on the Statute Book before the Coronation. If that is his reply, or part of it, I would ask him whether, in the special circumstances which will obtain in this country, he could not get the interested parties together once more—I understand it is many months since they last met—and preside over them himself, and, if there is no possibility of a permanent solution, ask them at least to arrange to allow the great national sporting events of the Coronation Year to be televised to the public. On Monday his Parliamentary Secretary said in another place: I regret we are not to have television in colour before the Coronation next year. That cannot be helped, but I think that at a time when everybody is desirous of making Coronation Year an outstanding year in British history it surely should be possible, by a little good will, to enable millions of people all over the country, and, indeed, by telefilms all over the world, to see the Cup Final at Wembley, the Derby (which will be held next year only a few days after Her Majesty's Coronation) and other sporting events of national and international interest to many millions of people. I beg to move for Papers.

5.5 p.m.

LORD BRABAZON OF TARA

My Lords, unlike my noble friend Lord Morrison, who has just made a very interesting speech, I should like to disclose right at the beginning that I am an interested party in several ways. First of all, I am interested in a company which promotes entertainment, such as boxing, ice hockey, horse shows, athletics and all that sort of thing. I hope that it is not discreditable to do a thing like that. It is, after all, what Shakespeare did, and certainly his entertainment was for the many after his death. He amassed a considerable fortune from it—a dreadful thing to do. I could not go as far as that, in view of Entertainment Tax—because these things are very hazardous; but other people have done it and have been honoured. I am also connected with the great Electric and Musical Industries Company who did more than anybody else to bring about television.

I notice that in another place the industry has been referred to as "vultures ready to eat the carcase of the B.B.C." I think I ought to remind your Lordships that it was the trade that created the B.B.C. They made the first station; they created the first British Broadcasting Company (as it was before it became a Corporation); and, what is more, they appointed Mr. Reith at that particular time. There is nothing very wrong, therefore, about what the trade did in the early days. I am attempting to speak to-day, not from the point of view of those interests but from the point of view of the general man who looks at his television set. He repeatedly asks himself why he is not getting what he thinks he ought to get. Fourteen years ago, he got the finest representation of the Derby that ever was broadcast or could be broadcast. It was a magnificent technical feat—and yet here we are, fourteen years after that event, with no prospect at all of having another Derby televised. This is not a question of sponsored programmes against the B.B.C. It is a question of getting some hard business facts arranged between promoters of sports and televisers of sports, be it a sponsored organisation or be it the B.B.C.

At present, there is an absolute impasse and, unless something is done, the general character of entertainment on the television screen is bound to degenerate, and to degenerate very badly. For a healthy television service we must get as many people as possible to pay their contributions towards the Government for such a service. If they do not get a good programme, receipts are bound to go down. The situation now is that we are waiting for what the Lord Reading Committee recommended. We do not know what it was; it is a long time since the Committee were appointed, and they seem to have disappeared, because the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, is now a Minister. Nothing is being done. We know quite well that one day legislation will be required, but we should like to know what was recommended, because only if we know what was recommended is there a hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, suggested, that the interests can get together. But nobody knows what was recommended. Can my noble friend Lord De La Warr to-day tell us the state of affairs with regard to that Committee, along what lines they are thinking, and whether there is any chance of legislation? Together with many millions in this country, I should like to see the television service more enterprising, showing the great sporting events which are not shown to-day. The viewers do not understand why they do not get these programmes. When we come to the reason, it is really lethargy on the part of the Government, and nothing else.

5.10 p.m.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, I want to put the case of a sport in which I am peculiarly interested, though not financially in any shape or form. In the sport to which I refer public interest is enormous and attendances have been huge. We have reason to believe that the interest of the public runs into millions for this particular sport, and on many occasions attendances at the big events have reached well into six figures. Hundreds of events in this sport are taking place up and down the country throughout the year, perhaps not every day but certainly at week-ends. Another peculiar feature of the sport is that there is nothing to attract people beyond the actual spectacle. Betting practically does not exist at all. Huge sums have been paid to the Exchequer in the form of entertainment tax. The profits from this sport are minute by comparison. This sport is very largely dependent upon the weather. At any moment the weather can upset it, and can easily turn into a loss any small profit which might exist. This particular sport has been able to make its contribution, both direct and indirect, to our export trade, and through that to the trade with which it is associated. The competitors in this sport have huge outgoings and only the most successful can hope to break even.

The reason why I am reciting all these facts to your Lordships is because I want the noble Earl who is to reply on behalf of the Government, and in fact everybody else, to realise that in a sport so precariously balanced as this one anything which adversely affects the "gate" could "make hay" of the finances and bring the whole thing crashing to the ground. It would bring everything in the sport to an end; in fact, it could kill it. This is only one particular side of sport. There are several other sides to sport, as we all know, and no doubt there are many others which find themselves in precisely the same sort of position. I do not think anybody can wonder that this particular sport should line itself up with all the rest and ask for "reasonable safeguards," as referred to in the Government White Paper in at least two places. The Government there say that they realise that any broadcasts must be subject to adequate safeguards for the interests affected. In paragraph 30 of the White Paper on Broadcasting they say that sporting events which are of overwhelming public interest require arrangements which offer reasonable safeguards, and that the arrangements must be fair to all the interests concerned. Surely the only effective safeguard possible is copyright. We do not know whether we are waiting for Lord Reading or for whom we are waiting. Perhaps the noble Earl who is to reply on behalf of the Government can tell us. The information would be of tremendous help to everybody who is interested in any form of sport which exists in this country. I have not the least doubt that if copyright can be conceded a reasonable compromise can be reached between the sporting interests, the B.B.C. and, probably, the cinema world as well.

My Lords, I am in entire agreement with Lord Morrison in his desire to make all the big sporting events in the country available to the country. I notice also that Lord Brabazon is in agreement with that. Surely something should be possible after so many years of consideration. I hope that something can be done. Unless it is, the present impasse will continue and the public will not get the entertainment which they should get. In the sport in which I am particularly interested, I believe that it would be possible to arrive at an arrangement which would permit of many of the events being televised without impairing the profits of the sport. I think that can be done if the principle of copyright is conceded. Therefore, I should like to reinforce what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. Her Majesty's Government should give the most earnest consideration possible to this question, because I believe the country is getting more and more annoyed about it every day.

5.16 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I think your Lordships are indebted to my noble friend Lord Morrison for having raised this particular subject, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for reinforcing what he has said. They have brought to your Lordships' notice a subject of great public importance. But I must confess that I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, who has to reply, because quite frankly at the present time I do not think the matter has much to do with him at all. The point is, as my noble friend has said, that no amicable arrangement can be arrived at in this matter until some copyright is given to the promoters of these events.

My interest in the matter arises in this way. When I was spokesman in your Lordships' House for the Board of Trade I had the task of steering through the House the Patents Bill. It was a tortuous proceeding. The Patent Law had not been amended for years and years; it was quite out of date. I remember that at that time the Board of Trade thought that when they had got the Patent Law amended they would then start on the Copyright Law, which is even more out of date than the Patent Law. The attack that I would centre upon Her Majesty's Government is in regard to their dilitoriness (I do not think I exaggerate in using that expression) in issuing the Report of the Committee presided over by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. The Committee was set up over a year ago to go into the whole question of copyright, including its application to the televising and broadcasting of sporting events. I happen to know that all these organisations have given evidence, that this Committee have gone into the matter at particularly great length, and that their Report will deal with the subject exhaustively. But an inordinate amount of time is being taken to get this Report out. Whether or not that is because there were too many learned people on the Committee, I do not know. Some weeks ago in answer to a Question I asked in your Lordships' House, the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, speaking on behalf of the Board of Trade, made a very hazy reply as to when the Report would come out. May I press the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, on that point? Perhaps he can give us some more information. Until we have that Report and the considered opinion of this Committee upon copyright in relation to sporting events, we really cannot make much progress.

The matter is perhaps not so easy as it appears on the surface. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, made a point about the millions of people in this country who want these sporting events televised. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will doubtless agree, this raises a question of great national interest. Immediately you give these people a copyright, you give them protection, you give them a monopoly. That is a very serious thing. One of the reasons why many of these sporting events are not televised to-day—at least, this is what I, as an ordinary layman, understand—is that the sporting promoters want too much money for the right to televise them. On the other hand, if my information is correct, the B.B.C. pay only a token fee to televise others. In my view, some arrangement might well be made, similar to that made under the Patent Law, providing for arbitration as to the fee to be paid. Unless that is done, I do not think we are going to achieve that benefit for the public which I think my noble friend, Lord Morrison, desires, and which, I take it, other noble Lords also desire.

Under the Patent Law, any one can acquire a licence to manufacture a patented article, and if a patentee asks too high a price for the use of his patent the matter may go through a process by which it comes before the Controller of Patents and later, if necessary, before the judge appointed to deal with such matters—a rôle which was filled with such distinction some years ago by the noble and learned Lord who now sits on the Woolsack. Under this process the price can be settled by law. There is a patent known as a Patent of Right in connection with which a man gets hardly anything at all for the use of his patent. It may be that that is the kind of thing which will have to be applied when we have copyright of television. I think that that is a matter which had better be settled in the interests of what my noble friend is desirous of achieving.

If the noble Earl the Postmaster General will try to persuade his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade that a period of seven months after the hearing of evidence is not a short period of time in which to compile a Report and have it printed, he will be performing a valuable service. When the Report is available we shall be able to start—and I expect your Lordships will have to start—agitating for the Government to make some progress by seeing if a way can be found, through this Report, to achieve what my noble friend and other noble Lords want. That, in my view, is the crux of the whole matter. When we have this Report and know what we were talking about, not only can the proper interests of the sporting promoters be safeguarded but, what I think is even more important, the interests of the British public can also be safeguarded.

5.24 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords who have spoken in thanking Lord Morrison for raising this matter. I do not thank him personally, because he has raised a very difficult point for me to deal with. But I thank him from a national point of view, because he has raised an issue of the most tremendous importance. I think it is clear from what each speaker has said that your Lordships all realise the difficulties of the problem. The fact that, as Lord Morrison says, it has been worrying successive Governments and successive Postmasters General and other Ministers for the last eight years, and that countless Committees have been set up to deal with the matter, shows that. We all know that hundreds of Committees which are set up are, in fact, appointed—

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Go on, say it.

EARL DE LA WARR

—because difficult issues have been raised, and it is required to have the Committees to deal with them. The facts which I have mentioned show the extraordinary difficulty of the problem.

The reason for the difficulty, I think, must have impressed all of us who have tried to deal with the matter at all. It is that there is so much right on every side. I will come back in a moment to the question of copyright, but I may say this in passing. If that question could be settled in certain ways it might help to a solution of a certain section of the problem. But even that would not be a complete panacea for all the troubles with which we are faced. There has been a certain amount of talk—not in your Lordships' House to-day—about intransigence and obstructiveness on the part of certain promoters. I am glad that nothing has been said to that effect here, because I think that any of us who has looked at the subject realises that promoters have just as many difficulties to face as any one else. That, I think, has been made manifest by the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and Lord Brabazon of Tara; they have shown that the promoters want the problem settled.

The public are suffering at the present moment in that they are not able to see events which, rightly or wrongly, but very naturally, they have come to regard as national events, as events that virtually belong to all of us. On the other hand, the promoters are just held up. Sport is an essential background of our national life, and it is natural that feelings should be running very strongly on this particular matter. Many of the events in question are national events, but we have to face the fact that a great number of them are not national property, in the sense that they are promoted by people who have to risk capital and enterprise in order to promote them. Of course, from the point of view of those responsible for television this is a very grave problem. There is no question—at least not in my mind—that television is really at its best in showing sporting events and other spectacles, of many different types and character. Those who saw, by means of television, the funeral of His Late Majesty King George VI will, I think, have regarded it as an experience which they will not forget for many years.

I do not want to exaggerate our troubles. We must not assume in this discussion that no sporting events at all are being televised. Take, for example, some recent programmes. Some of the outstanding races at Ascot have been televised; and this week, we have had a Test Match televised, tennis at Wimbledon, a golf tournament and sporting events in which athletes of Olympic Games standard have been competing. If your Lordships should ask what I have been doing, if I have had time to follow all these things on television, I can only say that the truth is that I have not done so; but I noticed that these matters were mentioned in my brief. So, when all is said and done, and without trying to minimise the gravity of the problem or the importance of the events that the public are missing, let us face it that people, for an expenditure of £2 a year, are not really doing so badly as is sometimes suggested. To witness some of these events from a seat on the spot would probably cost two, three, four or five times what is represented by that sum of £2 a year.

My Lords, what really is the trouble? As I see it it is this. First, the promoters of these sporting events fear that attendances would be cut down if the public were able, by means of television, to see the events in the comfort of their home. There is also the fear on the part of the promoters that they will be exploited by other organisers of entertainment. This goes back to the Grand National and Hurst Park—although that was not a television question. There are the fears of smaller clubs, some of them amateur athletic clubs—the sort of institutions that are the backbone of our national sporting life, and it would be a tragedy if their interests were prejudiced—that their gates will be affected. I do not think one can say that their fears are entirely unfounded. Think of a not very pleasant day on which there is a Cup Final that you can watch in the greatest comfort by your fireside; and imagine dragging yourself out to stand, perhaps in the rain, watching a minor event. It is obvious which decision is likely to be taken.

What is the solution? All the noble Lords who have spoken have referred to the Committee on Copyright. Here I cannot take your Lordships a great deal further, and must leave it at the announcement that was given in another place the other day, in which I think there is a word of encouragement. I join myself with your Lordships in ignorance of the date of publication of the Committee's Report, because, as your Lordships know, Ministers are the last people properly to interfere with the Report of a Committee of this character. The words used by the Minister in another place about the Report were: I understand that progress is being made with drafting it, but I cannot yet forecast when it will be presented and published. The general experience is that when we come to the point of drafting a Report there is some ray of light appearing over the horizon. There is no question that a great portion of this problem can be helped by an alteration in the law of copyright. That part of the problem which is created by the exploitation of such events as the Grand National can be dealt with by an alteration in the law of copyright; but I do not see how the law of copyright is going to affect the problem of viewing in the home, and I do not see how it is going to help the smaller athletic clubs whom we are concerned to help. At the moment I cannot see the solution to that particular problem, which concerns my mind as much as any other.

I confess that I took a long time to get the position under the law of copyright into my own head, and I am not happy trying to embark on an explanation, but apparently there is no copyright protection against the broadcasting of events, because there is no record of these events. There is copyright for music, drama and literature, because somebody has set them down on paper or made a record. This explains the fiasco connected with the Grand National and the attempt to get round the copyright by first recording a report of the race and then, in a matter of seconds, putting that record over to the public. That was held to create a copyright.

Nobody is more conscious than I that I have taken your Lordships very little further from where we started, but perhaps I shall have performed some function in this debate if I can make your Lordships realise that, though I may not be able to say a great deal now until we know more about things to come, I give your Lordships my firm assurance that my colleagues and I are taking this matter very seriously. I mean to give it a great deal of my personal attention. Some alteration of the law may be necessary, but in the end a great deal depends on the force, energy, drive and good will put into this by the various parties together. In so far as I am able to contribute anything, I undertake that I shall do my utmost to that end. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, for having introduced this Motion, and I assure him that this debate he has raised has done a great deal to help to work us all up to the seriousness of the situation.

5.36 p.m.

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I do not propose to make another speech. I will confine what I have to say to one remark. I hope that the reply which the noble Earl has just given means that he will bear in mind my suggestion about exploring the possibility of persuading the parties concerned to make some special arrangements to help us in Coronation Year.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, by leave of the House, may I apologise to the noble Lord? I meant to give him that assurance: I made a particular note of that point.

LORD MORRISON

I thank the noble Earl. It seems to me that Coronation Year is such an important year in the life of the country that, if the noble Earl were able to get together the people concerned, they might be prepared to agree to some kind of interim arrangement to see us through that year; and I think that, once having started on that good path, with a little good will, it might be possible for us to get a permanent solution. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.