Lords Sitting of 22 March 1955

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  CORN EXCHANGE BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  NEW TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS
  2.36 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in connecting new telephones, and what indication can be given of future prospects.]
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, in 1951 there were nearly half a million people waiting for telephones and new connections were being supplied at the rate of 355,000 per annum. By 1954 this rate had been stepped up to 410,000. Meanwhile, there has been a great increase in the demand for telephones, the number of new applications received in 1953 and 1954 being respectively 15 per cent. and 30 per cent. greater than in 1952. Despite this, we managed to reduce the waiting list to 360,000 by December 31, 1954, but
  2
  demand continues to increase and in January was the highest ever recorded.
  Our capital investment was £50 million in 1951–52 and £70 million in 1954–55. The Post Office Estimate for 1955–56 includes provision for £81 million which should enable us to supply at least 455,000 new connections in the coming year. This is an increase of 28 per cent. over the rate in 1951, and nearly double the pre-war record of 240,000. We hope to increase this figure still further in following years. The arrears of work to be overtaken are very great, and there are some black spots where relief cannot be given quickly, however great our resources may be, because new buildings and telephone exchanges are needed. These take time to provide but I can assure your Lordships that we are really on the offensive and are determined to do all we can to solve the problem as soon as possible.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and say how gratified your Lordships will be to hear this story of continued progress in the Post Office ever since the war.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, does not this show added proof of the success of public enterprise?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl can give the figure for the waiting list at the moment? He gave the figure for December, 1954.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, we have the exact figure only periodically, but I think it is round about the 350,000 mark now, or just a little under.

  I.T.A. BROADCASTING HOURS
  2.38 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the hours of broadcasting for the Independent Television Authority have yet been decided.]
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I have fully discussed this question of television broadcasting hours with the I.T.A. and the B.B.C., and I have agreed to the following arrangements, which will apply to both organisations. For the five days, Monday to Friday, there will be a maximum of 35 hours actual broadcasting, with a maximum of 8 hours on any one day. Subject to this overall limitation, broadcasting will not start before 9 a.m. or go on after 11 p.m. at the latest. There will be a closed period from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. and not more than 2 hours broadcasting before 1 p.m. On Saturday and Sunday there will be a maximum of 15 hours actual broadcasting for the two days, with a maximum of 8 hours on Saturday and 7¾ hours on Sunday.
  Broadcasting on Saturday will be permitted between the same hours as for Monday to Friday. Broadcasting on Sunday will be permitted between 2 p.m. and 11 p.m., with a closed period from 6.15 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. and a change of programme at 7.45 p.m. This closed period and change of programme at 7.45 p.m. have been arranged to meet the view of the Churches that television programmes should as far as possible avoid the time of Sunday evening services. To meet Church opinion, also, it has been agreed at the original suggestion of the programme companies that any programmes between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. on Sundays—the normal Sunday School period—shall be designed for adults.
  Religious services may be broadcast outside the permitted hours and in addition to the daily maximum; on individual occasions the daily maximum may be exceeded in order to broadcast outside events.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for that statement, which I think will be particularly valuable because there has
  4
  been a good deal of speculation in the Press. May I ask him whether these arrangements about times of broadcasting and hours of broadcasting have been agreed between the I.T.A. and the B.B.C.?
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, they have been agreed between myself and both parties. There have been informal discussions between the two parties themselves, but I was at the centre of the discussions.

  POLICE PENSIONS DRAFT REGULATIONS, 1955
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, there are two similar Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. With the permission of the House, perhaps I may speak briefly on them together. The principal purpose of both sets of regulations forming the subject of the Motions is to grant increases in pensions corresponding to those provided under the National Insurance Act, 1954, to the widows and children of certain police officers who are not eligible to receive them under the National Insurance scheme direct. The regulations are in no way controversial and the Police Council whom my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has consulted, as required by the Police Pensions Act, have expressed their agreement with them.
  I should perhaps mention that in the light of your Lordships' comments—and some really outspoken comments at that—when similar changes in the regulations were made on a previous occasion, my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have taken this opportunity of consolidating the regulations to the extent permitted by the Police Pensions Act, 1948. For the reasons which the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Simonds, explained, the Act does not permit of a complete consolidation. Advantage has been taken in the consolidation to tidy up the regulations, to remedy a number of deficiencies, and to omit some provisions. I commend these Regulations to your Lordships in the belief that they will assist a body of pensioners who

  5
  deserve well of the community. I beg to move the first of the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the Police Pensions Draft Regulations, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  POLICE PENSIONS (No. 2) DRAFT REGULATIONS, 1955
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the Police Pensions (No. 2) Draft Regulations, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  POLICE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) DRAFT REGULATIONS, 1955
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, these Regulations, and the further set relating to Scotland, which stand on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Home, make for Scotland exactly the same changes as the two sets of Regulations for England and Wales which your Lordships have just been good enough to approve. Previously existing differences between the Scottish and the English codes have, of course, been carried forward, but there is no new point of difference for me to bring to your Lordships' attention. I beg to move the first Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Home.
  Moved, That the Police Pensions (Scotland) Draft Regulations, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  POLICE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) DRAFT REGULATIONS, 1955
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Home, I beg to move this Motion.
  Moved, That the Police Pensions (Scotland) (No. 2) Draft Regulations, 1955,
  6
  reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  AIR FORCE BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  ARMY BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  REVISION OF THE ARMY AND AIR FORCE ACTS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL
  2.47 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the purpose of this small Bill, with which I need not delay the House for more than a few moments, is to change the method by which Exchequer grants may be paid towards the cost of expenditure incurred by local authorities in providing water supplies and sewerage in rural areas. These grants are paid under the provisions of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, which laid down that the grant must normally be paid by a lump sum. This present Bill gives discretionary powers to the Minister to pay either by a lump sum or by instalments; but for any future schemes payment will usually be made by a series of equal half-yearly instalments spread over a period of thirty years. In those cases where a grant has already been promised but has not yet been paid, or paid in full, the amount outstanding will normally be paid by instalments.
  The purpose and object of this change is to bring water supply and sewerage into line with other grant-aided services, the cost of which is usually met by half-yearly or yearly payments. The new method has the definite advantage of reducing the amount to be provided in the Budget year by year for the next few years. For instance, without this Bill a

  7
  sum of nearly £8 million would have to be provided in the next financial year, but when the Bill becomes law the sum to be provided in the next financial year will be in the neighbourhood of 1½million.
  I should perhaps mention here that local authorities will not suffer in any way by reason of this change. Let me give the House a simple example. Let me assume that a grant paid in a lump sum would amount to a figure of £20,000; under present arrangements the local authority would borrow the total cost of the work, less the grant of £20,000. In future, after the passing of this Bill, the local authority will borrow the total cost of the work, but the instalments will represent the loan charges on the figure of £20,000 calculated on the rate of interest in force at the time of the promise for loans obtained from the Public Works Loan Board. I think I need say no more on the purpose of this small Bill. I commend the proposals to the House. I beg to move that it now be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation of this very simple Bill. Because some noble Lords who are much more knowledgeable on the subject than I am are prevented by illness from being here this afternoon, our examination of this Bill is probably not as searching as it might otherwise be, but I should like the noble Earl to explain something that was said in another place in the course of the debates on this Bill. It was said that although the passing of the Bill will mean a relief to the Exchequer in the coming financial year, over the period of thirty years or so the result will be adverse to the Exchequer—in other words, the taxpayer will have to pay a sum of about £19 million because of interest charges. I should be glad if the noble Earl could explain whether this is the case and whether, as compensation, we can look for a real improvement and acceleration in the provision of rural water supplies and sewerage. If he can convince us of that, we shall have nothing but praise for the Bill.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think I can quickly reply to the re-
  8
  marks which have been made by the noble Earl. As I pointed out in the course of my remarks in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, a tremendous advantage will be achieved by the Exchequer in the Budget for this year—namely, by cutting the expenditure from £8 million to £1½ million. It is perfectly true that in the long run, owing to the interest which is payable on the capital sums which are given by the Exchequer to local authorities, the ultimate effect will be to increase the cost by some £19 to £20 million in England and Wales and by £9 in Scotland, spread over a period of thirty years. But I think that the noble Earl will observe that it is infinitely preferable that the Exchequer should have a clear indication of what they are involved in year by year. As I have said, the change will bring these grants into line with Exchequer grants which are made in other services, and although in the long run it may well cost more, nevertheless I think it will be for the general benefit.
  LORD WISE: Before the noble Earl sits down, can he reply to the last question of my noble friend, whether this Bill will in any way expedite or improve rural water supplies and sewerage?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The purpose of the Bill is not to expedite or to improve the sewerage or water supplies of rural areas, but merely to put the accountancy on a different basis from what it has been hitherto. The principal Act of 1944 enabled the Treasury to make grants in England and Wales to the extent of £45 million, and in Scotland to the extent of £20 million, giving a total of £65 million. The amount which has been committed under the principal Act at the present moment is something approaching £50 million, and in the course of a very short time it will be necessary again to come to Parliament in order to enable additional sums of money to be given in grants to local authorities for the provision of these services in rural areas. I will not say that the Bill in itself will improve the existing system of provision of water and sewerage to local authorities, but I think it is perfectly clear that the 1944 Act has been of great advantage to local authorities.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM BILL
  2.55 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD GLYN: My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I recognise that although it is a small Bill, in which I ask your Lordships to agree to certain reforms, it deals with an important aspect of things in our country. Anybody of my age who is old enough to have been in both wars has a feeling of special regard concerning the Imperial War Museum, which has been established for a long time and which is unique in its presentation of the events of those two great wars. At the present moment it is situated on the other side of the river a short distance from this House; but because it is on the other side of the river far too few people are inclined to visit it. I think it is of great importance in these days that people should visit that exhibition and pay some tribute to those who died fighting in the two world wars, and also to recognise the devoted service of Mr. Bradley and his assistants who have kept the museum up to date. I think it is unique in all the countries which fought in the great wars as allies. This museum presents a more comprehensive view of what took place than any other exhibition of its kind.
  The purpose of this Bill is, first, to amend the provisions relating to the constitution of the Board of Trustees, and secondly, to extend the Trustees' powers of lending. It is rather extraordinary that a national museum of this kind should have continued with its present constitution in spite of all the many changes in the British Commonwealth. One of the purposes of the Bill is to bring that constitution up to date and to keep it up to date, because obviously it is a poor reflection on the estimation we have for the museum that for so long it should have been constituted in a way which is not representative of the British Commonwealth. Therefore, those provisions in the Bill are merely to bring it up to date and, by Orders in Council, to keep it up to date should there be any other changes in the organisation of the British Commonwealth.
  In regard to the second part of the Bill, which deals with loans of pictures and other exhibits, any noble Lord who goes to the museum and takes the trouble to
  10
  see the pictures will realise three things, the first being that some of the pictures are by artists of great fame and reputation; they are unique examples of their work. There were, I think, six artists of great fame and reputation who produced those works in the first war, at great personal risk to themselves. If one was oneself a participant in some theatre in those wars and goes and sees those pictures, it is astonishing how the atmosphere and the feeling are brought back. Therefore, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill now before your Lordships, I feel I am moving something more than an ordinary Bill, because we are row at the turn, and there is a change of attitude towards warfare.
  When first the Cabinet agreed that there should be an imperial War Museum, there were some, I know, who felt that such an exhibition was wrong: that it would encourage the militant spirit. That is far from being the case. I believe the Imperial War Museum shows people the follies of war; and in these days this is probably the last exhibition that will ever exist of what we choose to call conventional weapons and of the efforts made in their use. In the atomic age, if a war takes place, there will be no memorial of any weapon; there will be nothing left to exhibit. Therefore it seems to me that one can commend this Imperial War Museum as something which deserves the special attention of all your Lordships at the present time.
  There are also strong reasons to believe that when visitors from the countries of the Commonwealth who came to the aid of the Mother Country in the wars and united with us in achieving victory come here, it is highly important that they should be able to see exhibited at this museum in London representations of the great efforts that they made to bring about victory in the wars. It is therefore of particular importance that those clauses in respect of lending powers should be accepted by your Lordships' House, so as to spread those powers more widely and to permit the Committee of the Council to lend these pictures, under the strict control of the museum, so that they may be more clearly understood. There are actually more than 4,000 pictures there, a large proportion stacked in a corridor, well looked after but not visible.

  11
  It seems a waste of the talents of the artists who drew them and of the meaning they have to convey—the efforts that were made to win the wars. If those pictures could be more widely seen by people in the institutions and establishments to which it is proposed to lend them, I cannot conceive that anything but good would result. I hope that the Commonwealth High Commissioners, who have nominally been on the Committee and have done a great deal of work on the Council, will now appoint representatives who can attend more readily and perhaps be more in touch with the feeling of their different countries in the Commonwealth.
  There is one other matter which I dare to mention. If the country contributes, as it does, considerable sums towards art galleries and museums, it is necessary for Parliament occasionally to consider their constitution and to see whether they are carrying out the purposes for which they were formed. So far as the Imperial War Museum is concerned, from the very day it was opened, except for those periods during the war when the museum suffered forty-one incidents under enemy attack, the directorate has been astonishingly successful in keeping the museum up to date, changing the exhibits from week to week and month to month so that they are always topical. Visitors to the museum can see exhibits showing action not only by the British but, in many cases, by our enemies. I feel it is high time that Parliament took a hand to see that the organisation of museums is really up to date and that full recognition is given to the self-denying sacrifice of those responsible. It is sad that comparatively few people visit this Museum, for so much can be gained by doing so. I feel it is a great privilege to have been allowed to move the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House, because I believe that more publicity is necessary so that more people may see the work being done by the directorate of the museum. I am sure that great good would result, for visitors can not only enjoy an interesting time but also be well rewarded, on leaving, by the feeling that those who died in war, and made their sacrifice, are well remembered. There is no other organisation of which I know which so represents the weapons and means by which victory was achieved.
  12
  The time may now have come to look to other museums and galleries in the country. Such an effort to make them more representative and attractive to the public might be of great assistance to those in charge of their administration. At the moment, for understandable reasons of economy, the Treasury do not permit any expenditure on advertising, but it is to be hoped that the London Transport Executive and similar organisations may make more use of posters to draw public attention to this museum. Housed in the old Bethlem Hospital on the other side of the river, the museum is in a very suitable place, but its surroundings are depressing beyond words, and give one a feeling of desolation similar to that of the battlefield of Ypres. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I hope that the House will recognise that in this Imperial War Museum the country possesses an asset of very great value. Our thanks are due to all who have been responsible for its care and maintenance. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Glyn.)
  3.5 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, for sponsoring this Bill in your Lordships' House to-day. We on this side of the House bless the Bill in principle, although there are some criticisms and suggestions which I desire to offer. Perhaps like most noble Lords here to-day, I had never entered the Imperial War Museum until yesterday. I had often intended to do so but as the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, said, not only is it off the beaten track but it is off almost any track and not easy to find. As the subject was coming before the House I yesterday visited the museum with my wife. We were glad to find there the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who was being shown round by a posse of officials; but there was no-one else, except for a woman who had brought in a small boy for what can only have been domestic reasons, for one of his age could hardly have been interested in the pictures.
  When I visit a museum or exhibition I always ask first for a guide book, and I was particularly anxious to have one on this occasion, for it is not easy to find one's way among the many exhibits at

  13
  the museum. Incidentally, the building was once known as Bethlem Hospital, better know as "Bedlam." It would be interesting to know the exact reasons why the Government of the day, whichever it was, decided to house the Imperial War Museum in Bedlam. Unfortunately, I understood from the custodian that no guide book to the museum is printed. In a museum of this kind, displaying most interesting exhibits, though not in the best of order, there should be a guide book. That is the first criticism I would make.
  The museum is in Lambeth and is no doubt very conveniently situated for the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, should he wish to visit it; but it is not particularly convenient for other people. We on this side of the House would like to know the average attendance figures over the year and perhaps, when the noble Minister comes to reply, he will be able to inform us of those figures. He may also be able to explain why it was decided to place this museum in this position and not in the area which the noble Lord, Lord Haldane, called "the Kensington Charlottenberg," where many other museums are situated, an area visited by large numbers of schoolchildren and others in organised parties. On recent occasions when I have visited the Imperial Institute I have been pleased to note that, possibly as the result of the two debates in this House, the Imperial Institute was crowded, especially with children, although unfortunately the authorities have not yet taken my advice to open the main entrance to children and others who pass by.
  Opposite the Imperial War Museum is another interesting link with the past—the house where Admiral Bligh once lived. As your Lordships know, he was the only man to have the melancholy distinction of being twice turned off his ship owing to mutiny—once as Captain, in the South Seas, and once as Admiral at the Nore. Reverting to the Imperial War Museum itself, the exhibits, as Lord Glyn has told us, deal with the last two wars. They do not deal with more ancient ones, as do the exhibits in the old Banqueting Hall in Whitehall. Nor does this museum give any indication of future wars. The exhibits deal with what are called "conventional'' weapons, though I think that the term "conventional" is rather ridi-
  14
  culous, because I imagine that it is just as objectionable to be killed by a conventional weapon as by any other. Then, possibly because of lack of space, modern methods of museum display are not obvious at the Imperial War Museum. Moreover—though I think it is only fair to say that the building was badly damaged in the war by flying bombs and so on—not all the galleries are available for the exhibits. Still, if your Lordships go to the Imperial Institute, which is of great interest in these days, you will see there a great difference in the display of articles, and objects of interest as compared with the rather higgledy-piggledy methods—if one can call them methods—which are followed at the Imperial War Museum.
  Coming now to the Bill and the proposals in it, we find that the Board of Trustees is to be constituted as set out in the Schedule; and the first question which comes to my mind relates to the number of members to be appointed and by whom they are to be appointed. No fewer than nine members are to be appointed by the Treasury. The Admiralty and the Departments of the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air—which are, of course, particularly concerned with the Museum—have only one each, and great Dominions like Canada and Australia also have only one each. When we come to the Colonies, we find that, except for the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, they have none at all. Nor have the Ministry of Defence, who I should have thought might have been given one. So we would first ask why the nomination of nine members lies with the Treasury—which has no particular connection with war, except for having to find the means to pay for it—while the Service Departments have only one each, and the Ministry of Defence none. We should also like to ask why important Colonial Territories, such as the Gold Coast, Nigeria, Malaya and the West Indies, have no right of nomination, whereas the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland has the right to nominate one member. I have no objection to that, of course—in fact I am delighted that they should have a member; but I fail to see why those other territories to which I have referred have none, especially in view of the fact that the West African Frontier Force played a great part in the last war and that they, or their predecessors, also

  15
  played a considerable part in the war before that. I feel, therefore, that if there are to be nominations these places should have one each.
  Then I turn to the question of loans of exhibits, provided for in Clause 2. I assume there is no doubt that exhibits can be loaned to Colonial Territories, Protectorates and so on, if they are needed for their purposes. I should like to ask what is the purpose of Clause 2 (2). I take it as a sort of pious hint to the Board, because it does not seem to carry the Bill forward, in view of the very wide terms of Clause 2 (1). Perhaps we can have some indication upon that point.
  Then there is the question of Treasury sanction. Why should it be necessary for the Board to obtain the sanction of the Treasury before loans of exhibits are made to places abroad? I should not have thought that this was a matter in which the Treasury had any particular claim for their sanction to be a prerequisite for the loan of exhibits abroad. Here again I should have thought it was a matter for the Service Departments, the Ministry of Defence, and the Ministry of Works, rather than for the Treasury. I do not see why, before any exhibit is loaned, not only abroad but for public exhibition in the United Kingdom or else-where, or to any Government Department or other authority, Treasury consent should have to be obtained.
  If the Secretary of State for War wants to have an exhibit relating to the Army, in either the First or Second World War, he will have to go to the Treasury and get their consent. I should have thought that that was a most improper procedure. Certainly it is calculated still more to place the Treasury in the position which we know it has been getting into in recent years—that of being a sort of Pooh Bah, and having the final say in almost anything. When it comes to the case of whether exhibits should be loaned to anyone, one would think that that was a matter which the trustees could well decide for themselves, and that, if any other decision is called for, it should be that of some functionary other than the Treasury—some Department such as the Ministry of Works or something of that kind. Generally speaking, we on this side of the House have no objection to the main principle of the Bill. I have outlined a few
  16
  criticisms and suggestions which we desire to make. We shall be glad to have an answer upon them from the noble Earl who is to reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
  3.17 p.m.
  LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Bill, which I think is very much overdue. It is true that the present housing of the Imperial War Museum is very much out of the ordinary run. I have paid two or three visits to it, but I seem to remember that after the First World War, when it was housed in a corner of the Imperial Institute, though it was all too crowded, what there was to show undoubtedly did attract a large number of people. I cannot help thinking that if in the future it were possible for this museum to be properly housed in Museum Road, or some central area of London, it would attract a large number of people.
  I am particularly in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, in what he said about the collection of pictures. It is a very remarkable collection, and, as he said, it includes many works of notable artists who took part in both world wars. One cannot help feeling that their work is wasted if the pictures are merely stacked, though it may be that they are well looked after. It seems to me that it might be a good thing if retrospective exhibitions of these works of either world war were held from time to time—perhaps in a room at the Tate Gallery. I believe that it would arouse a great deal of interest, as we all know special exhibitions at the Tate have done in the past. That is just a suggestion which I throw out, so that these works may be more easily available for viewing by the public. I think such an exhibition would attract a good deal of interest, and perhaps the noble Earl will keep my suggestion in mind. On the whole, I feel that this is a very good Bill, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  3.20 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I wish to say that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, for presenting this Bill, and I should like to congratulate him upon his very moving and clear speech, with a great deal of which I agree. But I must say that I

  17
  am opposed in principle to this new practice of lending pictures from public collections on unrestricted loan to places where they will no longer be readily available. It would be much better, in my view, if museums and galleries built up proper reserve collections of pictures which they have not the space to show publicly. Also I think that greater effort might be made to increase exhibition space generally by a more enlightened policy on the part of the Government. However, I agree that the case of the Imperial War Museum is rather different. Many of these pictures are of little artistic merit; their interest lies mainly in the fact that they are records of one or other of two world wars. I agree that it is right that some of them should hang on the walls of military establishments, particularly those which are not only factual records but are also pleasing works of art. But I submit that there are certain pictures by some of our best artists which should always be kept together as they are important for both historical and stylistic reasons.
  When during the First World War it was decided to have a pictorial record made, the first artists to be given permits were mainly those of an academic kind. But it was soon found that these worthy painters were not capable of portraying the psychological horrors of modern warfare. Then it was that the Government were advised by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, the late Arnold Bennett, and one or two others, to commission some of the young avant-garde painters; painters who had been influenced by those great stylistic innovations on the Continent which had revolutionised painting during the early years of this century, just prior to 1914. The result is a most impressive series of canvases by artists like Nevinson, Wyndham Lewis, William Roberts and Paul Nash. These are works of art in their own right and some of the finest works ever to be produced by these artists. They are very important, too, for any study of Twentieth Century English painting. Above all, they are moving documents of what modern warfare meant to the ordinary soldier. In their way they are as poignant an epitaph of a lost generation as are the poems, to which they are related, of Wilfrid Owen, Siegfried Sassoon and Rupert Brooke. It is possible to read these and other Georgian poets in one
  18
  collection of volumes, thanks to the editorship of the late Sir Edward Marsh. I trust that these paintings will likewise be kept together in one collection.
  Another group of paintings, by artists like Orpen, Augustus John and Eric Kennington, portrayed the various personalities at the Paris Peace Conference, like Allenby, Lawrence of Arabia and the Emir Feisal. These are magnificent portraits: but they are not only that; they are also pictures of the greatest historical interest. A third group contains the paintings of the Second World War. In this case there was an enlightened policy from the beginning. The War Artists' Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Clark, at once commissioned some of our leading artists. The result is another fine group of paintings by people like Paul Nash, Graham Sutherland, John Piper, and others, containing unforgettable records of the heroism and anguish of the second conflict.
  Thus, I feel that this collection is not merely one of historical interest; it contains some of the finest examples of our best modern artists. Indeed, some of these artists are better represented at the Imperial War Museum than they are at the Tate Gallery. It would be unfortunate if any of these particular pictures were dispersed. So that a check can be kept on them, I venture to suggest that they should be included as a Schedule to this Bill as being exempt from its provisions, except, of course, as temporary loans to special exhibitions. I do not think that this should be difficult as they are not many in number. The noble Earl who is to reply for the Government may tell me that this is a matter for the Trustees. But may I remind him of what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, at the time of the National Gallery Bill. If I may quote from memory, he said: "I trust Trustees to do that for which they are appointed, but I trust Statutes even more."
  In conclusion, I should like to remind your Lordships that when the Imperial War Museum was established in 1920, the first Director was Sir Martin Conway, later Lord Conway of Alington, a distinguished art-historian. This shows, I think, the great importance which the Government of the day attached to the artistic side of the picture collection. I

  19
  feel somehow that this side does not receive sufficient importance to-day. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said, there is no catalogue of the pictures available. I have checked up on this and find that the last catalogue was produced in 1924. It has long been out of print, and, of course, it does not contain any pictures done in the Second World War. In my view there should be available for the public an inventory of the whole collection, so that interested persons can see what is there; also, there should be a select catalogue of the most important pictures of the two World Wars. This catalogue, I suggest, might contain an introduction on the rôle of the artist in war time, with a historical sketch of the part played by artists generally in the two wars. I submit that this would provide a worthy memorial of those who served, and also of those who, whilst serving, depicted the struggle.
  3.29 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I do not know whether I may be allowed to say a word about this Bill, speaking as a Trustee of the Imperial War Museum. Unfortunately, owing to a public engagement, I have only just been able to reach the House. I can assure the noble Lord who has just spoken that every word he has said will be carefully noted by the Trustees. The Board of Trustees are a body of real enthusiasts and they are just as proud of the collection as the noble Lord. It is difficult to provide at all times an adequate collection of all the exhibits in the museum, partly for reasons of finance. Of course, we are severely restricted by the Treasury in the amount we may spend—quite rightly, because we know it is necessary. But as a Board of Trustees we have never taken the attitude that we know the last word: we are always ready to try to improve not only the collection but the way in which it is displayed and deployed for the benefit of the public.
  This Bill will do a great deal to regularise the position with regard to the loan of pictures. I am glad of that, and I know that my colleagues on the Board are, too, because such a provision has been needed for a long time. It is not only a question of what pictures should be loaned, but on what conditions, and where they should be hung when they are loaned. It has been the policy of the
  20
  trustees to lend pictures to great public art galleries, and the like, and a certain number of pictures have also gone to messes of the Imperial Forces. The Government, too, have made demands on the Imperial War Museum for pictures for Government offices and so on. We take a great deal of trouble to ensure that the pictures we have are properly safeguarded and properly hung.
  The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi (unfortunately, it is the only one I have been able to hear) was concentrated on pictures; but the Imperial War Museum is concerned with an enormous number of exhibits of war material of all sorts, not only of the last war but of all wars ever since the First World War. The difficulty is to find space in the museum to hang the pictures. There are over 8,000 pictures for which we are custodians and trustees, and obviously no gallery in the country could hang 8,000 pictures, especially when it discharges the duty of displaying many other exhibits, such as those to which I have referred. We do try to space them out evenly, and we do try to vary the selection from time to time. I think that is the right policy—indeed, it is the only one that we can adopt. We feel that our collection of exhibits, and especially the examples of the works of Muirhead Bone and others, are national relics on the highest scale and should be safeguarded as such. I only hope that, as time goes on, the Government will make available to us as much money as possible. We must always have regard to how much money can be spent on this and that, and everybody understands the reasons for it; but if and when the day comes that it is possible for the Government to give approval to the new galleries for which we have asked, and for which plans are all ready, I hope that the Government will do what they can for the Imperial War Museum.
  The attendances at the museum are extremely good—of course, like the attendances at all museums they vary with the weather—and they tend to go up as the location of the museum becomes better known. It is rather off the beaten track of museums to go over to the South Bank and down Lambeth Road, but as we are getting better known an increasing number of people come to

  21
  the museum. I hope that noble Lords who have not been there will take an opportunity of visiting the museum, because it is really worth while to see the large number of people who go and spend hours studying exhibits of one sort and another. It is not a museum for the glorification of war; it is a museum for the glorification of a national effort unequalled in all our history, and it is as such that we as a Board look upon it. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that his remarks are most valuable and that we shall take careful note of them.
  3.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT FURNESS: My Lords, I rise to welcome the Bill, but I would ask your Lordships to direct your attention for a few moments to the provision in Clause 2 (4) (b). It seems to me a little unfair for the museum to be able after twenty-five years, whether the donor be alive or not, to abrogate any condition attached to the gift or the bequest. If they thought the condition was unreasonable, one assumes that they would not have accepted the gift in the first place. I rise really to ask the noble Earl who is to reply whether there is any precedent for this in any other museum Bill. I am more concerned with gifts than with bequests. For example, if I, at the age of twenty-six, should have something to offer the Imperial War Museum which they consider to be of national interest (unfortunately, I have not anything) and I attach a condition to the gift that it shall not go to my father's regiment—possibly because I had had a disagreement with the regiment about it—it seems to me somewhat unfair that twenty-five years from now, when I am fifty-one, the Imperial War Museum can cheerfully turn round and lend it under the provisions of the Bill. It seems to me that it is more in keeping for any condition which has been accepted by the museum to be observed, at least during the lifetime of the donor.
  3.38 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two on that last point. Noble Lords will perhaps remember that when Bismarck was considering where to deposit the last volume of his memoirs he hesitated between Pierpont Morgan and the Bank of England, and finally decided in favour of the Bank of England as being the more likely to
  22
  carry out his instructions and his wishes with exactitude. I am afraid that a clause of this kind will leave people in this world with one possible choice, and that will be Pierpont Morgan.
  3.39 p.m.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I am sure it is a wholly good thing that we should to-day have emphasised the quality of the museum to which this Bill refers. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, have spoken as they have of the quality and the workmanship to be found there. I was greatly fascinated when I went there, as I believe was the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—I saw him reading the account of the Armistice of 1918 with a fascination which I think he generally reserves for the evening newspapers. The museum has a characteristic interest of its own which rather distinguishes it from any other. I could not quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, when he used the word "higgledy-piggledy." I thought it was one of the best documented museums that I had seen for a long time, every exhibit having been carefully marked to indicate its history. I was most impressed with the detailed information given.
  LORD OGMORE: I should have liked a document which enabled me to see the general layout of the museum; and in view of the lack of space, I am afraid I must stick to "higgledy-piggledy." I do not think it is as well laid out as would be possible if the museum had all its galleries available.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is true, of course; but I thought the description of each item was extremely good. Several noble Lords have made suggestions about a catalogue. I am informed that the First World War catalogue was published in 1920 and is on sale to-day. A similar catalogue for the 1939–45 War is in typescript and will be published in due course. I hope that that meets the point the noble Lord has in mind.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I do not think there is a catalogue of the pictures. It was the pictures to which I was referring, and not a general catalogue of the whole museum.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am afraid I have nothing further to add on that

  23
  matter, but I understood the catalogue would cover all the objects in the museum. Several noble Lords have asked me about the site. This museum started in the Crystal Palace in 1920, and after one or two moves it settled at the site of Bedlam in the year 1936. I rather suspect there was no convenient place at that time in the more usual museum areas of this city. In spite of what the noble Lord says, the building is quite substantial. It is not small, and I think it would be difficult to find, in South Kensington or elsewhere, a suitable place to accommodate the many items which belong to the museum.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: Why is there this prejudice against going a short way across the river to the south side? Is there some psychological implication about it?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure the noble Lord will refer his question to the noble Lord sitting in front of him. I personally know of no prejudice against the south side, and I am only trying to answer questions which have been put to me. There is a perfectly good bus service, and there is no difficulty in getting to the present site. The noble Lord asked a number of questions—somewhat critically—about the Treasury appointments to the Board. The Treasury is the Department responsible to Parliament for all museums and galleries. That is the reason they have the power to make a number of appointments. They do not, of course, appoint Treasury officials; they appoint people of distinction to hold office, and they ask the other Departments to come in merely because of this special interest in the subject. I do not think it has been mentioned that the noble and gallant Viscount, Admiral of the Fleet Lord Cunningham of Hyndhope, is the present Chairman. I think we can rest assured, therefore, the well-being of the museum is in sure hands.
  I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for giving us the benefit of his first-hand knowledge on the particular points which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, raised and to which I shall refer in a moment. I would also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that the Secretary of State for the Colonies may make an appointment if
  24
  he wishes, and, I imagine, can make recommendations that may be necessary in regard to Colonial matters. I am not quite certain that there is any need for the Ministry of Defence to make an appointment. I have no doubt that if my right honourable friend the Minister has any recommendations, he can put forward suggestions to that effect. I would also point out what may have escaped the noble Lord's notice. Clause 1 (2) says:
  "Her Majesty may from time to time by Order in Council make further provision with respect to the membership …"
  That means that at any time it may seem reasonable, the Schedule can be altered as thought appropriate.
  LORD OGMORE: May I ask why they do not do it now? After all, why trouble Her Majesty at a later stage, when we are dealing with the Bill now? The noble Earl says that the Secretary of State for the Colonies can appoint, but so can the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. Yet Canada and Australia have the right to appoint also. I do not want to take the right away from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I only say that places like the Gold Coast and Nigeria, which have contributed large Colonial forces, should also be allowed to appoint.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The Committee already numbers twenty-five, and I think it is going a little far. I know the noble Lord has a prejudice against the Treasury in this respect, but it happens to be the Department responsible to Parliament for galleries and museums. I have no reason to suppose that the noble Lord will differ from the selection they will make in making appointments to this Committee.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Furness, asked about Clause 2 (4) (b). This is almost common form. A similar clause was included in the National Galleries Bill, 1883, and repeated last year in the Tate Gallery and National Gallery Bills. Actually, this paragraph will seldom apply to this museum, because nearly all the exhibits here are commissioned or purchased by the Government. There are very few donations, and few bequests. I think it is generally felt that museums should not be tied indefinitely by bequests of this character, and the only thing they take here is a statutory right to vary the terms of the bequest after a lapse of time

  25
  where they think it appropriate. We have on a number of occasions in the past discussed cases where charitable donations can be an unusual and difficult burden on the trustees whose duty it is to carry out the conditions attaching to those donations. I do not think this power has ever been objected to, and certainly I do not think any action would be taken without consulting the donor or the trustees of the donor.
  I commend this Bill strongly to your Lordships, because I think it will confer a real boon on many of our military establishments, messes and other buildings, which in many cases are not very well decorated at the present time. A few pictures will go from the museum, but it will not be a large number. I think there are nearly 8,000 pictures of one sort or another in this museum. About 1,500 will be required by the museum, and perhaps 1,000 or 1,500 will be available for loan. I made inquiries, and I was told that the 6,000-odd pictures in reserve were visited by about 200 people a year. This could well mean that on an average a picture is seen once in thirty years. I think some would be much better hanging on the walls of military establishments of one character or another. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My, Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask whether he can give us any recent figures of attendances?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes, I can. About 180,000 attended the museum last year.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  3.48 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is rather a formal Bill, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I move it in very few words. It is a periodic Bill to enable the National Debt Commissioners to replenish the till of the Public Works Loans Commissioners, from which they can in turn lend to local authorities and certain other bodies. The limits of
  26
  lending are £500 million of fresh loans, and any unlent balance from the last Act is automatically cancelled on the passage of this Bill. The last Act was passed on December 18, 1953, and advances from then up to March 19 last have been £454 million, leaving a balance of £46 million still unadvanced. In addition to prescribing lending limits, the Bill also limits the total commitments to lend, in that the sums lent plus the commitments must never exceed £1,000 million at any one time. On March 19, commitments were £490 million.
  The figure of £500 million for loans is the same as in the last six Acts, but the figure for commitments plus loans is reduced from £1,200 million last year to £1,000 million this year. This is as a result of the general examination and striking off of commitments never likely to mature. It is impossible to say precisely how long the figure of £500 million in this Bill will last. It depends on two unknown factors. First, it is not known what volume of work the local authorities will want to do. Most of the work covers Government grant and the final say is not with them. Secondly, the local authorities have access to private lenders and one does not know to what extent they will want to take advantage of those sources. The Bill is usually calculated to last a year or a bit over. The last one will have lasted fifteen months, but there is nothing to prevent the Government from coming forward with a fresh Bill if funds run out earlier. The Bill speaks for itself, but if there are any questions that noble Lords wish to ask, I will do my best to answer them. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
  3.51 p.m.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, this Bill is, in itself, as the noble Lord has just told us, a routine Bill. As such, I think it is very unlikely that anyone in this House, and certainly not the members sitting on these Benches, will wish to oppose its passage into law. In the other place, however, considerable debate arose on the Second Reading on a matter which, though not directly in the Bill, is germane to it and which, therefore, it was perfectly relevant to discuss on the Second Reading of the measure there. The matter arises on the decision

  27
  by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise the rate of interest on loans to local authorities more or less simultaneously with the introduction of this measure into Parliament. If that were purely a financial question it would hardly be necessary to trouble your Lordships with it, but it is not only of interest to financiers but in a way likely directly to concern the man in the street. Therefore I think it is of some importance to mention it in this debate, though I have no wish to weary your Lordships with a long discussion on this subject.
  Your Lordships are, of course, aware that the rate per cent. which is charged to local authorities for borrowing is a long-term or at least a medium-term rate. Therefore, it is not directly connected with the bank rate. Nevertheless, an alteration in the bank rate, as we have seen recently, does have effect on the price of securities, including gilt-edged securities: the higher the bank rate the more the price of gilt-edged securities tends to fall. Therefore, this rate, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently raised, owes its origin to the raising of the bank rate. It is not precisely connected, but indirectly connected. When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer some years ago raised the bank rate, he simultaneously raised the subsidy for house building, with the result that, though the local authorities had to pay more for the money they borrowed to build houses, owing to the fact of the increase in the subsidy at the same time the net cost to the local authorities, and therefore the rents which they charged, were not affected by the change. In the present instance the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided not to increase the subsidy correspondingly to the increase in the rate of interest. Therefore, unless the ratepayers are to bear a heavier burden, the tenants of houses built or started to be built from this day onwards will have to pay an increased rent which may run into shillings a week.
  I am not going to make a speech about the bank rate now; I have talked to this House about it before and I am certainly not going to do it again to-day. All I desire to point out to your Lordships is that there does arise the curious result that in future there will be two tenants, one in a house in one street and the other in a house in an adjoining street, and one tenant will be paying a rent greater
  28
  than that of his fellow by shillings a week, just because the plan for building his row of houses took place after a certain date in 1955; whereas his fellow tenant will be paying a lower rent because his set of houses was built before a certain date. I think that is rather curious. I conclude by saying that I have pointed out a number of disadvantages in attempting to govern the economic life of the country through the bank rate. This is one of the anomalies which arise out of the decision to take that course.
  3.55 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, we all know that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, is a little allergic to the bank rate. We have often argued with him across the floor of this House on the subject. This time he does not make any strong arguments one way or the other. I think we must agree to differ on that matter. At the moment, however, the present Government are running the economy, an economy where our bias is towards freedom. When our economy gets a little too much buoyancy, the medicine that we prescribe is to give a dose of sedative in the shape of the bank rate. I think it only fair to say that one does not give the patient a continued course of sedatives for longer than is necessary. I think the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, would agree that one withdraws the prescription from the patient at the earliest possible moment. I have little doubt that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will wish to do that to our economy.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly allow me to say that you do not get the rent down again? The poor unfortunate tenant will have to go on paying the higher rent for the rest of his life.
  LORD HAWKE: I was just coming to that matter and was about to point out that I think the noble Lord is under a slight misapprehension there, at any rate as regards the vast majority of cases. I have not seen it myself, but I was told that there was an article in the Economist not long ago headed "Mythical Local Authority That Built One House." I believe the noble Lord is referring to that. Undoubtedly, the mythical local authority that built one house would have to charge a higher rent for that house, ad infinitum; but in the vast majority of

  29
  cases these loans are averaged over the whole economy of the local authority. The bigger authorities have a consolidated fund, and every year they work out the interest rate for the total amount in that fund. They charge their services out accordingly. For instance, suppose there was a local authority with a £20 million consolidated fund, and suppose during a period of higher bank rate, when there was a rise from 3¾ per cent, to 4 per cent., they chose to borrow another £1 million: at that one-quarter of one per cent. higher rate, the rate over the whole of their fund would go up by approximately one-eightieth of one per cent., and the amount charged on and spread over the whole of their housing tenants, would actually come to something less than an extra penny a week. We have only to wait for the bank rate to go down again, for them to borrow an amount of about £1 million plus a fraction, and the average would come back to what it was last year. I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension in thinking that this particular rate will apply for ever to any specific works, at any rate in the vast majority of local authorities. Even if it did, it would amount to nothing like shillings per week. I do not think the noble Lord made any further points, and I have done my best to reply to those he has raised.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

  COPYRIGHT AND TELEVISION EXHIBITING RIGHT BILL [H.L.]
  4.1 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time. The provisions of this rather cumbrously named Bill fall into two classes, both roughly in the copyright field. I am afraid that here I must tell your Lordships that copyright is not the simplest branch of the law: connoisseurs of complexity generally put it as a little better than town and country planning and a little worse than rating and valuation. But I warn your Lordships that one of the best-known copyright cases of recent years, in which I had a small professional interest and which found its way to your Lordships' House, turned almost entirely on the point as to whether an
  30
  "i" was dotted or not. You will, therefore, realise that it is possible to become embroiled in a good deal of detail. That I will do my best to avoid, but, since the Bill has not yet been to another place, I feel in duty bound to try to explain it to your Lordships a little more fully than I might otherwise have done.
  This Bill has two main purposes. The first is to permit this country to participate more fully in existing and new international arrangements. The second, which is really hardly akin to it, is to provide a new right in the nature of a performing right in television programmes. I will turn straight away to the first clause. This involves an Amendment to the Copyright Act, 1911, which is still the reigning Act on this subject, and is designed to make possible our adherence to two international copyright conventions which we have just signed. The first of these two agreements provides for our accession to some revisions which were made at Brussels in 1948 to the Berne Copyright Convention of 1886—that is the great Convention which governs most international copyright affairs. The second agreement is to make possible the ratification of the Universal Copyright Convention of 1952, which was sponsored by U.N.E.S.C.O.
  I will say a word about the latest revision of the Berne Convention. The Berne Copyright Union, of which Her Majesty's Government have been a leading member since 1886, provided a high standard of rights in intellectual property. Most civilised nations belong to it. Since this is not a foreign affairs debate, I hope that I shall not be asked to define that term more closely. The member countries have agreed to protect, without formality, the unpublished literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works of the nationals of member countries, and all works of this kind first published in Convention countries, irrespective of the author's nationality. That means that a French book first published in France is given copyright protection here in England. It also means that a Russian book, in the Russian language, published first in France is given protection in France. It does not mean, however, that a French book first published in Russia is given similar protection, because Russia does not belong to the Union.
  EARL JOWITT: What about America?
  LORD MANCROFT: America is quite different. I will come to that point in a moment.
  I should now like to turn to the Copyright Committee which was appointed in 1951 and was presided over first by my noble friend Lord Reading, and then by Sir Henry Gregory. Before I deal in detail with their recommendations, I should like, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to offer our warm thanks for the work that that Committee did and for the extraordinarily able, and may I say readable, Report which they have produced. It was a matter of personal interest and pleasure to me because one of the leading members of that Committee, Mr. F. E. Skone James, was my master in the law. When I was a pupil of his, he attempted to knock some of the law of copyright into my head, with such limited success as I am afraid will soon be only too apparent. The terms of reference of that Committee included the paying of regard to the 1948 Brussels revision to which I have already referred. The United Kingdom has always acceded to each revised text of the Berne Copyright Union. The Committee say in their Report:
  "Our general attitude towards the Berne Union is that we are strongly of the opinion that Her Majesty's Government should accede to the latest text … We have indicated our appreciation of the high standards of the Union. We believe that it is in the interests alike of the general public and authors, composers and artists that the rights of the latter in the works of their brain should not merely enjoy protection in the country of origin, but also that wider protection to be gained only in association with other countries. The protection of intellectual property is not a matter which should be restricted to national boundaries."
  My Lords, those are sentiments with which Her Majesty's Government are wholly in accord.
  The texts of the revised Convention demand the granting of an unqualified period of protection for the life of the author, plus a period of fifty years. The Act of 1911 does that, but with two qualifications. The first qualification is this. During the last twenty-five years of the copyright life of a work, a work can be published, as of right, by anybody who pays a copyright owner the statutory royalty of 10 per cent. The second qualification is that the Judicial Committee
  32
  of the Privy Council have the power, after the death of the author of a work published or performed in public, to override refusal of the copyright owner to permit republication or further performance of the work. So far as I know, that power has never been invoked, but its retention would, of course, be contrary to the Brussels Convention to which I have referred. This Bill removes these two qualifications from our Act, so that for fifty years after the death of the author the copyright owner will now enjoy the sole right to copy, publish and convert and perform in public the published works in which he owns the copyright. The other amendments to the Act of 1911 which are made necessary by the Brussels agreement are quite minor in character, and I do not think I need bother your Lordships with them.
  My Lords, there is an important sidelight on this matter to which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, just drew attention, and that is the situation with regard to America. The United States does not belong, and never has belonged, to the Berne Convention, for domestic and other reasons with which I need not bother your Lordships. But this has been, as I think the House probably knows, a sore point. It has caused much unpleasantness in the circles in which it is concerned, and the effect is that the British copyright owner of an English language work cannot obtain full copyright protection in the United States of America unless his work is not only registered there but also manufactured there—that is, actually printed from type set up in the United States of America. Your Lordships may have noticed the publication recently in this country of a book by T. E. Lawrence called The Mint. It is the story of his life in the Royal Air Force. The book was only recently published here. It was published in America some years ago, and, in order to protect the copyright, it was published and put on the market at a price of 500,000 dollars a copy to stop anybody buying it. That shows the lengths to which we have gone. Having just browsed through the book in your Lordships' Library, I feel that, even having regard to the rather exceptional circumstances, the book was slightly overpriced.
  On the other hand, American copyright owners can obtain complete protection

  33
  here, and for longer than they can enjoy at home, simply by publishing the work in a Berne Convention country like Canada at the same time as they publish in America. Your Lordships will probably remember the trouble which Mr. D'Oyley Carte and Gilbert and Sullivan had over pirated versions of their H.M.S. Pinafore being performed in America at the same time as their own versions; and I have been told that the somewhat unflattering picture of America given by Charles Dickens in Martin Chuzzlewit was largely due to the trouble he had in America over the copyright of his works. It is fair to say that Americans have always had a slightly guilty conscience and have tried to put the matter right, but now the problem has been resolved in an unexpected way, by the U N.E.S.C.O. Convention. That Convention, convened in September, 1952, under the auspices of U.N.E.S.C.O., produced the Universal Copyright Convention, which has been signed by thirty-six States, including Great Britain and the United States of America. I gather that several other States have also now signed, and that more may do so.
  The provisions of this Convention differ from the Berne Convention to which I have been referring in two main ways. First, in order to allow as many countries as possible to become members, the minimum term of protection conferred is less than that provided in the Berne Convention. Secondly, published works qualify for protection according to the nationality of the author as well as the place of first publication. In that respect, the Convention is less stringent in its provisions than the Berne requirements. This is very important for this country's interests, because the U.N.E.S.C.O. Convention provides that any contracting State which under its domestic laws requires, as a condition of copyright, compliance with formalities, such as registration or manufacture or publication in that contracting State, shall regard these requirements as satisfied in respect of works of other Convention countries if at a time of first publication all copies of a work bear the symbol of a letter C in a circle plus the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of fist publication, placed so as to give reasonable notice of a claim of copyright. Those are simple terms which have another great advantage. They get over
  34
  the difficulty, which those who share my views will also feel, of the publisher who does not give the date of his book inside the first cover—an infernal nuisance. I would consign such a publisher to the Mikado's list of people who "never will be missed," alongside those who publish maps without scales, or who sell tinned sardines without a key or bottled beer without an opener. By this sidewind we get over that difficulty.
  The United States of America has made the necessary legal amendments and ratified the Convention. The Convention is not yet fully effective, since not all the ratifications have so far been deposited. Further ratifications are, however, expected, and the Convention will no doubt become fully effective before long, possibly before our ratification. The benefits of the Convention will be enjoyed in the United States of America only by authors and publishers whose countries ratify the Convention. This Convention has, naturally, been well received in this country. It is interesting to note that, by an international Convention, we have now resolved a difficulty which America and ourselves had been unable to resolve unilaterally. The Convention will be of great advantage to our authors and publishers, and also to the export trade in books, if the copyright for British works can be obtained in the United States of America by the carrying out of these simple formalities. Dollar revenue thus earned will not stop at the value of the books sold, because copyright protection secures for the owner payment in respect of dramatic and film rights also. Only minor and technical amendments in our Law will be necessary, and I am sure that noble Lords will approve of this Clause.
  I must confess that Clause 2 is slightly controversial. It is concerned with television, a subject which, like Ireland, cannot be discussed without controversy raising its head. This clause arises not from any international agreement but from scientific advances since the Act of 1911 which still covers the law of this and kindred subjects. In 1911, television was unheard of; radio, the cinema and recording were in their infancy; and the development still continues to-day. We have recently seen the development of colour television and the invention of a new camera which takes a film and televises simultaneously. It is obvious that

  35
  it would be difficult to deal with these advances under an Act passed in 1911.
  Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the grant of a right to the B.B.C. and to the Independent Television Authority to control the public performance of television programmes. It will have little or no effect on the private viewer. If noble Lords ask me the meaning here of the word "public," I can only say that the question has been threshed out many times in the courts with regard to other forms of copyright performance and is now well understood. There has been an increasing demand for something along these lines by sportsmen, sports promoters and the public. Noble Lords will be aware of the differences of opinion which have continued for some time past between Mrs. Topham and the B.B.C. over the Grand National. The sporting world and broadcasters will face a near-deadlock if we do not have this Bill, or something like it. Sport has contributed as much as anything to the popularity and success of television. Many people feel that there is not yet enough sport shown upon television. If, on the other hand, television gives as much sport as the public would like, most promoters may end in Queer Street. Conversely, it would be a disaster if the progress of television to which we all look forward were to result in the death knell of British sport. This Bill serves to break that vicious circle. That point may be vividly brought home to noble Lords by the remarks made as recently as Friday last, and reported in The Times of Saturday last, by the Chairman of Epsom Grand Stand Association, Mr. Van Moppes. He said point-blank that, without this Bill, televising of the Derby will not be possible. That was his view. The reasons are straightforward. There is the effect on the "gate," not only on the sport concerned but on other sports going on at the same time. Some noble Lords may have seen England's not particularly brilliant victory over Scotland at Twickenham in the Calcutta Cup—
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Withdraw! It was a resounding victory.
  LORD MANCROFT: Some noble Lords may have seen this apparently questionable match at Twickenham on Saturday. I had the great good fortune to watch a different match. Combining business with pleasure, I saw the Welsh
  36
  Schoolboys have a fine battle and win 6–0 against the English Schoolboys at Cardiff Arms Park—I gather that it was a much better game. Half the stands at our end of the arena were empty. A friend suggested that the possible reason was that some people had stayed at home, disloyal to the Welsh Schoolboys, to watch the television of the Calcutta Cup match at Twickenham. That sort of thing will continue and will be reflected in sport all over the country, affecting all sporting receipts as the televising of sport becomes—as we hope it will—more common. This serves only to emphasise the power of television and its enormous, frightening possibilities as a medium of instruction, propaganda and entertainment. Anybody who has tried to make a political speech in the country on a Friday evening, when the stars of politics—the demi-gods whom the B.B.C. promote from the Back Benches to the front page in In the News—scintillate, will know that it is impossible to get an audience. In the forthcoming Election we shall have to face the fact that Sir Mortimer Wheeler and Lady Barnett are better known than half the Cabinet and all the Opposition put together.
  The Copyright Committee have dealt with the flatter at length in Paragraph 158 and onwards of their Report. The Committee were at first urged to recommend granting to a promoter a right to control public performance, either live or by recordings or films, or by any other new mediums, of his performances or sporting spectacles, and the right to control broadcasts of these performances or spectacles, whether recorded or live. The Committee went into this matter very carefully, and in the end they considered it to be an undue extension of the conception of copyright, which is basically a protection of works, to protect the Lincolnshire (which, I understand, "Minstrel" is going to win) or, say, the Highland Games. Performers of dramatic or musical works—I must point this out for fear of misunderstanding—are already protected by the Dramatic and Musical Performers' Protection Act, 1925, from the clandestine recording of performances. The Committee felt it was logical that the protection thus mooted—the protection I have been discussing—for sports promoters ought to extend to something like, say, the cart-horse parade in Regent's Park or the Lord Mayor's Show.

  37
  Your Lordships will see at once, however, that there is an obvious physical difficulty in carrying that out, quite apart from the difficulties of definition. Nevertheless, the Committee felt that the public should be enabled through television to enjoy as fully as possible sporting events. I think that is a view which is generally shared, although at the moment, for reasons which I have tried to explain, they cannot fully enjoy all those events. At the same time, the Committee felt that there was no reason why third parties, such as cinemas and licensed premises, should be able, without authorisation, and without having made any financial contribution to the particular programme, to give public showings of such events for gain. This has become an increasingly common practice in hotels and public houses. Your Lordships will also remember that an experiment was made a little while ago of televising in cinemas in the principal cites throughout the country the Germany v. United Kingdom soccer match. This sort of thing is clearly going to increase. But one must put forward the view that, if these television programmes are shown in public in places such as those which I have mentioned, it undoubtedly increases their amenities. In the same way that public places have to pay a small fee for relaying sound programmes given in public, it is suggested that it is not unjust that they should also contribute a little towards the cost of the arrangement of these programmes.
  The Committee have therefore proposed a new right in the nature of a performing right to be given to broadcasting authorities in all their television programmes. The new right will not be a substitute for existing rights, such as authors' rights, but will co-exist with them. This will enable the B.B.C. or I.T.A. to control, by agreement set out in terms of a licence made under the Bill, and make a charge for a public showing of such things as the television broadcast of a Cup Final or Wimbledon.
  This right is not confined to sport—I mention sport in particular because it is naturally the first thing that springs to mind. Money thus collected would provide resources out of which payments would be made by the B.B.C. and I.T.A. to sports promoters for permission to set up cameras on their premises and televise events. I need not emphasise the financial
  38
  difficulties in which some branches of sport now find themselves. The organising bodies of certain sports, indeed the majority, have had it in mind that they will be able, by these means, to assist financially some of the weaker brethren in their organisations. In the past, promoters disliked television of their events owing to the lack of recompense for loss of gate money. Clause 2 of the Bill tackles this problem. Promoters retain the right to allow or refuse would-be broadcasters to erect their cameras on their premises. Terms of permission to erect cameras are now a matter of bargaining between promoter and broadcaster. The promoter, of course, remains a free agent. He can refuse showing in a particular area as part of the licence either at home or in public.
  The Bill, in providing for this new television right, does not lay down how various interests should arrange their affairs but enables them to do so to the advantage of all concerned. The B.B.C. and I.T.A., on whom the new right is conferred by the Bill, will be able to control and make a charge for public showing of their programmes. The charges, of course, will vary with the nature of the pubic. The charge for the showing of a performance in a big cinema will clearly differ from the charge for showing, say, to the women's institute in a village. The B.B.C. and I.T.A. will thus be in a better financial position when bargaining for the right to show sporting events. I.T.A., for simplicity's sake in this case, is really acting as a sort of quasi-trustee for the programme contractors. That, I understand, will be an acceptable arrangement. It does not affect home users, who will greatly benefit at no extra cost. It is only public performances that are to be controlled, so far as public showing of television programmes is concerned. The anxiety of promoters and others who provide non-copyright material for television programmes can be set at rest when they know that there is clear control over the use of television programmes and substantial sanctions for the enforcement of this exhibiting right.
  My Lords, that explains, broadly, what the Bill sets out to do and the reasons for its introduction. I have deliberately refrained from going into all the details of how the various provisions will be administered. As your Lordships will

  39
  see, the bulk of the copyright recommendations of the Committee to which I have referred remain untouched. I want to emphasise again that the provisions which are included in the Bill are based on the recommendations of the Committee. The most important chance not dealt with is that to establish a performing rights tribunal, with power to adjudicate in any dispute between the fee-collecting societies which control the rights of composers and gramophone record makers, on the one hand, and music users on the other.
  For some time, music users, including bodies like women's institutes, have pressed for such a tribunal. And the collecting societies themselves would welcome it. But the Government, having thought over this matter very carefully, have come to the conclusion that this Bill is an inappropriate place in which to provide for this tribunal, because a tribunal is not immediately necessary for either of the two limited objects of the Bill. The main object of a tribunal would be to control other rights not dealt with in this Bill at all, but which will be dealt with in the later Bill. Also, I must point out that, if it were set up, a tribunal would still not be able to force an unwilling racecourse proprietor to accept television cameras on his course, nor would it compel the B.B.C. or I.T.A. to pay some fee that was unacceptable to them.
  I must emphasise, in conclusion, that this Bill is a limited measure, an interim measure: it has limited objectives. We have not time at the moment for a re-codification of the whole of the law of copyright. The major changes, major technical and artistic changes, which have occurred since 1911 would involve an equally major job of recodification. But Her Majesty's Government accept, with some minor modifications, the Report of the Copyright Committee; and a comprehensive Bill based on its other and remaining recommendations is now being drafted. This is an interim measure which is designed to fill a much-felt want, and a want upon which both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., as well as the viewing-world in general, have expressed a demand. I hope that the Bill will meet with the approval of your Lordships. It will, clearly, be to the public
  40
  benefit. It deals with matters upon which noble Lords opposite have frequently asked questions. I hope that it will fulfil their hopes. With those words, I beg to recommend the Bill to your Lordships and to move that it be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  4.30 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so with respect, I think it would have been better, for the proper appreciation of this Bill, if the noble Lord had gone into a few more facts and a little fewer personal reminiscences. As the noble Lord has said, this is a very serious matter. Therefore I intend, with your Lordships' permission, to fill in some of the blanks which the noble Lord has evidently not thought it worth while to fill in for your Lordships, so that you may have a better appreciation of the fundamental changes which the Bill seeks to bring about. I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, the Postmaster General, is going to wind up this debate, because, if he will permit me to say so, upon this thorny question of television he has always shown himself to be very alive to the feelings of your Lordships and ever ready to give us all the information within his power. His handling of the Television Act, 1954, commended itself to all noble Lords.
  This Bill is not politically controversial, but anybody who thinks it is not controversial in other regards is deluding himself. I intend to tell the House what noble Lords on this side, and I expect noble Lords on the other side who have made themselves acquainted with the Bill, think about it. I do not intend to waste your Lordships' time by dealing lengthily with Clause 1, which amends the Copyright Act, 1911, to enable the Government to ratify the Brussels Convention of 1948 and the Universal Copyright Convention of 1952. It is as well for your Lordships to appreciate that the Universal Copyright Convention was designed as a bridge between two parts of the world which had different conceptions of copyright—the countries who are members of the Berne Union, from which the international copyright law stems, and the United States of America, the outstanding exception.

  41
  Copyright in this country has been based on a conception fundamentally different from that of America. Copyright here is regarded as a natural property right of the author or composer: in America it is a right conferred upon the author with the consent of the State. That is a vitally different thing. In the same way our patent law has been built up on the fundamental principle that the original author, composer or inventor has a monopoly right to protect his interests against piracy and copying. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, rightly said, it was because of this different conception that English books in America were not copyright unless they were printed and bound in America. The present Bill enables this difficulty to be got over. The only thing that surprises me is that the United Kingdom Government have been so laggard in ratifying the Universal Convention. Its virtues were apparent. The Copyright Committee of 1952 pressed the Government to do it. On the principle of better late than never, I suppose this is now being done. I want your Lordships to bear clearly in mind this fundamental right of the author or composer to have a monopoly in his work.
  We now come to Clause 2. The Bill has only two clauses: if the first is non-controversial, the second is charged with controversy. I think the noble Lord would have been fairer to your Lordships—I say this with no ill will—if he had pointed out that it was with very great reluctance that the Copyright Committee "advised that there should be an exhibiting right." Either through faulty draftsmanship or through one of those freaks of the law which happen in this country, there crept into the 1911 Act by a side wind a performing right in gramophone records which has caused endless trouble. I recall to the noble Earl the interesting debate we had in your Lordships' House on this matter in 1953. For they first time there was brought into copyright law a performing right, by which the gramophone record manufacturer not only has a copyright in the artistic performance on the record but also the power of controlling the performance of that record—something that was never envisaged by Parliament and never contemplated by Parliament, something that has been acting to the detriment of authors and composers ever since, because it has brought into the musical world a veto which is
  42
  entirely against their interests. This is the right which the Government now propose to establish in this Bill, not by a side wind as it came into the 1911 Act, but with the full force of the law. Let me say that I am not going to question here and now whether or not it is wise for this to be done. We live in a different world from that of 1911. But I hold strongly the view that we should not do this until your Lordships are full apprised of and alerted to precisely what we are doing. The consequences can be serious.
  Clause 2 of the Bill lays down that there shall be a new exhibiting right and sets up two quasi-monopolies. Since the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and I, had that interesting debate on January 21, 1953, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge. I know I shall carry the noble Earl with me, because I am going to use almost the same words which he used on that occasion. The idea of giving the British Broadcasting Corporation an exhibiting right in the public exhibition of television was advanced wholly and solely for the purpose of making it possible for the B.B.C. to control the public exhibition of television by issuing licences and collecting fees, so that they had a greater income to enable them to compensate sporting promoters for allowing the B.B.C. to televise their events. But since that date we have had the Television Act, 1954.
  Before I come to that, so that your Lordships and the public at large can be fully alerted to what this really means, I want to deal with the position of the individual composer and author and the right that is inherent in the Copyright Act, 1911. In paragraph 76 of their Report the Copyright Committee say:
  "In the preceding Parts of our Report we have dealt with questions arising out of copyright in printed books and music and manuscripts. These all relate to what we regard as the fundamental rights of the originator of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which are granted by, and included in, Section 1 of the Copyright Act, 1911. These fundamental rights of the originator include the following:

  (a) the right to produce or reproduce an original work in any material form;

  (b) the right to perform the work in public;

  (c) the right to translate it;

  (d) the right to convert a dramatic work into a non-dramatic work or a non-dramatic work into a dramatic work; and finally,

  43

  (e) the right to make any record, perforated roll or cinematograph film from the literary, dramatic or musical work."

  They set this out again in paragraph 79; and in paragraph 115, with regard to broadcasting, they say:
  "In discussing the questions relating to copyright in a broadcast (whether sound or television) we wish again to state that, as in the case of gramophone records … we regard as fundamental the right of an author, composer or artist to authorise the use of copyright material for broadcasting purposes."
  They go on at the end of that paragraph to say:
  "We therefore recommend that it should be made abundantly clear that a copyright owner has the sole right to authorise any broadcasting organisation to make use of his work over their system and to communicate that work to the public, irrespective of whether or not some recipient of the programme emitted is giving a performance of the programme in public."
  There is one last passage to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention, and it is in paragraph 181, where they say:
  "To begin with, we wish to make it quite clear that we regard the rights we recommend for broadcast programmes or gramophone records as subsidiary to the primary right of the composer or author of a copyright work reproduced by these technical means, and that performing rights in programmes or records should be without prejudice to that primary right."
  I do not believe that the Government have the slightest intention of violating those principles, because that would go against the whole conception of the copyright law of this country, which has served the country and its artistic people so well. Therefore, I trust they will not have the slightest objection if on the Committee stage we seek to insert in this Bill safe-guards which make that abundantly clear. That is what we shall attempt to do.
  I come now to the larger issue, and I want to ask the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, how this is going to work. I have followed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, with meticulous care, and I know no more now than when he started. I want to take the noble Earl through the process. Again, let me repeat that the sole object of this Bill at its first inception was to provide the British Broadcasting Corporation with sufficient funds to allow them to pay the high and increasing prices for televising sporting events, without which television
  44
  would not be worth twopence a year. That is the only type of programme that is going to have a major appeal for public exhibition. Public exhibition can range from a Rank cinema circuit and the Savoy Hotel right down to a little back-street boarding house in Scarborough. The only way the fees are to be collected is by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority turning themselves into collecting agencies. They will then collect fees on a scale to be set out by somebody, I know not whom, at a rate, I know not what; and I suppose it will range from public television in West End cinemas again to the humble boarding house that lets the top front bed-sitting-room—"Come to 'The Laurels,' Arcadia Grove, Scarborough; television and other modern conveniences."
  I want to know who is going to issue the licences; who is going to set the tariff; who is going to settle disputes whether they should have a licence by right—as in the case of charitable institutions, workers' hostels, women's institutes and so on—and how many licences they will have to obtain. So far as I can see—I may be wrong, and, if I am, I know the noble Earl will be generous enough to concede that it is only because I have had no opportunity of acquainting myself with the facts—if I am the owner of an hotel or boarding house and I wish to offer television as one of the amenities to my guests, I must purchase from the Postmaster General a television licence. I then have to get a public exhibiting licence, either from the B.B.C. or the I.T.A., or both. I must also have a licence from the Performing Right Society, because I shall be broadcasting to the public copyright music. I shall also have to obtain a licence from the Phonographic Performance Limited, in case during one of the television transmissions they happen to be using records which are subject to one of their licences.
  LORD MANCROFT: They will probably have that at all events.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No—forgive me; they have not. That is where the noble Lord makes his first fundamental mistake.
  LORD MANCROFT: They have an ordinary wireless set.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord should study his Bill. There is no embargo on any sound emission unless it comes from a television set at the same time as the picture. Sound broadcasting is not brought within the compass of this Bill. I should like the Postmaster General to tell me why it is not. If I have a little back room in the back streets of Scarborough, I have to obtain four licences. Suppose I get my excise licence from the Postmaster General, my licence from the B.B.C. or the I.T.A., and my licence from the Performing Right Society, but am not lucky enough to get one from Phonographic Performance Limited. Immediately I ask my guests to listen to a public television performance of a gramophone record I am, to use the vernacular, "for it." That is how I see it. I do not think that makes common sense, but it may be—and allow me to give the noble Earl the point—the only way to do it, because I appreciate the difficulties. I will put forward later the remedy that I would propose.
  I think it is of vital importance that not only your Lordships but also the British public should know the facts. During the passage of the Television Act, 1954, the noble Earl made the concession to your Lordships' House—I think my noble and learned leader was the one who pressed him so hard upon this point—that no exclusive arrangements should be made for the broadcasting of national sporting events. That appears in Section 7 of the 1954 Act. What happens? The B.B.C. and the I.T.A. (why the I.T.A. I do not know; I suppose that for convenience's sake they are going to be the copyright holders, though I should have thought it would be the programme contractors) march hand in hand, like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. If they want to broadcast either the Derby or the Cup Final they go to the responsible authorities—and it may be, if the gentleman who made that much-publicised statement the other day is concerned, that their ideas of price will have to be a little bit greater than they are at the present time. As the noble Lord has said—and this is quite implicit—if the authorities do not want their sporting event televised, there is no power in this country which can force them to permit it. That we recognise straight away. Money is supposed to be the key to the
  46
  problem—it runs right through this Report.
  Suppose that the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. go hand in hand to the authority of the sporting event, whether it be the Cup Final, Wimbledon, the Rugby Union, the Derby or the Grand National, and are told, "Yes you may televise this event, and our price is £10,000." I can imagine the I.T.A. saying, "We do not mind £10,000, because we are going to charge about £1,000 a minute for advertising." The B.B.C., however, may say, "We are very sorry but we cannot afford £10,000; £1,000 is about all we can go to." What happens then? Section 7 of the 1954 Act states that there cannot be any exclusive arrangement, so nothing happens at all. Does the prize go to the biggest bargainer? Surely not, according to the Act of 1954. So what happens? We do not have the television of the Cup Final, or whatever it may be.
  What about the hundreds of thousands of pounds of public exhibition fees which the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. will already have collected? Surely it will not be said that every boarding house, private hotel or village hall shall pay an exhibiting fee every time an event is shown. Surely it will be done over twelve months. If it is impossible to make terms with the promoters, are the holders of these public exhibiting licences to be given their money back? As the Copy-right Committee's Report quite plainly sets out, Mr. Jack Solomons may say, "I am promoting a world title fight at the Dome, Brighton. I will allow the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. to televise this, but I shall have in my contract an embargo that it is not to be shown on the screens of television within fifty miles from Brighton, because that would interfere with my 'gate'." That is quite a logical thing. What is going to happen to those within fifty miles of Brighton who have paid for their yearly public exhibiting licence? There are answers which I suggest the British public have got to be told, because if not—and I do not accuse any noble Lord on the Government Front Bench of this—it will be obtaining money under false pretences
  LORD MANCROFT: Oh, no.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, says "Oh, no," but you are saying that these people must pay a fee, which may run from £1

  47
  to £1,000, to show television programmes to the public and then you cannot provide them. What are you going to do? All these things are, I suggest, germane. There is going to be much heartburning over this, not only about who shall have a licence, but about the terms upon which the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. can give it. What we shall want to do on the Comittee stage is to insert into this Bill provision for the appointment of a tribunal. It is useless for the noble Lord to say that the time is not opportune. This Bill must come into effect—I appreciate the urgency of the matter—on October 1 of this year. There are 4 million television sets in operation, and every day more and more sets are going into "pubs," clubs, boarding houses and hotels.
  There may be an argument—I am not going to advance it—why a hotel should not have to pay a licence fee for providing its guests with this amenity, but there may be a still greater case for having some independent tribunal to say why they shall be withheld from having a licence of a certain kind. I want to put this point to the noble Earl the Postmaster General. Take the trouble that has occurred with Phonographic Performance Limited and the Musicians' Union, who would not allow gramophone records to be played in any hall or establishment in this country where a live musician could operate. They can put that embargo upon the playing of records on television—the background music of many television programmes is supplied by gramophone records. They will say that no hotel may allow its guests to pirouette round the drawing room floor to the music of Victor Sylvester and his band or something like that, because it is a mechanical contrivance and they must have a band there to play. That is precisely what they have done in respect of gramophone records.
  I have tried to state a case, not to say that this Bill is not necessary, not to suggest to the noble Lord who has introduced it to-day or the noble Earl who has the biggest share in it, that it is not the right thing to do, but to show that it would be against the public interest for a Government to set up two monopolies having power to interfere with the hotel and entertainment business of this country without there being set up some tribunal, presided over by an eminent legal authority, not to decide whether the fee
  48
  paid to the sports promoter is correct but to act in connection with all those incidental things that happen in the life of a community and have happened regarding the Performing Right Society and its method of issuing licences. Also, there is the individual performer who has to be looked after.
  As I read this Bill, once Arthur Askey, for instance, has given a television performance of his act, the copyright in that act vests for twenty-five years with either the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. You may say: "Of course, if Arthur Askey is not a better business man than to take cognisance of that when he fixed his contract. …" That may be right, but what about the thousand and one honest troupers who give such good entertainment in some of these television programmes? What is their bargaining power? Again, there should be some appeal about the terms upon which a thing like that is enforced.
  I beg your Lordships' pardon; I have been too long, but I thought it only right that this case should be stated. We on this side of the House will not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill but I give the noble Earl notice now that on the Committee and subsequent stages we shall seek to make it abundantly clear that there is nothing in these exhibiting rights which in any way infringes the fundamental right of the author and the composer, and that there shall be set up a tribunal as recommended by the Copyright Committee. The Copyright Committee recommended taking this course "with some reluctance." If your Lordships will take the trouble to look through the Report, you will find it mentioned in one of these paragraphs—I have not the exact reference at the moment. It was because the Committee were fully conscious of the harmful public effect that the misuse of the monopoly right could have that they said that there was only one way of safeguarding the public interest in this matter, and that was to have an independent legal tribunal, in exactly the same way as there is a patents court to settle appropriate cases.
  5.5 p.m.
  VISCOUNT FURNESS: My Lords, I welcome this Bill, especially Clause 1, which will enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Brussels and Geneva Conventions. I must confess that I am

  49
  not quite so happy about some facets of Clause 2. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, the Copyright Committee contemplated giving the new television exhibiting right only "with some reluctance." If my understanding of the Report is correct, it was principally to enable the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to control the public exhibition of sporting events on television. Am I perhaps reading too much between the lines if I say that it seems to me that there is an underlying connotation of large screen projection—possibly in cinemas, probably closed circuit—for which admission would be charged? I am sure that no one could object very strenuously to that.
  What I am thinking of is the casual switching on of a television set in the saloon bar of "the local" on the corner, or by the holiday-maker by the seaside on a rainy day—and unfortunately, there are some rainy days from time to time—who decides to switch on the set in the front parlour of "Sea View." The Copyright Committee reported in 1952. Since that time there has been a tremendous increase in the number of television sets. I am informed that there are over 4 million such sets licensed in this country. I think there will be few people, particularly in a year or two but even now, who will not, assuming that they enjoy television, either have a set themselves or at least be viewing with a member of their family or a friend. Therefore I submit to your Lordships that there could be little question of people going to a hotel or restaurant solely for the purpose of viewing a particular television programme.
  5.8 p.m.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition for saying that I may speak before he does. I felt that if I spoke after he did there might be nothing left to say. I want to intervene for only a couple of minutes, to support, first, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and, secondly, my noble friend, Lord Furness, behind me. As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, I thought before he spoke (and he has convinced me that I was right) that your Lordships were being asked to pass this Bill without any detailed information whatsoever of how it will work. It is on the details that this Bill will either stand or fall. I hope my noble friend the Postmaster General will
  50
  now give us some details. I can assure him that, if we do not get the details before the Committee stage, he will be very hard pressed on that stage of the Bill. The only other aspect with which I want to deal is the question of hotels. My noble friend Lord Mancroft mentioned that people poured into the hotels; that it was an amenity and an attraction if television were provided, and that the hotels made a lot of money by it.
  LORD MANCROFT: No—that they do not.
  LORD DERWENT: I am sorry if I misunderstood him, but I understood him to say that they drew people by having television and therefore made money by it. That may be the case, to some extent, but the modern-minded hotelier is gradually having television, not only in the lounge but in the bedrooms of his hotel. I hope the noble Earl when he comes to speak—and he knows a great deal about this subject—will give his views on the question of the tourist trade. I believe that in this very competitive trade tourists will, in a very short space of time, expect as a natural amenity television to be shown in one room or more rooms and, in the larger hotels, probably in every bedroom. I feel quite certain that the Americans will expect that. Of course, we do not know what the burdens will be, as we have not been told, but I think we should beware of putting burdens on hotels which will induce them not to provide the amenities that the tourist, particularly the foreign tourist, expects.
  There is one other aspect about which I am worried. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned the question of the small boarding house in a back street of Scarborough. I have probably spoken about this matter before. In my part of the world, in Yorkshire, we have a number of resorts, such as Scarborough, Filey, Bridlington, Whitby, and so on, which, unlike the South Coast resorts, have only one, fairly short, season. When that season is over, most of the big hotels close, opening only for conferences and not for the general public. Some of them remain shut throughout the winter. But many of the smaller hotels, which one might term "almost boarding house—almost hotel," stay open throughout the winter. They do it by providing homes for people,

  51
  many of whom have no other homes, for eight or nine months of the year at reduced fees. Those reduced fees pay the bare running expenses—and they are the bare running expenses in the non-holiday season. In the three or four months of the holiday season, up go the prices and, in most cases, the people who live in these smaller hotels go away to take their holidays, staying with friends. The profit of the business is made in those three or four months. But the margin of profit, if any, in the winter months (and in most cases there is none) is so small that additional costs of any seriousness would force these small hotels to close in the winter and the people who make their homes there would have to leave.
  It seems to me rather shocking that throughout the year I can, if I so wish, sit in my own home and watch the televising of sports programmes without paying anything more than my £3, while either the people who, for eight or nine months of the year, live in a small hotel will, if the fees for this additional showing are fairly high, have the fees (which in many cases they will not be able to afford) passed on to them, or, as is more likely, in the winter the hotel will not provide the amenity of television. I hope the Postmaster General will reconsider this question. The small hotels are not the same as the Metropole at Brighton or the Dorchester in London. I know it is difficult to make a distinction, but in my view hotels should provide the amenities that people away from home would find in their own homes, and I feel that they should not be charged for providing those amenities.
  5.14 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I do not want to make a controversial or Party speech on this matter, for reasons which I will indicate in a moment, but I agree with what the last speaker said. I believe that on all sides of this House this Bill will be carefully scrutinised, and that unless we get some concessions we shall certainly fight it vigorously on the Committee stage. My own view about copyright has long been that the law on the subject has got altogether out of hand. The original conception of an original work, be it music, writing or what you will, and the protection which we
  52
  gave to it, is wholly good—indeed, in two respects I am not sure that I should have come to the conclusion that the existing protection needed to be extended. I think it has worked very well, and I do not know why it is thought that it should be extended. There was a power of compulsory licence during part of the lifetime of the copyright, and there was power to go to the Privy Council—a power which, so far as I know, has never been exercised; but the mere fact that the power was there has, to my certain knowledge, been of value in inducing people to be reasonable in making agreements. However, for some reason, which is quite obscure to me, those two alterations are now to be made. If it is thought wise, I do not raise controversy about that, although I should have left things as they were.
  But where I think copyright has got out of hand altogether is in such respects as this: it was one thing to protect an original work; it was another thing to protect a mere mechanical device such as a gramophone record. I thought it was a grave mistake that, in the case of a gramophone record of some piece of music, taken of course with the consent of the owner of the copyright in that music, the people who deal with the record, which they sell in the market, should be able to exact additional fees if that record is used for anything which can be called a public showing. For instance, if I were to have in my home a dozen young persons and were to give a dance, and I thereupon proceeded to turn on my gramophone, using my records which I have bought, I should be guilty of a breach of copyright. The same thing applies to meetings of the women's institute in one's own village, or other gatherings of that sort. I think it is hard to say that that should be the law and that that, in some way or other, is hitched up to copyright, which is in its essence the protection of an original work of art. As I have said on previous occasions, I think we have gone wrong in that respect.
  Equally, with regard to paintings, I think that when a man buys a painting it ought to be understood that he buys the copyright in that painting. I told your Lordships on a previous occasion about our experience at the Tate Gallery, when we reproduced in the form of Christmas

  53
  cards some of the pictures in the Gallery (which undoubtedly were ours), so that people who came to the Gallery might carry away either a catalogue or coloured cards or something of the sort. We discovered that we were breaking the copyright law, and when the descendants of the artists from whom we had bought the pictures claimed fees, we were told that we should have to pay. I think that is wrong, and I think the matter ought to be cleared up. I am sorry that there is not to be undertaken at the present time such a general revision of the Copyright Act as I think is called for.
  Now, my Lords, I come to consider this question about which I have got these feelings, which I expect nearly all your Lordships share. First of all, I think that by far the best thing about television is the sporting event. I think nearly all of us like this form of viewing better than anything else—indeed, if it were not for this, I do not think I should trouble to have a television set. I quite realise the danger that is felt—though I believe it is greatly exaggerated—by the people who promote these sporting events, that their "gates" may be affected and they may lose money, and so on and so forth, if the events are televised. Everybody else believes that to be exaggerated. I give an illustration of which I know something, the somewhat analogous case of concerts on sound radio. The number of people who go to hear good music in this country has enormously increased because, by listening to the radio, they have become accustomed to good music, and have grown to like it. The potential audience is greatly increased, which is all to the good.
  I should conjecture the same in regard to sporting events, and that people may well become interested in Rugby football by reason of the fact that they have seen such excellent games as we saw in the English-Scottish match last Saturday—or in the first half, at any rate. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, I think his illustration of empty seats at the schoolboys' match at Cardiff was a very poor one. We certainly do not need a Minister of Sport in this country, although there might be something to be said for a Sports Council, rather on the lines of the Arts Council, operating, possibly, with some grant from the Government, which could look into
  54
  such matters as these. That is a subject which we might properly consider on another occasion.
  I am in favour of the people who provide sports. I believe they are doing splendid work. I am in favour of sports being shown also on television. How to combine those two in a workable way is the attempt of this Bill. We have not had pointed out to us how fundamentally this Bill is at variance with the Report of the Copyright Committee. I have had representations from the hotel industry, the Music Users' Federation and the Performing Right Society who have come to me because I have the great honour of being president of the British Holiday and Travel Association, of which the hotel industry in this country is a constituent branch. After what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has just said I am bound to tell noble Lords that it is essential to consider this fact. Our flow of visitors depends upon the hotels and the quality of the entertainment and comfort that they are given. Do not forget that this tourist industry has now become our most important industry, bringing in more dollars than any other. These facilities must be provided in hotels.
  From letters which I have received it appears that hotels are concerned at being left to deal with these people, who can exact just whatever fees they like. The Government have done away with the tribunal and that creates a very serious situation. The Music Users' Federation say:
  "The amount of the additional licence fee will be one which the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. can arbitrarily determine, and against which there is no appeal machinery whatever."
  The British Hotels and Restaurant Association say:
  "The Association observes that the Copyright Committee only contemplated giving this new right 'with some reluctance.' and largely to enable the broadcasting authority to control the public exhibition of televised sporting events. The Bill, as now drafted, would give much wider powers to the broadcasting authority, as it would enable it to control the exhibition of Any televised programmes 'in public,' for which it could exact any fee it chose,"
  How can it do that? To provide normal amenities a hotel buys its wireless set and is accustomed to use it for the benefit of these guests. When some sporting event comes on television, is the hotelier to close down? If he does not shut off his receiver

  55
  there is no tribunal to fix what is a fair fee. He can be bled white, and no appeal is possible to any tribunal. Such an arrangement cannot be worked without a tribunal.
  I do not pretend to be an expert on copyright but in my days at the Bar I was fortunate enough to be entrusted by the Performing Right Society with some of their difficult problems. These are the original artists, the people who produce the music. They press for a tribunal. They are very ready and anxious to submit their fees to a tribunal. They say:
  "… the matter may well arise in the discussion of this present Bill, and we would like you to know that, far from being reluctant to submit our tariffs to the arbitration of an official Tribunal, we are only too anxious to see it established at the earliest possible moment, and it is merely out of a desire to co-operate with our licensees that we have temporarily ceased pressing for it."
  If the people who write the music are willing to submit their fees to a tribunal to determine what is a reasonable fee, surely it is only fair that these people (who have not themselves produced an original work but have merely recorded it on some contrivance) should submit their fees to some tribunal.
  I do not think this House would allow the Bill to go through in this form, with no safeguard. I humbly suggest to the noble Earl the Postmaster General that between this and the next stage of the Bill he must think again. I can quite understand why he wants to do this; but if he is to adopt this wholly new system, and give this new and considerable extension of copyright, he must surely take steps to see that it is not abused. The more serious fact of licences and present difficulties indicate that the appointment of a tribunal is the only possible course. I very much hope that, though we shall give the Bill a Second Reading to-day, the noble Earl will, when we come (not hurriedly I hope) to the Committee stage, have thought over this matter again. I hope he will come in a generous and giving mood, prepared to consider as an essential element of this system the establishment of some tribunal to see that people who otherwise might be exploited are not exploited.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I rise with considerable reluctance to say a word for a noble Lord who has had to
  56
  go and has asked me to speak for him. Before doing so, may I recall to the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken, and who talked of the difficulty of the gramophone record played in his house, the device adopted by Mr. Pélissier when we were both young? He wanted to play the "Merry Widow" waltz in his theatre. He composed a note which he inserted in the middle of the waltz, and sometimes with pride he played this alone. Thus he was able to play the "Merry Widow" waltz with his note as often as he pleased without any infringement of copyright. The case to which I have to reply in a very few words is that of the British Film Industry, which for some time has been investigating the possibility of using television not for the purpose of broadcasting to home viewers but as a means of giving cinema-goers the opportunity of seeing on a large screen, as part of the ordinary cinema performance, television items produced by the film industry itself. Experiments are going on, but it will probably be some years before the industry's plans will cover the whole of the country. They feel, however, that it would only be right that the Government should be asked to extend the scope of the Bill to give copyright protection to programmes to be transmitted by television for paying audiences. I believe that was contemplated by the Government in their statement of policy in 1952.
  5.31 p.m.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I do not think the Government should be either surprised or regretful at the reception which has been given to the Bill. We know that the subject with which it deals is an extremely difficult one, and it is natural that your Lordships should be extremely concerned about it. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was a little unfair to Lord Mancroft, who, it seemed to me, put the general problem before us extremely well. Let me just say this, because I think it is the answer to a great deal that has been said to-day. Let us remember that it is for the Government to give certain rights to certain bodies, rights which they can operate, such as copyright which has been granted in the past; but it was not the Government that set up the whole machinery of the Performing Right Society. It is for this reason we now

  57
  propose to give the rights, but not to evolve the machinery for collection, and so on. I think that that is a very brief answer to a great number of the questions that have been put in the course of the debate.
  One overwhelming point which stands out in my mind as a result of this discussion is that the Government's decision to attempt to isolate certain immediate problems that had to be dealt with on an urgent basis, whilst promising to your Lordships a comprehensive Bill on the future, has been justified, over and over again. Most of the difficulties that have been brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the question, for instance, of the recording of sound—he spoke of that at some length on a previous occasion and he has dealt with it also to-day with great feeling—are of long standing. That illustrates the supreme difficulty of this question. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, went almost further than did Lord Lucas of Chilworth. He said that he thought the subject of coypright has got quite out of hand.
  EARL JOWITT: Yes, I do think so.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I agree with the noble and learned Earl about the immense difficulties. Her Majesty's Government will certainly do everything in their power to meet noble Lords in their natural apprehensions about the Bill. I hope your Lordships will realise that it is not merely a question of Parliamentary time. As realists, we have to consider certain Bills which deal with certain subjects, and inevitably controversy arises. It sometimes takes a substantial amount of time to jump all the Parliamentary hurdles. It is difficulties of the kind outlined that increase the problem of drafting a comprehensive Bill dealing with a subject which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has said has got so much out of hand.
  I feel inclined to say to noble Lords opposite, by all means let us see what Amendments and alterations you want us to consider—I speak here as being responsible for television—but please do not let us introduce so many of the more difficult points into this subject that in fact we end up by nearly killing a very useful and necessary Bill, a Bill which deals with this subject, I thoroughly admit, in a very limited way on an interim basis. Both the noble and learned Earl,
  58
  Lord Jowitt, and Lord Mancroft, spoke of the essential need for the point that we have tried to isolate in Clause 2—I know that noble Lords will forgive me if I pass over Clause 1. I think we are agreed upon the urgent need for dealing with the question covered in Clause 2. I should like here to take the opportunity of paying a warm tribute to the promoters of sporting events for the manner in which they have co-operated with us in the last two years, frequently at risk of some loss to themselves. They have done it, I say frankly, mainly on the assurance that we were going to deal with this matter, if only on an interim basis, in the near future. It is possible to bring up all sorts of grievances—for instance, the cases of people who missed payment for copyright and who may have to help to meet the cost. Then there is the case of hotels. I speak with a certain amount of embarrassment here because I think I am Vice-President of the Hotels and Restaurant Proprietors Association.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, and a hotel proprietor.
  EARL DE LA WARR: A part proprietor. I must speak from my heart and say whether I am an interested party or not. I am clear that unless some right is awarded enabling the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. to pay promoters more than they have been paying up till now, there will not be any sporting events at all to be televised: and for the poor old ladies in "Sea View" it will not be a matter whether they have to pay an extra 10s. or £1 in order to see a football cup tie; the football cup tie will not be shown. That is a problem we have to meet. It is really a question of whether these people should so insist upon having something for nothing that, in fact, they get nothing at all. That is the danger. That is the point I would ask the noble Lords, Lord Furness, and Lord Derwent, to face. That is certainly the problem I have had to face, and it is the problem which the Copyright Committee had to face. It is a point that drove the Committee, albeit with reluctance (and I think the fact that they have done it with reluctance really strengthens the case rather than otherwise), to make their recommendation which we are carrying out.
  EARL JOWITT: Which you are carrying out! There is a fundamental difference in that you are dropping these tribunals.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I was going to deal with that point. The noble and learned Earl has said that this Bill is at complete variance with the Report. There is nothing in the Bill that does not arise out of that Report. It is perfectly true that as this is an interim measure there are many things in the Report which are not touched in the Bill. I do not want to commit myself about tribunals for the moment, because I know that in all probability one or more noble Lords will put an Amendment down on the Committee stage and we shall then have to discuss it, but, as the noble and learned Earl has mentioned tribunals, I do not mind saying that I do not think a tribunal is the ultimate solution of the problem. A tribunal can deal with difficulties between the B.B.C. and I.T.A. and one or two people who want to enjoy a public performance, and so on, but if it settles terms that are not agreeable to the promoters, either the promoters will not allow—
  EARL JOWITT: The promoters do not come into it.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thought I had made that plain. We would not for one moment countenance interference by anyone with the free play of negotiation between the B.B.C. and I.T.A. and the sports promoters, because the promoters must of necessity have the last word. It is the chain onwards, from that point, that we are worried about.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I do not think I am quite clear as to what the noble Lord means. Perhaps he means the relationship between the B.B.C. and those who enjoy performances and therefore have to pay. Naturally that will have to be settled by negotiation, as all these performing right questions are now settled. If, in fact, the amount is settled by the tribunal or anyone else at too low a rate, the B.B.C. or I.T.A. will not be able to pay the promoters what they want; therefore the item will not be broadcast. Therefore I think the point I tried to make is a fair one.
  May I now try to deal with a number of points that noble Lords raised? The question has been asked, who will issue the licences? Of course the B.B.C. and I.T.A. will give the licences and will collect their fees.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Jointly or separately?
  EARL DE LA WARR: That is the sort of machinery that will have to be created by those bodies. It is not for the Government to do it. I should have thought that there will almost certainly have to be a central agency if the machinery of collection is to be at all effective. As I said at the beginning of my speech, that is a matter for the collecting bodies who are given the right. If they do not set up effective machinery they will not collect their money. Another question was, who will settle the tariffs? Again, it will have to be the B.B.C. and I.T.A. But the tariff will depend a great deal on what the promoters demand for whatever sport is to be televised. It is obvious that this will be a matter for negotiation. If the broadcasting authority offer too little, they will not get the event. On the other hand, if the promoters ask too much, they will not have their event televised and will not get anything at all. I should imagine that, on the whole, the best way of evolving machinery for dealing with these performances would be to issue a form of blanket licence for all events, or practically all events, perhaps with certain exceptions that might be dealt with separately. I should have thought that a number of the noble Lord's questions would have been answered by making the agencies work on the basis of negotiating a blanket licence in every case between those who want to show sporting events on television and the broadcasting authority. It is obvious that if the machinery is to work at all, there will have to be in the negotiations a difference in the sum demanded by the broadcasting authority from Dorchester Hotel, on the one hand, and from Lord Derwent's friends at Seaview Hotel, on the other.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I quite see the difference between the Dorchester and the Seaview Hotel; that is obvious. But suppose the two are more or less comparable, and that it is agreed in the case of one to pay a blanket fee of 500 guineas—or £5; I do not know what it is going to be—and in the other to exact much more. Surely it would be grossly unfair, unless there were some tribunal to which they could go and say: "This has been given to our rival A on these terms; you ought to be able to give it to us on the same terms," and try to make a case. Surely that must be so.
  EARL DE LA WARR: That sort of problem has been dealt with for years by the Performing Right Society.
  EARL JOWITT: They want a tribunal.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I am not saying that there shall never be a tribunal, but there is some question of whether it is wise to risk delaying this Bill by inserting provision for it here. I think my noble friend Lord Mancroft has made it abundantly clear that the Government accept the main recommendations of the Copyright Committee, and undoubtedly the tribunal is one of the main recommendations. Therefore, I think we can take it that we are not discussing whether or not there shall be a tribunal, but whether it is wise to insert it in this small interim measure. I am not in a position to say "Yes" or "No" to that, but I am in a position to say that we shall consider the matter. I think I have dealt with all the noble Lord's points except the question of gramophone records.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl what is going to happen under Section 7 of the Television Act, 1953, which provides that there can be no exclusive broadcast of major sporting events? What is going to happen if there is a difference of opinion about the price to be paid between the I.T.A. and the B.B.C.? Would he tell us that?
  EARL DE LA WARR: If there is a difference of opinion between the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. as to what should be paid, and one body has offered to pay a certain sum, then, unless we take some special steps, which we are not intending to take at the moment but which we have powers to take under that section, obviously the authority who are prepared to pay will have the right. I am glad the noble Lord has brought up that matter, because it reminds me of an important point the noble Lord made and with which I neglected to deal. He said that the I.T.A. are going to be in a much better position to pay for an important event. I would ask the noble Lord whether he is quite sure he is right. Talking generally, I should have said that this Bill is far more necessary to the B.B.C. than to the I.T.A. It can certainly be contended that that is so, for the reason that the I.T.A. are really interested in the number of listeners to their programmes, and the more people in private houses, hotels or
  62
  anywhere else who listen, the better will be their organisation. The B.B.C.'s revenue is not affected by the number of listeners to a particular programme. Therefore I think it must be the B.B.C. who gain from this legislation.
  Let me pass to the less theoretical point of what is the financial position now of the B.B.C. Their revenue in 1951 was £12 million a year; by 1954 it had gone up to 18 million a year; in 1955 it is £22½ million; and during the last two years just over 1 million new television licences have been taken out each year.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Less 15 per cent.
  EARL DE LA WARR: No—less a fixed sum for the Treasury; and the Post Office taking only its exact costs of collection.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What is the Treasury sum?
  EARL DE LA WARR: It is £2 million. But that is not taken from the £22½ million. The figure of £22½ million is the B.B.C. revenue, and it has gone up from £12 million in four years. It must be remembered, also, that every television licence that is taken out, even if the viewer who takes it out intends to look only at I.T.A. programmes, will add to the revenue of the B.B.C. Therefore I do not think the noble Lord need have any fear on that account.
  As I said when I commenced my speech, this debate has driven home to me the immense wisdom of the Government in trying to restrict this Bill to points that need dealing with at once. I want to assure your Lordships not only that any points that are brought forward on Committee will be looked at and considered carefully, but that, even if they do not go into this Bill, our pledge that comprehensive legislation will be introduced on the whole subject is not an empty one. We are already engaged in active consideration of the future Bill. I hope I may conclude by again asking your Lordships to move on the Committee stage any Amendments upon which you feel strongly, but not to press them to the point where it may make it difficult to give this Bill the urgent passage that, in my view, it needs.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  TRANSPORT (BORROWING POWERS) BILL
  5.54 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to increase the borrowing powers of the British Transport Commission from £275 million to a total of £600 million. They were fixed at £275 million by the Act of 1947, and of this limit all but £22 million has been used. The first question that will no doubt be asked is: where has the money gone in the seven years that have elapsed since the setting up of the Commission? They have spent on capital expenditure £506 million; on increase in stores £45 million; on repayment of a loan £27 million. That expenditure has been financed as follows: from depreciation funds, £210 million; from pension funds et cetera, £38 million; by borrowing, £253 million; and by drawing upon liquid resources, £77 million. Both of those balance at £578 million. The Commission started with liquid resources of about £300 million, of which £175 million was specifically earmarked in respect of abnormal war-time depreciation and damage. Their liquid resources at the end of 1954 were of the order of £100 million, and with borrowing powers left of only £22 million their position would, without this Bill, soon become impossible.
  Now for the future. One must remember that we are dealing with the whole of the British Transport Commission, and the position is complicated by the railway modernisation plan. It is impossible to draw a hard and fast line, and to say that up to a certain date all railway expenditure is normal replacement and that after that date it becomes part of the modernisation plan. The plan and normality will exist side by side. I must further make it clear that all the new capital will not be for the plan. The explanation of this lies in the inadequacy of depreciation allowances to provide for replacement, even of like by like, at modern prices. I am not going into explanations, for that is a well-known phenomenon affecting all businesses which are not able to make a large enough profit. The result is that, broadly speaking, whenever we replace anything on the railways we have to charge some
  64
  portion of the cost to capital. It follows then that, plan or no plan, we should still need this fresh capital.
  In the next few years there will be three main types of expenditure on the railways. First of all, there will be the normal replacement programme of assets not intended for drastic modernisation, such as buildings, some track and bridges and a few steam locomotives; secondly, there will be the replacement of assets by something more modern envisaged in the plan, such as diesels, signalling and track improvements; and thirdly, there will be the provision of entirely new work, such as new goods yards and big electrification schemes. Categories 2 and 3 will gradually use a greater proportion of the money as the years go by. In the years 1955 to 1959 the British Transport Commission expect to spend £350 million on railways and £100 million on the London Passenger Transport Board and their other activities. That is a total of £450 million. Of this sum, £200 million will be drawn from internal resources. Of the railway share of £350 million, a sum of £250 million will go on rolling stock and £100 million on civil engineering and the like. At the end of that period there would remain £75 million of borrowing powers available for further projects out of the modernisation plan. If this Bill is passed, we expect the Commission to go to the market from time to time to borrow, and they will have the Treasury guarantee in doing so. The Bill itself is self-explanatory. I will do my best to answer any questions that noble Lords may desire to ask. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
  6.0 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has caught the spirit of your Lordships' House in that we do not want to re-hash this debate all over again, as we had an extensive debate upon the railway modernisation scheme two or three weeks ago, when we were favoured with a full speech and explanation by the noble Marquess who leads your Lordships' House, for which we are very grateful. I will confine my remarks to a brief point. I read today with great interest the publication of the new railway charges scheme. Already there is a flutter in the

  65
  dovecotes; the cats are among the pigeons, and some of the folk who were clamouring for more and more competition are now not quite so pleased because the railways have put themselves into a position to meet competition. I applaud them for so doing. I think we are going to have a revolution in railway finance during the next five years, and it is one which I think any sensible business man will applaud. But I am afraid that the murmurings, as opposed to the applause, will come from that section of the community, the trade associations, who thought that once they could get the Government to break up the British Transport Commission's road haulage assets, everything was going to be lovely. But what they will find is that the railways will be able to compete in some traffics far more than they ever anticipated.
  There is one question which worries me about this plan to spend all this money. I am going to make a suggestion to the noble Lord and ask whether he will pass it on to his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the British Transport Commission, on its highest level, is manned sufficiently to enable this modernisation scheme and the spending of £1,200 million to progress as well as it might. In saying that, I am not in any way detracting from the personal virtues or merits of any member of the Commission. What I want to put to the noble Lord, and to the Government, is that I think the time has arrived to think again as to whether it is useful, on these big nationalised boards, to have these part-time members. I was interested in this regard to read the Fleck Committee Report upon the Coal Board. I thought the situation had a somewhat paradoxical humour about it—that the chairman of I.C.I. had to be brought in to investigate what was wrong with the Board upon which sat the chairman of Unilever. The Fleck Committee decided (I do not think that was anything against anybody who sat on the Coal Board) that nobody on these national boards to-day could give adequate service unless he spent practically the whole of his time on them.
  There are admirable men sitting on the British Transport Commission as part-time members who spend practically the whole of their time upon them. Their remuneration is £500 a year gross and,
  66
  net, somewhere in the region of about 100s. I do not think that is a fair way of getting the best out of men. What the Government are doing is running this gigantic concern—perhaps the biggest industrial concern in this country—on a part-time charitable basis. That is not right. I agree with the scheme which has been initiated, by which the Area Boards can be composed, to a large extent, of part-time individuals, but I think that in the proper management of a gigantic scheme, involving the expenditure of the money about which the noble Lord has just told us, there arises the question whether the top-level policy makers are strong enough and can devote sufficient time to this task.
  I hope I have not said anything which in any way detracts from the ability or the merit of anybody who is serving upon the British Transport Commission at the present time. But there is a great job of work to do, and with an industrial concern that is coming right into the cockpit of fierce competitive business to-day. I believe, as the noble Lord has said, that this £1,200 million is guaranteed, both in principal and interest, by the taxpayer of this country.
  LORD HAWKE: May I correct the noble Lord? There is some misapprehension about that the railways are going to borrow £1,200 million to spend. That is not the case. A great deal of the money comes from internal sources.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I know. I believe I am right in saying that about £600 million or £800 million is to be borrowed. But the whole of the assets of the British Transport Commission are guaranteed, in principal and interest, by the taxpayer. It is no good the noble Lord shrugging his shoulders and laughing, because that is a fact.
  LORD HAWKE: That is true. It is a question of the depreciation fund.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: But the depreciation fund has to be found. Every halfpenny borrowed and every halfpenny used is guaranteed, both in principal and interest, by the taxpayer; and that is why it is a gilt-edged security. That was the point I tried to make in the debate to which I have just referred—that when the British Transport Commission go on the money market with the Treasury

  67
  behind them, they are in a more favourable position than the ordinary venturer on to the money market who has not a gilt-edged guarantee to reinforce his prospectus. But so far as I am concerned, and all who sit on this side of the House—in fact, I think every noble Lord in this House—I wish the British Transport Commission the best of good fortune. We hope they will utilise every halfpenny they find it necessary to borrow under the powers given by this Bill to the best advantage of the State and of the individual citizen of this country.
  6.8 p.m.
  LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships many minutes. I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, into a discussion of the future of the organisation of the Transport Commission, though I was extremely interested to note what the chairman of I.C.I. had to say and the emphasis which he laid upon the importance of allowing the headquarters chief technical people a right of control right the way down the line, and not to have to filter their instructions and their supervision through local area managers—precisely the feature of organisation which the Transport Commission thought it essential to institute in 1947, and the very thing which was attacked and which has now, to some extent, been weakened. However, I do not think this is the right opportunity for pursuing that question, still less for reopening the arguments about integration and the inadvisability of attempting to deal with railways and not with transport.
  I was also surprised to see how lightly the spokesman for the Government treated the contribution which the road haulage organisation have been able to make in the last two or three years to the finances of the Transport Commission. When they failed to make profits, they were roundly abused. Now that they make them, they are told that those profits are of small account. The figure of some £6 million clear profit a year is a small figure in relation to the total gross receipts of the consolidated business of the Transport Commission, but it is not a small figure in relation to its net receipts and the amount required for meeting its capital and other central charges.
  68
  However, I do not want to dilate upon that; nor do I want to go at length into the other question of finance which arose, that the new basis of charging will make the financial prospects of the Commission quite satisfactory. I find it difficult to see any consistency in the argument that the railways will get back a great deal of long-distance traffic from the roads, in view of the inducement that is offered to the road haulier to come back into that very business. I still think that the transport problem will not be solved by large expenditures simultaneously undertaken upon both the railways and the roads, leaving the two methods of transport to compete with one another on the principle of "the devil take the hindmost. "In this particular matter, the hindmost, I fear, is likely to be the coastwise shipowners, with whom, from my past positions, I have very great sympathy. Therefore, it is necessary, in considering this very large capital expenditure making large but by no means disproportionate demands on public finance, to look rather more closely at the financial prospects of the Commission.
  I still think that it is not enough to assume that fifteen or more years hence, when all the people at present responsible will, by effluxion of time, have ceased to be responsible, things will be found to be in a completely satisfactory position. I think one ought to look much more closely at the facts than that. That is why I ventured on a recent occasion to put some questions to the noble Lord in charge of this Bill. I apologise to him for not having been in my place when he dealt with what I had said; I had the pleasure of hearing the rest of his speech but, unfortunately, I missed that. The questions which I then put to him, and which he said it was not practicable to answer, were four. Let me say at once that I appreciate as much as anyone can all the difficulties of estimating, whether they are the estimates of a Department or the estimates of one of these vast national undertakings. In the case of the Departments, the accounting officer has to appear before a committee in another place and explain just why his estimates have gone wrong. I do not want to see my successor and my old colleagues in the Transport Commission put through that particular form of machinery. It is useless and vain to hope for absolute precision in estimates of this kind, but I

  69
  cannot but think that it is possible to come to approximations, allowing for variations one way or the other of perhaps a few millions on a business of this size.
  The first question I asked was: What is going to be the financial position at the end of this current year? That, at any rate, the Commission itself must know. I find it difficult to think that it has not informed or warned Her Majesty's Government of what the position is likely to be, on the assumption that there is no alteration in fares and charges. From what has already been said and what is known, the deficiency accrued at the end of last year is £40 million and by now £50 million. A quarter of the present year has gone and the deficiency, week by week, must be considerable. I will not ask the noble Lord to say what is in the minds either of the Commission or of Her Majesty's Government about increasing fares and charges, but if they are not increased quickly and substantially, from what has already been said the deficiency at the end of this year will amount to something in the neighbourhood of £80 million. If there is an increase in charges or some big recovery of traffic, then of course that figure will be correspondingly reduced. But, with figures of that order in prospect, I thought it was not unreasonable to ask to what maximum figure the accumulated deficiency was likely to rise, because, though it is sensible, and indeed necessary, to take one year with another, I never thought that that could be stretched into meaning taking one decade, with another.
  There must, therefore, I submit, as a test of policy, be some idea of the maximum figure to which the deficiency should be allowed to mount; and, still more important, by what year the financial equilibrium, which has been so unfortunately lost, is likely to be recovered. Those seem to me to be reasonable questions. Still more reasonable, because perhaps less precise, is the question about where the finances of the Commission are likely to stand, not in 1970 but in 1960. I put that question in that form because I am convinced that it is unrealistic and unwise to cast one's mind so far ahead as 1970, and also because I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it would be unreasonable and hardly possible to say just where the
  70
  Commission would be likely to stand at the end of each year, taking it year by year. That would not be easy and in any case ought not at this stage, I think, to be divulged.
  Those were the questions which I felt it necessary to raise and which perhaps were more appropriate to this Bill than to the debate at that time. The reason, as I then said, why I think they are important is that upon the answers to them might depend the success of those aspects of Her Majesty's Government's policy with which I have expressed myself in full agreement—namely, the possibility of continuing to avoid subsidy and also the possibility of making an unstinted provision of new capital where it can be profitably employed. It is in relation to that wider question of Government policy that I have ventured to ask my questions. I have no desire to press the noble Lord to answer them if he finds them too difficult or too inconvenient. I can well imagine that there may be reasons for not attempting even approximations in too many directions at this particular moment.
  As regards the Bill itself, I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for the information which he gave. He stated most clearly that a great deal of the money to be raised will have to go in meeting the enhanced cost of ordinary renewals. That is a position in which, unfortunately every great business finds itself—there is nothing special to nationalised undertakings about that. One cannot make profits high enough or put charges high enough to meet these huge increases in cost out of current revenue. I also noted with great interest that the noble Lord said something with regard to the phasing of the capital expenditure, and indicated how much will be spent during the period 1955–59. Taking everything together, when we realise how much of the new money must go to meet these enhanced costs of normal depreciation and how much is required to finance (temporarily, I hope) the deficiency and other things of that kind, the amount which is left for new capital developments and improvements, in the strict sense, is modest enough. I think Her Majesty's Government are to be thanked by all those interested in transport for having agreed, after all these years of austerity, to make the necessary money available. I think the Commission is fortunate in finding its path cleared in this direction after some weary

  71
  years of waiting. I wish it every success. I suspect that it will not be very long before further borrowing powers will have to be authorised. Meanwhile, this is a substantial but by no means excessive allocation of the nation's capital resources to this vital public service.
  6.22 p.m.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I had put my name down to speak on the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the future of road and rail transport, but as that was a wide Motion and I knew that this Bill dealing with the financial side was coming along, I removed my name because I wanted to say a few words on this Bill. While I naturally support the Bill because I feel that the railways and the Transport Commission as a whole have been starved of new capital since the war, I should like to say a few words on the latter part of the very interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, where he dealt with depreciation. Perhaps I have a bee in my bonnet about depreciation, but I was brought up in the hard school of banking where one has to try to see that sufficient appreciation is shown of these problems.
  I know that everything that is bought to-day costs about three times as much as it would have cost before the war. I know, too, that it is difficult to allow sufficient depreciation to cover replacements of assets at to-day's prices—I think that is what accountants call historical assets and actual assets. At the same time, I ventured to criticise slightly the increased borrowing powers granted to the British Electricity Authority and to the Gas Council when my noble friend, Lord Hawke, introduced in your Lordships' House at the end of last summer Bills relating to those authorities. Those were fairly large amounts. Both these great authorities were making profits, although they were modest profits; but in my humble opinion those bodies were not putting sufficient to depreciation. Therefore they will have to charge a proportion of their new capital charges to their capital account. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has to-day said that a substantial amount will have to be charged to the capital account of the Commission. In the last published accounts, in 1953, the Transport Commission show a loss of £27 million, and in 1952, the year before, they lost £31 million, We are hoping
  72
  that by this modernisation programme they will be able to earn and save a good deal of money.
  LORD HURCOMB: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but did he say that those were figures of loss?
  LORD WOLVERTON: Well, I thought so. The figures are contained on page 5 of the Report—"Net Revenue Account—Balance (deficit) at 31st December, 1953, £27,294,798."
  LORD HURCOMB: I am very sorry, I misheard the noble Lord. I did not hear his figure of £27 million.
  LORD WOLVERTON: I said that, and also that the year before it was £31 million.
  LORD HURCOMB: Of which £17 million is represented by amortisation of capital.
  LORD WOLVERTON: If that is agreed, all right. To go on, I think we were told in the earlier debate that the Transport Commission would probably be able to finance about £400 million out of internal reserves and they may have to borrow anything from £600 million to £800 million for new works in the next fifteen years. If one takes the sum of £600 million and one is lucky enough to borrow that money over the next twenty-five years at 4 per cent., a 2 per cent. cumulative sinking fund would wipe off that money in twenty-five years. That would cost the Transport Commission about £24 million in interest and £14,400,000 for the sinking fund, making a total of £38,400,000. On top of that there is this question of depreciation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, I feel that in the next few years we shall have to face up to the position of the balance sheet as it is today. Unfortunately we do not know what it is going to be at the end of this year, but it may be necessary to raise fares slightly. That is an unpleasant thing to do, but until the modernisation scheme comes into operation—it is a long-term scheme—one must try and keep the Commission on an even keel to pay its way. That is what is worrying me. What is going to happen in the next eight or ten years? I know they can go on borrowing. We are being asked to give them permission to-day to borrow another £325 million. But I think one should not try to use too much of the capital for renewals.

  73
  In regard to the main scheme, we were told that £600 million would be for renewals and £600 million for new capital works. If they can provide only £400 million out of their internal reserves it is obvious that £200 million must come out of new money. That is what is worrying me. I hope that we shall move steadily on this programme and not go too fast. I hope that first we shall do the things which the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, and others have said are essential in the way of signalling and marshalling yards, and so on. If we do that, then we shall be able to speed up the trains and get a better service. I hope we shall not rush too much at electrification. I have tried to take out a few figures in regard to the cost of electrification of the main lines and the South Eastern Region of the Southern Railway and also the suburban lines. It is proposed to spend £185 million on that. If one takes those figures in the same way on a 4 per cent. borrowing basis, with a 2 per cent. sinking fund repayable over twenty-five years (which noble Lords may not consider unreasonable), the cost would be about £7,400,000 in interest and £4,400,000 in sinking fund—£11,800,000 in all. I hope that steady progress will be achieved, dealing with the most essential things first to increase the revenue of the Commission.
  I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, about centralisation and decentralisation. I feel that the setting up of these Area Boards was one of the most important things done by Her Majesty's Government. The Boards can be of great help to the Commission in seeing that this vast expenditure is wisely spent. Very able men have been picked, and if, as we hope, the Commission is swift in delegating authority to ensure wise spending, we shall in the years to come have a railway system as good as in the past. I am still worried about depreciation and should like to see more of the depreciation earned. With those remarks, I support this Bill.
  6.32 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I first reply to my noble friend Lord Wolverton? Anybody who has been connected with railways over the last ten or twenty years will know that his remarks about depreciation are only too true. I can only reply, in the vernacular, "You're telling me!"
  74
  But one cannot conjure depreciation allowances out of an industry which is not earning them. The problem is that of revenue. But the noble Lord is perfectly right to say that the speeding-up of marshalling yards and signalling is probably more important than the more spectacular part of the plan.
  We are glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth (who apologised for having to leave), welcomed the Bill and the charges scheme. He raised the very important point of the technical manning of the plan. The Transport Commission would be the first people to admit that throughout the railways of the country they are short of technical executives, particularly on electrification. I very much doubt whether one can ameliorate that position by altering the system of control at the top and by having the part-time members of the board changed to fulltime members. After all, by the time the, matter comes to that level for decision the technical details have already been severely threshed out. In my own experience, the vast majority of questions that come to the top in a railway are questions to be decided by common sense rather than by technical knowledge. The noble Lord may have an important point in the fact that the unfortunate part-time directors are being worked too hard. My right honourable friend will certainly be interested to hear that.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, never disguises his point of view. He has been a centraliser for many years, and feels a good deal of scepticism towards this whole modernisation plan. He feels that possibly the same, or even better, results could be achieved without a particular modernisation scheme by merely carrying out a number of replacements and at the same time integrating the railways with roads to form a national transport monopoly. I admit that that might possibly do the trick; but the one thing we have determined to prevent is a national transport monopoly.
  LORD HURCOMB: I do not in the least criticise the features of the technical plan—I think they are all admirable or necessary in principle and should have gone on simultaneously. I can only say that they are not an alternative to the other policy. Had you followed both you would then have had a really satisfactory result.
  LORD HAWKE: I apologise if I misunderstood the noble Lord. He certainly gave me the impression that he thought this was an alternative and that he rather believed in the monopoly line in preference to spending all this new capital. The noble Lord has asked me to put forward a certain number of figures. After looking at the existing information and surmises for the future, I came to the conclusion that it would be most unwise for me to attempt any such prognostications of the future. I might land myself in the position of the witness who starts by having not the faintest idea how fast the defendant was travelling but who ultimately is led to admit that he was going at exactly 42½ miles an hour. I think the noble Lord has arrived at a certain philsophy of his own. I believe that he has added together a lot of pessimistic deductions. He may be right, but he has not taken much into account on the possibly favourable side. Undoubtedly during this current year the Commission are making very strenuous efforts to reduce their costs. They are closing branch lines. They have had new assurances of co-operation from the trade unions on the setting up of a productivity council.
  Finally, as we all know, they have submitted to the Transport Tribunal a railway merchandise charges scheme. I would have the noble Lord note here, as a corroboration of my case that we are moving into unknown territory, along paths which have never been trod, the fact that the charges scheme, as put before the Tribunal, does not, I believe, make any estimate of benefit to be derived from it. The proposal is considered too revolutionary to enable detailed estimates to be made of its precise effects; but, naturally,
  76
  the scheme must be administered with the flexibility provided to see that revenue is not down but, as we hope, up. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with that. I am not prepared to make estimates for 1955, and five years ahead, when the accounts for 1954 are not yet closed, and when several important subjects are still not settled, as the noble Lord knows.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

  FISHERIES BILL
  6.40 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Northern Ireland Bill, has consented to place the interests of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  MERSEY TUNNEL BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at eighteen minutes before seven o'clock.