HL Deb 19 July 1966 vol 276 cc377-86

3.20 p.m.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD rose to move, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider how the Resolution of the House of 15th June last, welcoming the televising of some of its proceedings for an experimental period, can best be carried into effect;

That the Lords following with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:—

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House will he aware that on June 15 last it agreed, by a substantial majority, to the following Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Egremont: That this House would welcome the televising of some of its proceedings for an experimental period as an additional means of demonstrating its usefulness in giving a lead to public opinion. My own Motion to-day translates the Motion of Lord Egremont into effect. I think that all it was necessary to say was said on June 15, and I am sure the House would not wish to be wearied by a repetition of arguments. If I may say so, it is now for the Committee to do their work, and I hope the House will agree that we have a Committee which is exceptionally well qualified to carry out this. task.

I might just say that although, in my speech on June 15, I enumerated various points which in my opinion the Committee might wish to consider, the House will notice that the terms of reference before us do not prescribe any specific points for consideration by the Committee. They allow the Committee themselves to decide the matters on which they wish to hear evidence and to advise the House. I hope your Lordships will agree that we should certainly not seek to bind our Committee in any way. My Lords, I therefore beg to move.

Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider how the Resolution of the House of June 15 last, welcoming the televising of some of its proceedings for an experimental period, can best be carried into effect;

That the Lords following with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

LORD HARLECH

My Lords, having listened to the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal move this Motion, I do not think I have anything to add to what he has said. I think it is in suitable terms. Admittedly, I am perhaps speaking with two hats on—metaphorically; clearly not literally—because I am speaking from these Benches and also, your Lordships will notice, I have accepted appointment on to the Committee. But it does seem to me that this proposal carries out the wishes of the House, which were arrived at after a good debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, and I therefore support the noble Earl on this Motion.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I do not for a moment want to go into the merits or demerits of this proposal, because the House has already decided on that; and as I was not able to be present on that occasion, perhaps noble Lords may feel that I ought to be silent now. But there is just one aspect which has worried me a little and which seems to me rather unusual for this House. It appears that the Division figures of those who were in favour of the proposal and those who were against have not been strictly reflected on the Committee. In the Division, 56 noble Lords voted for this experiment, and 31 against. On the Select Committee there are to be 11 noble Lords who voted in favour, and only two noble Lords who voted against.

This is a very controversial subject, and I should have thought that those who were critical of the proposal ought to have had rather more representation on the Committee than they seem to have been given. I wonder whether it would be asking too much of the noble Earl the Leader of the House to ask him to take this proposal back to-day and consider that; and if, after consultation with the Leaders of the other Parties, perhaps, he thought there was substance in what I have said, to bring it forward again with a more balanced representation.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I was just wondering whether there was any significance in the fact that the Committee consists entirely of noble Baronesses and noble Lords. There is not to be even one Earl or one Viscount on it. Whereas I realise that we Dukes are heavily out-numbered and do not deserve to he represented on Committees of this kind, I should have thought there was some case for at least allowing an Earl on it.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I can assure the noble Duke that I have no bias against Earls, even though my bias might be in favour of Irish Earls—but that would not satisfy the noble Duke. I do not think the House would wish us to attempt to strike a sort of hierarchical balance on these occasions, so, if I may, I will discuss that with the noble Duke privately without pursuing the point further now.

The noble Marquess has raised a question which has taken me a little bit aback. I should rather have hoped, if I may say so with great respect and friendliness, that if he was going to raise this point affecting the names of individuals he would have given me notice, or even have discussed it with me, because we could then have put our heads together.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I feel I owe the noble Earl an apology, but I saw the point myself only while I was sitting on this Bench. But that does not make it less important.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, I think it is in order to ask this question on this particular Motion. I certainly have no desire to represent the Earls on this Committee, but what I should like to ask is: will it be quite clear that this Committee will consider not only how the televising is to be carried out, but also with whom will be the responsibility for saying whether the time of vision is suitably and fairly distributed? Again, I am not staking out a claim to be hired to appear, but I think that everyone who has had experience of television—and, indeed, broadcasting—even during an Election, must have felt that there was always an argument about whether fair time had been given to the different Parties and persons concerned.

There is also perpetual criticism—I do not say it is well founded, but it comes from both sides—as regards television by both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. (both of them are subject to the same criticism), that the different interests do not get a fair share. I can well imagine that there will be an enormous amount of criticism about who is selected to be shown as representing this House; and I should like an assurance, first of all, that this Committee will direct its attention to that, and also that it will make some recommendation as to how it is to be decided, and who will exercise that extremely invidious function of deciding whether there has been a fair and square deal for everyone.

LORD REA

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in what he has just said. I must admit that I got into rather hot water during the debate for using the word "censor" when I really meant "edit". What I meant was that it is not possible to put on any film in toto; and someone must see that something which perhaps no noble Lord would like to have screened is not shown. I therefore now take the opportunity of withdrawing the word "censor", and saying that some body, and some responsible body, must, I think, edit what is to be shown. I think we have had, perhaps, a not very fair Press on this matter. Headings like, Noble Lords anxious to he seen on the silver screen were quite unfair, and did not represent the tenor of your Lordships' debate. Every noble Lord pointed out that he himself had no wish at all to be seen.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, I hope that the Lord Privy Seal can confirm that the terms of reference of this Committee are wide enough to enable the Committee to consider all the points raised by the noble Earl and the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches. But may I come back to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, because it seems to me to raise a question of important principle which should not be passed over too easily? I am not dealing with the question of whether there is an adequate representation of Dukes, Earls or Viscounts, because I entirely agree with the noble Earl the Leader of the House that we should not proceed on any hierarchical basis, and I am disclaiming any personal interest because I would not willingly accept an invitation to serve on this Committee. But when we have had a very interesting debate in this House and, I think I am right in saying, a free vote, surely the composition of the Committee should represent to some degree the balance of opinion in this House.

My Lords, on any view, when one looks at the way in which this proposed Committee has been constituted, that is not so. The noble Marquess gave the figures of those who voted for and those who voted against the Motion. I cannot for the life of me remember which way I voted, or whether I voted at all—I do not think I did—but of those who voted against the Motion only two are proposed for this Committee. If we approve this Motion with that composition of the Committee, after a debate and a free vote, will it not constitute rather an awkward precedent for the future? I could have hoped that the noble Earl the Leader of the House, bearing in mind that it would not be a matter of urgency whether this Committee were appointed this week or next week, might give some further thought to the composition of the Committee and perhaps consider withdrawing the Motion today with a view to moving it later. I am not at all opposed to the Motion. I think it very desirable that this subject should be fully gone into in all its aspects by such a Committee. But I feel that the Committee, if their report is to be generally acceptable, should reflect the balance of opinion in this House. At the moment the composition of the Committee does not appear to me to do so.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I feel that the noble Marquess and the noble and learned Viscount are under a misapprehension about this matter. If the House has considered this matter and has decided that there should be an experiment, then the purpose of the Select Committee which is to be set up is to consider the form of the experiment; it is not to consider the merits of the whole question all over again. Therefore, I cannot see the relevance of having on the Committee a number of people who are avowedly opposed to the experiment at all. I speak without any prejudice on the matter because, like the noble and learned Viscount, I did not vote and I have no particular views on the matter. Indeed, I might very easily be convinced that we ought not to make the experiment. But that is not the issue; the issue is that we have decided—if a vote of the House means anything—to have an experiment, and therefore what is the point of deliberately having on the Committee Members who are opposed to making it?

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, may I put this point to the noble Lord'? Surely it is relevant. We often decide that a Bill should be read a second time. It does not mean that those who voted against the Bill being read a second time will have no part in the deliberations on the Committee stage.

LORD SILKIN

Of course not; but I do not think that is a proper analogy. I cannot see the analogy. We have decided on this course. Nevertheless, I want to say to my noble friend the Leader of the House that, if there is any dissatisfaction or any feeling in any part of the House that the composition of this proposed Select Committee should be reconsidered, I feel he ought to be prepared at any rate to give the matter further consideration. I think that with a matter of this great importance we ought to start off with a Select Committee which commands the general agreement of the House. Although I think that both the noble Marquess and the noble and learned Viscount are unreasonable in objecting, nevertheless they are objecting; and I feel that my noble friend would be well advised to give further consideration to the composition of the Committee. May I say, speaking for myself, that I place myself entirely in the hands of my noble Leader.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I am afraid I began to reply to the noble Marquess without realising that we were starting a debate and that my turn did not come quite then. Other speakers intervened; I was cut short and spoke rather too soon. Of course, anything that falls from the noble Marquess, the noble Earl and the noble and learned Viscount and other senior Members of your Lordships' House must give one pause. Certainly observations of that kind cannot lightly be set aside. How far they reflect the feeling of the House as a whole, or widespread feeling here, it would be difficult to say. There was feeling against televising the proceedings of the House, but by a majority of nearly two to one the House decided on this particular course.

I think there was a great deal of force in what my noble friend Lord Silk in said—which I could perhaps put in a rather cruder way. There would not be a great purpose in putting on this Committee those who were not fairly sympathetic to the idea of making this experiment work. They have got primarily to do a technical job, not to decide a great moral issue. In so far as there is a moral issue, it has been decided already in a provisional fashion. They have to bring forward a practical scheme. I think, on the whole, it would be better to include on the Committee people who are keenly interested in making the experiment work.

But one must try to meet all the wishes of the House, particularly when expressed by such leading Members. One course would be to take note of what was said and to suggest that the Committee co-opt one or two more as necessary. Another course would be to say that one would bring this matter forward again, perhaps on Thursday—I say Thursday advisedly, for it is rather important that the Committee should start to work before the end of July. We could consider whether one or two names should be added. I would not stand here and defend the exclusion of any names. The most to which I would personally agree would be the addition of one or two names, in view of what was said. I should point out particularly, in view of what fell from the noble Marquess, that this list was agreed through the usual channels. It is not some personal dictate of mine. It was supported by the Acting Leader of the Opposition and, I understand, by the Leader of the Liberal Party. So, this is what seems good to those who for the moment are the Leaders of the House. I must make that abundantly plain and make it clear that the voices raised against it are the voices of distinguished noble Lords, but individuals. This is the list agreed through the usual channels. However, to avoid any appearance of dissatisfaction, I would suggest that I bring this Motion forward again on Thursday, and in the meantime consider whether one or two names should be added. That is the most I could possibly accept.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, would the noble Earl the Leader of the House deal with the point I raised? It is a matter quite different from the proportions of the Committee. It was about whether this Committee will consider who is to arbitrate on the division of time and space that has to be effected. That, really, as anybody who has the faintest experience of broadcasting is aware, is one of the most difficult problems.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I hope I shall not be thought facetious in saying that I welcome the presence of the noble Earl on the Bishops' Bench; it is not his usual situation in the House. But he is the same noble Earl there as he is anywhere else.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

But I am not a Bishop.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I am glad of that assurance.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, may I say that I shall be entirely satisfied by the proposal now made and I am grateful to the noble Earl. I do not suggest that anyone should be taken off the list.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

May I answer the noble Earl? This Motion was framed in the widest way possible. I think a very dispassionate answer to the noble Earl was given by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, when he said that he felt sure that all these points could be considered by the Committee and would fall within their review, if necessary.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)

My Lords, is the noble Earl withdrawing the Motion?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw this Motion, on the understanding that I bring it back, perhaps slightly amended, on Thursday.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SALTOUN had given Notice of his intention to move, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House that they make no recommendation that is not in accord with the traditional dignity of the House. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am in some difficulty as a result of what has just happened, because the purpose of my Motion was to draw to the notice of the Committee that your Lordships were to appoint certain points which seem to me to present difficulties. I am entirely in the hands of the House. Would your Lordships prefer to hear me for a few minutes now, or to put it off until Thursday?

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Thursday!

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.