THE FOURTEEN-DAY RULE (Hansard, 13 November 1956)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ LORD CHESHAM
My Lords, my right honourable friend, the Postmaster General, has investigated this matter, and although the Rule was broken, he is quite satisfied that the breach was inadvertent.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his very frank reply, may I ask him whether be is aware that the directive of the Postmaster General, in accordance with Clause 15 (4) of the Corporation's licence, states: that the Corporation shall not, on any issue, arrange discussions or ex-parte statements which are to he broadcast during a period of a fortnight before the issue is debated in either House or while it is being so debated". Might I ask further whether the noble Lord is aware that this places a very strong veto in the hands of your Lordships' House, as any noble Lord can place on the Order Paper a Motion which will veto discussion over sound and television of a wide range of subjects? And would the noble Lord agree with me that if the fourteen-day Rule is a good rule it should be enforced, and if it is a silly and a had Rule it should be rescinded or amended? Would the noble Lord also be good enough to tell your Lordships into which category he thinks the fourteen-day Rule would naturally fall?

§ LORD CHESHAM
My Lords, I am naturally aware of the terms of the directive from my right honourable friend to the B.B.C., which is in similar terms, of course, to that which went to the I.T.A. So far as the veto which the noble Lord mentioned is concerned. I suppose it can 230 be argued that that veto would exist hut, for my part, I cannot conceive that it would be in any way consistent with the dignity and practice of your Lordships' House to utilise it in any such manner. So far as the question of whether the fourteen-day Rule is either good or had is concerned, frankly I do not think it is for me to be led by the blandishments of the noble Lord into expressing a personal opinion. What I do say, however is this. Rather naturally, since it is in force it is thought to be of use and I certainly agree with the noble Lord that if the Rule is in force it should be enforced. On the particular occasion to which the noble Lord refers it was intended to be enforced.
I do not wish to delay your Lordships by lengthy reference to the facts of the actual broadcast which the noble Lord has in mind, but they were, shall I say, very far from ordinary, and it lot of peculiar things happened, including the burning of a Bill. I am bound to say that things got a little out of control, and this occurrence, which was in no way intended at the time, took place. I have already admitted that there was a slight error in that further action whatever it could have been, was not taken to prevent this breach but it was quite inadvertent and clone in the heat of the circumstances. I think that "heat" is the correct word.

LORD GIFFORD
My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's answer, could he state whether the Party political broadcasts regarding the Middle East situation do not come under the fourteen-day rule?

§ LORD CHESHAM
My Lords, I think that that is a question which requires some careful thought. In the normal way. I think one would have said that they did. However, it is a question of some consideration, and possibly of some argument, whether the very serious circumstances obtaining at the time would have justified the broadcasts or not. In any case, there was little time for such consideration.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, while I agree completely with the noble Lord about the sense of propriety which always pervades discussion in your Lordships' House, may I ask him whether he does not think that it would he far better not to amend that sense of propriety, but to amend the fourteen-day rule?