HL Deb 21 July 1966 vol 276 cc549-61

3.30 p.m.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD) rose to move, 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:—

E. Iddesleigh,

V. Falkland,

B. Asquith of Yarnbury,

L. Balfour of Inchrye,

L. Birkett,

L. Clwyd,

B. Emmet of Amberley,

L. Ferrier,

L. Haire of Whiteabbey,

L. Harlech,

L. Reay,

L. Sherfield,

L. Silkin,

L. Soper,

B. Wootton of Abinger.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name. As the House will observe, it is identical to the Motion which I brought before this House on Tuesday, and which, with the leave of the House, was then postponed, except that the names of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, have been added to the list of proposed Members. Your Lordships will recall that on Tuesday the view was expressed by one or two senior Members of the House that those who voted against the Resolution welcoming the televising of our proceedings for an experimental period, which was carried here on June 15, were not sufficiently represented in the list which I was then proposing. Without commenting on the correctness of that view, I hope and believe that the House will feel that that difficulty, in so far as it did exist, has now been overcome by the addition of the two noble Lords I have mentioned.

I should perhaps add that the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, suggested on Tuesday that the higher reaches of the Peerage were inadequately represented, and pointed out that there was no one higher than a Baron or Baroness among those proposed—and we know that they represent the lowest forms of noble life. The noble Duke will now observe that the two names which I am asking the House to add are those of an Earl and a Viscount, and I hope that he will therefore be appeased, although I cannot pretend that we are suggesting any Dukes or Marquesses on this occasion—but no doubt their time will come. I ought to say that, while I feel this may serve to placate the noble Duke, it was not the primary intention of the suggestion, and I should not like it to be taken as a precedent for the future. Nevertheless, I hope that your Lordships will feel that the Motion brought forward in its present form gives effect to the Resolution of June 15, and will therefore approve it. I 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:—

E. Iddesleigh,

V. Falkland,

B. Asquith of Yarnbury,

L. Balfour of Inchrye,

L. Birkett,

L. Clwyd,

B. Emmet of Amberley,

L. Ferrier,

L. Haire of Whiteabbey,

L. Harlech,

L. Reay,

L. Sherfield,

L. Silkin,

L. Soper,

B. Wootton of Abinger.

—(The Earl of Longford.)

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for withdrawing the Motion last Tuesday and for tabling this fresh Motion, with the additional strength of one Earl and one Viscount. I am sure it will be a much-improved Committee, with the addition of two more Members of this House who did not vote in favour of the original Resolution. If I had voted on that occasion, on June 15, I should have voted for the Resolution moved by my noble friend Lord Egremont; so although, if I had been appointed to the Committee, a considerable amount of weight would have been added, it would have been on the wrong side.

I should like to ask the noble Earl just one question about the terms of reference, merely for the purpose of elucidation. By its terms, the Resolution moved by the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, on June 15, welcomed the televising of our proceedings for an experimental period. The terms of this Motion are to see how that Resolution "can best be carried into effect". I think I am right in interpreting the present Motion as meaning no more and no less than this: that the Committee now being appointed will be able to go into the whole matter from a practical point of view, to see what difficulties exist, what supervision it may be necessary to exercise and by whom it should be exercised; and that, in the end we shall get from this Committee, after they have considered all these matters, including matters of privilege, a Report, which we shall then have before us for consideration before finally deciding whether to go on with televising our proceedings or not.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I should certainly have thought that the points raised by the noble Viscount would come well within the orbit of this Committee. They are not the only points which will need to be gone into, but I should think the noble Viscount need have no possible fear about the range of this Committee, because its terms are so closely tied to those of the Resolution which was actually carried here.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl for adding these two names to the Committee. I certainly hope that this is an indication of the way in which he will treat other suggestions that I shall no doubt be making in the next fortnight upon other matters, and that I shall have equal success in getting them adopted by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I am sure the noble Earl and the noble Viscount who have been added to this Committee will look after the interests of Dukes and Marquesses extremely well.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount and to the noble Duke. I have no idea, of course, what these other proposals by the noble Duke may be. The most positive proposal which I recall his placing before the House was the idea of polo for the masses. It may be that that is what he has in mind.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

My Lords, I should like to point out to the noble Earl, just for the record, that it seems that the figures are still out of gear. The original figures, as objected to by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, contained two who voted against the Resolution and eleven who voted for it. This Motion now brings the figures up to four as against eleven, and they are still out of gear. It should really be five, at least. It would still be out of gear, even with five. I think your Lordships will agree to that.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I cannot, of course, speak for the rest of the House, but I do not agree with the noble Earl, for the reasons I explained the other day.

LORD REAY

My Lords, this seems to me an important question of principle. On the one hand, the argument has been put forward that the Committee should be composed of Members representing equally those who voted for and those who voted against the general principle embodied in the Resolution as a result of which this Committee is being appointed. On the other hand, there seems to me a reasonable argument that in this instance, such a Committee should contain no Member at all who voted against the general principle of televising the proceedings of the House. I wonder whether at some time we can have some indication as to what is the proper principle to be applied on the appointment of a Committee of this sort.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I think the only answer I can make is that one must strike a balance between the two criteria indicated by the noble Lord.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I think this matter was raised on the last occasion by my noble friend Lord Salisbury. Even on that occasion, before the discussion ended, he expressed complete satisfaction with what the noble Earl the Leader of the House was proposing to do. I think we should really not criticise in any way what he is now doing, which seems to me to carry out what was the desire of this House.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord.

LORD HARLECH

My Lords, may I say—and this may help the noble Earl—that my noble friend Lord Dudley may like to know that quite a number of these Members did not vote either way, so eleven did not vote for the Resolution.

LORD ELTON

My Lords, may I ask one more question, just for elucidation? It is probably owing to my own stupidity, but I did not quite understand the noble Earl's reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. Is it the position that when the Committee we are now appointing has reported, it will still be open to the House to decide not to proceed with televising its proceedings?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, if I may say so with great respect, that, I should have thought, was obvious. The Committee will report back to the House, and it will be for the House to say what they wish to do about the Report of the Committee.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

3.38 p.m.

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, the only thing I should like slightly to challenge in what was said a few moments ago is that there are lower orders of nobility. After all, your Lordships are all Peers, and therefore there can be no lower orders. My Lords, I put down my Motion upon observing that the Committee first nominated by the noble Earl consisted very largely of Members who have been in this House a very short time and who could not he expected to know the old traditions of your Lordships' House; and that there were very very few who had had any lengthy experience of the House. In fact, apart from the Lord Chairman, there were only three Members of the Committee who had more than ten years' experience of your Lordships' House. Some of the noble Lords who were nominated to serve on the Committee have expressed very strong and decided views about this House, and it seemed to me that, however much they knew about television, the interests of your Lordships' House should be considered rather more carefully. And I am bound to say that I very much welcome the additions the noble Earl has made in the Committee which has now been approved by your Lordships. I think that to have the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, with his 38 years' experience of this House, upon that Committee is a very great advantage. What I am really saying this afternoon will, I hope, strengthen his hand.

I hope the noble Earl who leads the House will not mind my saying that he comes of a distinguished family. We who can make no claim to such distinction are, I think, to be excused if we reckon a family distinguished which can produce in its history more than one distinguished man in a couple of centuries; and the noble Earl's family has several, as most of your Lordships know. There is one among them who has always been rather a hero of mine. That is Sir Edward Pakenham, a very distinguished soldier of the Peninsula War, who was Adjutant-General of Wellington's Army in 1813 in Biscay, and who was made a Knight of the Bath. On that occasion he wrote to his brother Tom, a kindred spirit and the noble Earl's great-great-grandfather, what he thought about it. In what he wrote he so clearly defined one of the cardinal principles of your Lordships as long ago as history exists that, with your permission, I will use his words and not my own to lay this principle before your Lordships. He writes: These College of Arms gentlemen, by way of recommendation, have begged me to allow them to apply for some emblems of victory in the armorial bearings, to commemorate supposed services. I have civilly informed them that I will see them damned first and should they apply to you on the subject, remind them of my determination. Under our happy rules of Government and of society a gentleman is expected to conduct himself with the exertion belonging to principle whatever his calling may be, and perhaps one of a man's first personal attentions should he, by proper restraint, neither to show himself off nor allow other people from folly and sinister motives to do so. That is the Pakenham tradition and that has been the tradition of your Lordships' House, as I hope to show you, for a very long time past. It certainly was the tradition of this House in those days, and I believe it yet to be so. If you look down the history of our House you will find some exceptions—you will always find exceptions to that. I suppose the one that leaps to the eye is Lord Byron and, although I am not sure about him, Lord Brougham might be in the same category. But if you look for exceptions you will find it extraordinarily hard to find them and you will find these rules of behaviour confirmed for very far in the past. I am personally certain, in spite of our own very much swollen numbers and in spite of the fact that a whole generation of your Lordships has lacked the father (who had been killed) to educate them, that if you were to look round the numbers of this House to-day you would find the same principle upheld—with possibly a few exceptions, and those exceptions negligible.

I am open to this argument against me. The noble Earl may possibly say: "This is very nice; but it is only an idea of Lord Saltoun. He has no evidence to show that this really is a principle". I have the fact itself, which is sufficiently notorious and which you can prove for yourselves. It is not a matter in which it is very easy to get written evidence because your predecessors rarely left any documentary evidence and such productions would naturally be tainted. In any case, in the past we have not had the habit, which I am afraid I look upon as a pernicious habit, of perpetually talking about ourselves. But it does happen that I can produce written evidence, and that of the very best quality.

Many of your Lordships will know that in the year 1509, or very shortly after, when Henry VIII first came to the Throne, Erasmus paid one of his numerous visits to Britain. He was the greatest scholar in Europe and was visiting a very cultured and learned Court and a King who probably was the best educated King in Europe. He had a great many friends; he had travelled a lot about England. He had been to Oxford, he had dined at Magdalen, hunted with a pack which I presume was the forerunner of the Heythrop, lectured at Cambridge and his particular friend in England was Lord Mountjoy. He was a very tactful and pleasant companion and very many of your Lordships' predecessors were among his friends and associates. His letters about England and English things have been freely plundered by every student of the history of the time—and very rightly so; because he was an extremely acute and accurate observer.

One of his letters was on the subject of your Lordships and in it he expressed his surprise at the complete absence of any pretension or desire to show off exhibited by the Peers of England. He adds that it makes them the most conversible people in the world; and he also adds that it would be a mistake to allow this easy conversation to betray you into any presumption or impertinence, because they were able to set you in your place more quickly and better than any other people.

That is very good evidence that from the time of Henry VIII, at least, this was a rule of this House, a rule of your Lordships' behaviour. I am bound to say that I think it is a very difficult task that we set our Committee when we tell them to combine the best way of showing ourselves off by means of television, without trespassing on the old, ancient standards of your Lordships' conduct. I do not say it is impossible; but I do think it is a task that requires a certain amount of dexterity; and for that reason thought it important to bring the matter to your Lordships' notice and especially to the notice of the Committee. I hope that it may strengthen my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh in any representations he may feel called upon to make to you; because if our cardinal principle is that a man's first personal attentions should be, by proper restraint, neither to show himself off nor allow other people …to do so", I think the Committee has quite a difficult task.

I would add only one other point, which is this. I have been told that all those old standards have gone; that television is here and we have to make terms with it; that the world is changing every day and we have to make our account with it; that all these old virtues are obstacles to people's careers. Well, I personally feel it is very wrong to think that any virtue obstructs a career. When I look back on my own life I feel it was not too much but too little virtue that obstructed my career. But if your Lordships have changed from that old code, if you have adopted a new code, then I say that a greater change has taken place in this House than has been directly effected by any Act of Parliament. I do not believe it has. I believe that your Lordships are still the same as you always were, and on that account I beg to move.

Moved, 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.—(Lord Saltoun.)

3.50 p.m.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, while I cannot feel that there is any great danger that this very distinguished Committee will be likely to recommend something not in accord with the traditional dignity of this House, I should like just shortly to suggest that the Committee might profitably not be lulled too easily into accepting one suggestion which was made in the recent debate by a very large number of speakers, who seemed to think that something on the lines of the programme "Today in Parliament" could be transferred on to the television screen with separate speakers; and that that would be the answer to this problem. On reflection I cannot feel that, if that course were adopted, there would not he a danger that the traditional dignity of this House might be affected.

To take as an example last Monday's "Today in Parliament", I think that 36 or 37 separate speeches of Members of Parliament and Peers were quoted in the 14 minutes that that programme lasted. If you have a single voice on sound radio quoting excerpts from 37 separate speeches in 14 minutes, the result is a stimulating and interesting programme. But if that presentation were to be transferred on to the television screen, and there were quoted pithy extracts from the fifteen-minute speeches of 37 different Members of Parliament and Members of this House, I believe that the result would be something so far beyond the wildest dreams of the noble Lord, Lord Egre- mont, that it would be a nightmare. I hope, therefore, in view of the many suggestions that were made in the debate that this would be the answer to this problem, that the Committee will consider that suggestion with very great care before they accede to it, because, on reflection, I cannot believe that is the answer to the problem.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I voted for the Motion because I thought we ought to be willing to be "with it". But I think that the labours of the Committee might be considerably lightened if they made it their own task to explore the financial angle, because it costs a good deal of money to televise everything, and it has been suggested to me that the resulting product would be very unlikely to be able to be commercially sold to either of the two organisations who could put it on the air. In fact, I was told that we grossly overvalue our public interest.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

My Lords, may I support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, in three sentences? As your Lordships may perhaps know, I regard this proposal to televise our proceedings as most undesirable, and I have said so; but, if it has to be done, surely every care must be taken not to cheapen our proceedings, which is something I feel could quite easily happen. I heartily dislike this unholy union of Parliament and television, and I do not think that in the long run it will do us any good. But, at all events, let us hedge round any arrangements that are made with strict and binding safeguards. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, will press his Motion. I cannot believe that any noble Lord jealous of the reputation of this House will oppose it.

3.53 p.m.

LORD REAY

My Lords, despite the cultured and discursive dissertation of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, I must confess that I remain in some doubt as to what this Motion in fact means. If it reflects the opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun—supported by the noble Earl, Lord Arran—to the principle of the televising of the proceedings of this House, surely there are other methods open to him to record his dissent than to require this House to give an instruc- tion to the Committee. If it is simply a general reminder of the respect that is and should be owing to the dignity of this House, I should have thought that this was a moral recommendation which was probably harmless and probably unnecessary, except that perhaps one must make a concession to age, and I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, might consider writing letters to members of the Committee who have not had 38 years' experience of this House.

If, on the other hand, this Motion contains a suggestion, however partial or implicit, that the television of any part of the proceedings of this House is undesirable, I suggest that such an instruction would be an improper one to pass on to the Committee, as it would run against the vote of this House on June 15, which favoured the televising of some of the proceedings of this House for an experimental period; and it is for the consideration of how that might best be implemented that this Committee has been established.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

My Lords, I oppose this Motion, not because of a principle, but simply because when you have a Committee of this size and eminence you cannot start by giving it an instruction. This is what the Committee is set up for, to consider all these problems, and we cannot tell them that they must behave themselves in this particular way.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, will not press his Motion. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said, that if this is simply a moral exhortation to the Committee not to forget themselves or the traditions of the House, it is unnecessary; and it is in fact a reflection on the Committee, because it really must be assumed that this Committee is not likely to overlook the traditional dignity of the House. I cannot, if I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, accept the idea that a noble Lord who has been here only ten years is incapable of understanding the traditions of the House, whereas one who has been here longer (in my case twenty years) would understand rather better, and whereas some- one like my dear friend the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, who has been here for 38 years, will understand them better still. One cannot weigh the sensitivity of Members of the House to the dignity of the House according to their years of service, so I would certainly reject that part of the argument.

If, on the other hand, it is an attempt to defeat or hamstring the effect of the Resolution of June 15, I would say that it is quite inconsistent with the Resolution which the House passed on that occasion, and to which they have just given effect by setting up a Select Committee. This is not a Party matter, as we all know, but if there are any noble Lords in this House who pay any attention to humble submissions of mine I hope, despite the great esteem we all bear for the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that they will reject this proposal; though I am bound to say that I hope the noble Lord will not press it any further.

3.58 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I am rather surprised at what the noble Earl has said, especially on this question of experience. Does he really mean to suggest that the act of introducing somebody into your Lordships' House causes him to spring, like Athene from the forehead of Zeus, fully-armed, knowing all the intricate customs and habits of your Lordships' House? Is that a kind of sacrament by which we confer such knowledge? I do not think that this is so at all. I think everybody in your Lordships' House remarked, as I did, that as a Committee of this kind it had very little experience of your Lordships' House. I was not sure, and I still am not sure, whether that was not deliberately done by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, because of some of his revolutionary ideas about your Lordships' House, as a means of carrying them into effect. I still am not at all sure about that. He has said nothing at all yet to encourage me on that. I have produced to him what is the ancient tradition of your Lordships' House, and the ancient tradition of his own family, and I think that is a very important thing for the Committee to have in mind.

If the noble Earl, Lord Arran, wishes to divide, I will certainly divide with him. But I am not anxious to press the matter at this time, because I think that when the Committee reports will be the time for any opposition that we wish to make. But I am not at all happy about the attitude of the noble Earl the Leader of the House in this matter, and I shall remain in the hands of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, on whether we divide. I have said what I have to say, and I hope that any representations made in the Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, will receive great attention, because nobody knows better than he does the ancient habits and traditions of our House.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that I do not think he will strengthen the point of his first speech, which I am sure will be read by the whole House, by proceeding to a Division. We have, after all, set up this Committee, and I find myself in agreement with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. On the whole, if you set up a Committee and believe in it, then, however good the instruction may be, you do not give any instruction, because you credit the Committee with sense. I do not believe it is the desire of this House that we should divide on this point. The noble Lord has given us a most interesting speech; I think he has served us well by so doing, and that he will serve us equally well if he does not press his Motion to a Division, but asks to withdraw it.

On Question, Motion negatived.